Community air monitoring for pesticides. Part 1: selecting pesticides and a community

Abstract

The CA Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) developed methods to select pesticides and a community to fulfill criteria for an ambient air monitoring study it conducted as part of the CA Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice Action Plan. Using a scoring system, CDPR evaluated 100 pesticides based on statewide-reported pesticide use, volatility, and priority in CDPR's risk assessment process (indicators of exposure and toxicity) to produce a list of pesticides to consider as candidates for monitoring. The CDPR also evaluated and scored 83 communities based on demographics and health factors, availability of cumulative impacts data, and reported pesticide use to create a list of community candidates. The scores provide relative rankings to distinguish more highly impacted communities from less impacted ones and to identify which pesticides might contribute most to potential adverse health effects. These methods use criteria that can be quantified, validated, and verified in order to provide a transparent and fair selection process. Based on public comments and highest scores, CDPR recommended 40 pesticides (including some of their degradation products) and one community for its yearlong monitoring study. The CDPR then further refined its list of pesticides by soliciting input from local and technical advisory groups. The CDPR plans to use these methods to select pesticides and communities in future monitoring activities.

Presença de agrotóxicos na atmosfera e risco à saúde humana: uma discussão para a Vigilância em Saúde Ambiental

“…Much in the same way as these, seven other papers 12,13,15,[20][21][22][23] addressed the issue of air contamination by pesticides from the perspective of environmental sciences (environmental monitoring and risk analysis and assessment), while the methodology for assessing the impact and risk of exposure frequently observed in these studies includes, somehow, analyses of public health interest, such as the estimation of risk or carcinogenic potential related to exposure to pesticides, according to risk assessment methodologies proposed by international agencies of the environmental or health sector, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). • 28 papers…”

Selection and ranking method for currently used pesticides (CUPs) monitoring in ambient air

“…The major drawback to cope with ambient air pesticides assessment is the diversity of active substances used. Indeed, more than 400 active substances were registered in European Union in 2014 (EU 2014), but analytical methods do not allow assessing all the registered molecules in ambient air (Segawa et al 2014). Moreover, all CUPs are not susceptible to be found in ambient air either due to low volatilization or to fast metabolization.…”

“…Thus, identifying and prioritizing pesticides of concern need to emphasize (i) pesticide uses, (ii) toxicity related to chronic exposure, and (iii) exposure potential in order to more accurately assess health risks related to pesticides (Sugeng et al 2013). Different screening and ranking methods were developed in Europe, the USA, and Canada to identify and quantify the degree of concern for pesticide toxicity to human health and ecosystems related to exposure (Reus et al 2002;Juraske et al 2007;Egeghy et al 2011;Mitchell et al 2013;Segawa et al 2014). These modeling approaches were developed in response to the need for rapid and efficient risk characterization with respect to the thousands of chemicals used throughout industry and agriculture.…”

“…The prioritized lists of chemicals established using models helped identifying chemicals of highest concern regarding toxicity and uses so to ensure better protection for human and ecosystem health (Egeghy et al 2011;Mitchell et al 2013). Moreover, these modeling approaches are usually developed on a nationwide scale (Egeghy et al 2011;Mitchell et al 2013) but can sometimes be applied to smaller scales thus responding to local needs for management or health outcomes related to local exposures (Gunier et al 2001;Sugeng et al 2013;Segawa et al 2014).…”

“…These lists are developed and used in a regulatory purpose (Egeghy et al 2011;Mitchell et al 2013), but environmental concentrations and biomarker levels of identified chemicals, which are required to assess ecosystem and human exposure, are not further measured. Recently, a study focused on the use of a prioritization method to select pesticides to be analyzed in ambient air for a yearlong air monitoring study in California (Segawa et al 2014). This study used four criteria (i.e., statewide reported uses, volatility, priority in risk assessment, and availability of analytical methods) to assign points to the top 100 pesticides used in agriculture in California allowing selecting 13 pesticides monitored in ambient air.…”