Conducting groundwater monitoring studies in Europe for pesticide active substances and their metabolites in the context of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009

Abstract

volV) (0123456789().,-volV) can move into the groundwater specified in the exposure assessment option as well as the magnitude of residues in groundwater. The objective may also include determining degradation rates in soil as a function of depth, persistence and movement of residues in groundwater, efficacy of mitigation measures, or confirmation of more detailed studies on a wider range of sites. Sampling schedules should consider the expected time required for an active substance to move through the soil into groundwater, as well as expected persistence in both soil and groundwater. Movement and persistence can be affected by both site characteristics and properties of the active substance and its metabolites. The need to tailor study designs to objectives, exposure assessment options, compound properties and site characteristics complicates the development of standardised study designs. Therefore, this report includes a number of example designs.Other key points that must be addressed by study designs are the vulnerability of the chosen sites compared to the vulnerability of all use areas supported by the study, the product use before and during the study, and the connectivity of the sampled groundwater to treated fields. Demonstrating connectivity (a quality criterion in the EU assessment of monitoring sites to exclude false negative measurements) is more challenging for catchment or aquifer monitoring compared to shallow wells installed as part of in-field or edge-of-field studies. This report includes an extensive discussion on assessing vulnerability of monitoring sites. This includes information on different approaches to vulnerability assessment and mapping as well as for setting monitoring sites into context. Lists of available methods and data sources available at the European level are also included. In addition to information on study design and estimating vulnerability, this report includes information on a number of other topics: avoiding contamination during sampling and/or analysis, avoiding influencing residue movement as a result of purging during sampling, and proper study documentation (Good Laboratory Practices and/or quality criteria). Procedures that are discussed include site selection (new or existing wells), installation of monitoring wells, sample collection, and analysis of samples. The report also provides information on causes of outliers (abnormally high concentrations not the result of normal leaching through soil), the use of public monitoring data, information on further hydrological characterisation (such as use of tracers, groundwater age dating, and geophysical methods), and information that should be included in reports providing results of groundwater studies. AbstractGroundwater monitoring is recommended as a higher-tier option in the regulatory groundwater assessment of crop protection products in the European Union. However, to date little guidance has been provided on the study designs. The SETAC EMAG-Pest GW group (a mixture of regulatory, academic, and industry scien...

Statement of the PPR Panel on a framework for conducting the environmental exposure and risk assessment for transition metals when used as active substances in plant protection products (PPP)

“…EFSA PPR Panel, 2013b; EFSA, 2017); ECHA guidance (ECHA, 2008; or in e.g. WFD, 2000; Fründ et al., 2011; VDI, 2014;ISO, 2018; Gimsing et al., 2019). Additional recommendations are given further below.…”

“…The recommendations by Gimsing et al. (2019) for assessing such data could be followed. Care should be taken to ensure that the potential origins of metals in groundwater are considered through an inventory of the background values.…”

Can Commercial Low-Cost Drones and Open-Source GIS Technologies Be Suitable for Semi-Automatic Weed Mapping for Smart Farming? A Case Study in NE Italy

“…The first one can cause several negative effects for the soil (compaction, soil erosion, fertility reduction, etc. ), and the second one can seriously affect the environment, including soil and water biota as well as human health [12][13][14][15]. Taking this into account, inappropriate weed management, both at field and territory scale, can be environmentally and economically unsustainable.…”

Site- and time-specific early weed control is able to reduce herbicide use in maize - a case study

“…This means that the use of herbicides is always on the rise, and has been on an upward trend since their introduction (FAO, 2014;Vats, 2015;Zimdahl, 2018). The use of herbicides, however, has a number of negative effects on the environment brought on by leaching into soil and groundwater (Tiktak et al, 2004;Gimsing et al, 2019). This potentially leads to soil and water contamination, putting wildlife biodiversity at risk, and it can also be harmful for humans (Morales et al, 2013;Hasenbein et al, 2017;Gupta, 2018;Beasley, 2020).…”