Extrapolation factors for small samples of pesticide toxicity data: Special focus on LD50 values for birds and mammals

Luttik, Robert; Aldenberg, Tom

doi:10.1002/etc.5620160904

Cited by 37 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But the use of a fixed extrapolation factor does not exclude over‐ or underestimation of the potential risk of a plant protection product for birds and mammals. For example, by using the historical database described in Luttik & Aldenberg (1997), it can be calculated that after applying an extrapolation factor of 10 the sensitivity of the fifth percentile bird species will be underestimated in 25% of the cases (in 3% of the cases by a factor of 10–100).…”

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two similar methods for estimating the fifth percentile when only small sample sizes are available ( n = 1–5) have been proposed independently (Baril et al , 1994; Baril & Mineau, 1996; Luttik & Aldenberg, 1997). In this subscheme, it is proposed to use the method of Luttik & Aldenberg (1997) (see Note 11) because it can be applied to both birds and mammals, whereas the method of Baril & Mineau (1996) is only applicable to birds. Furthermore, the method of Baril & Mineau (1996) is mainly based on insecticides, whereas the method of Luttik & Aldenberg (1997) is based on a wider range of products (not only insecticides) and also on other compounds.…”

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this subscheme, it is proposed to use the method of Luttik & Aldenberg (1997) (see Note 11) because it can be applied to both birds and mammals, whereas the method of Baril & Mineau (1996) is only applicable to birds. Furthermore, the method of Baril & Mineau (1996) is mainly based on insecticides, whereas the method of Luttik & Aldenberg (1997) is based on a wider range of products (not only insecticides) and also on other compounds. The method of Luttik & Aldenberg (1997) does not allow for scaling of toxicity with body weight, but this is part of the method of Baril & Mineau (1996).…”

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the method of Baril & Mineau (1996) is mainly based on insecticides, whereas the method of Luttik & Aldenberg (1997) is based on a wider range of products (not only insecticides) and also on other compounds. The method of Luttik & Aldenberg (1997) does not allow for scaling of toxicity with body weight, but this is part of the method of Baril & Mineau (1996). In practice, the two methods provide similar answers.…”

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products

2003

EPPO Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This standard provides an assessment of the direct risk presented by plant protection products to terrestrial vertebrates (birds and mammals), when applied as sprays, seed treatments or granular formulations. Specific approval and amendmentFirst approved in 1992-09. Edited as and EPPO Standard in 1998. Revision approved in 2002-09. IntroductionAdverse effects on birds and mammals are among the factors which most strongly influence the acceptability of a plant protection product. The greatest concern is effects at the population level. However, there is also strong public concern regarding the deaths of individual birds and mammals from the use of plant protection products, although they may not have any significant effect on the population. Partly for that reason, and because of the lack of agreed criteria for the acceptability of effects at the population level, this subscheme is concerned with the risk to individual animals. The result can also be used to provide an indication of the potential impact at the population level. ScopeThe scope of the risk assessment subscheme covered in this Chapter is the determination of direct risk of a plant protection product to non-target birds and mammals. The direct risk is defined as the risk from the product itself including exposure via treated or contaminated food. The subscheme determines the risk from primary and secondary exposure, where primary exposure is defined as direct consumption of product or of treated food, and secondary exposure is defined as consumption of food that, although not directly treated, contains the active substance (e.g. bioaccumulation in fish).Exposure by non-dietary routes is not considered by this subscheme. There is some evidence that non-dietary routes can contribute significantly to exposure in some situations (Driver et al ., 1991;Mineau et al ., 2001), but there is no generally accepted approach to assessing them and in practice they are frequently omitted from routine assessment. It would be advisable to consider assessing non-dietary routes, especially in those cases where the level of risk from dietary exposure alone is approaching an unacceptable level. Approaches to assessing non-dietary routes have not developed significantly since the previous edition of this subscheme (OEPP/EPPO, 1994) and the user is referred to that source for guidance.For some specialized products, e.g. slug pellets or rodenticides, the assessment requires some extra considerations. However, the basic concept of risk assessment is the same (processing of toxicity data, definitions of exposure-toxicity ratio, ETR). Such cases can be assessed by taking one of the modules of the subscheme (for sprayed products and seed treatments or for granular formulations) as a model and deciding on:• suitable indicator species • relevance of the three time scales • exposure model for reasonable worst-case and most likely case scenarios. With regard to rodenticides some background information is provided in Note 26.The risk assessment is done at the field scale and not lan...

show abstract

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanatory Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products

2003

EPPO Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Avian Species

Mineau¹

2002

Encyclopedia of Agrochemicals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of persistent organochlorine insecticides has had serious consequences on populations of birds of prey and fish‐eating bird species. The question now is whether current pesticides have the same potential to reduce bird populations. In order to answer this, however, the question must be defined carefully, which is one of the most difficult tasks facing any attempt to measure the impact of pesticides on birds because so many variables are involved. Overall, however, this article argues that in cases of acute poisonings in birds of prey, a few pesticides are responsible for most of the problems.

show abstract

Assessing Impacts of Environmental Contaminants on Wildlife

Sullivan¹,

Hill²

2009

General, Applied and Systems Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of a toxic xenobiotic, natural or anthropogenic, on wildlife is difficult to evaluate because factors that influence exposure and risk vary widely among natural systems. Then, when considering the confounding influences of chemical interactions and the presence of natural toxics and toxins, widely diverse studies are needed to assess impacts of contamination on wildlife. In brief, wildlife toxicology has been described as the integration of three principal strategies: (i) laboratory screening to predict which chemicals may be acutely toxic or cause more subtle effects, such as reproductive impairment, behavioural aberrations or developmental changes; (ii) controlled studies where subjects are confined to a simulated natural environment and (iii) studies of natural populations. This chapter presents an overview of wildlife toxicology and contaminant risk assessment as traditionally evaluated, but also includes discussion of recent concepts of immunotoxicology, endocrine disruption and the presence of pharmaceuticals in nature. The focus is on anthropogenic chemicals and avian wildlife with comparisons to other taxa as appropriate. Birds have served as primary models because they have diverse behaviours and habitat associations and can be effectively studied in captivity and nature.

show abstract

Extrapolation factors for small samples of pesticide toxicity data: Special focus on LD50 values for birds and mammals

Cited by 37 publications

References 4 publications

Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products

Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products

Avian Species

Assessing Impacts of Environmental Contaminants on Wildlife

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About