Mapping Ground Water Vulnerability to Pesticide Leaching with a Process‐Based Metamodel of EuroPEARL

Tiktak, A.; Boesten, J.J.T.I.; Linden, A.M.A. van der; Vanclooster, Marnik

doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0377

Cited by 54 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As climate change is also expected to influence soil-water exchange reactions, data on previous steady-state conditions will be less predictive of the future development, making collection of sediment data the more pressing. Recent examples from the Netherlands of prognostic modelling studies at regional or national scale in which information on the reactivity of the subsurface sediment is needed as input are Tiktak et al 2006;van den Brink et al 2007, van der Grift and Whereas strategies for soil surveying commonly include some aspects of soil geochemistry also (e.g. organic matter, nutrient content, priority metals and organic contaminants), this is not the case for subsoil sediments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geochemical reactivity of subsurface sediments as potential buffer to anthropogenic inputs: a strategy for regional characterization in the Netherlands

Gaans

Griffioen

Mol³

et al. 2010

J Soils Sediments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Sedimentary aquifers are prone to anthropogenic disturbance. Measures aimed at mitigation or adaptation require sound information on the reactivity of soil/sediments towards the infiltrating water, as this determines the chemical quality of the groundwater and receiving surface waters. Here, we address the issues of relevant sediment properties, adequate analytical methods, borehole location selection, detail of stratification, and required sample size, to develop a protocol for efficient characterization of subsurface reactivity on a regional scale. Materials and methods The sequence of geological formations in the Dutch part of the North Sea Basin is documented in the form of systematic descriptions of some 450,000 borings. The basic data are stored in a database that also includes a limited amount of geochemical data collected for specific research projects. Based on the borehole descriptions, a Digital Geological Model of the Netherlands (DGM) has recently been completed. We combined the results of a statistical analysis of the existing geochemical data with theoretical and practical considerations, to assess the degree of variability of subsurface reactivity, the relevance of different DGM-based stratifications, and the efficiency and possible redundancy of analytical parameters. Results and discussion We present two protocols for the quantitative characterization of the reactive properties of the soil and subsurface sediments of the Netherlands, down to a depth of about 30 m below surface level. As numerous strategies are already available for soil surveying, the facies-based protocol for boring and sampling is aimed at subsoil sediments. Stratification is a combination of regional, lithological, and lithostratigraphical classifications. Selection of borehole locations and sampling depths is first based on the a priori information. Given the results of the first round, additional boring, sampling and analysis are performed when necessary. The analytical protocol also applies to soil surveys. It deploys limited means to obtain the most relevant information on subsurface reactivity in view of the priority environmental issues identified. Conclusions With the progress of technologies for aquifer architecture characterization and routine chemical analysis, assessment of subsurface reactivity on a regional scale has now become feasible. Lithological stratification is essential, but regional and lithostratigraphical variability cannot be ignored. With adequate stratification, a sample size of 45 per stratum was found sufficient in most instances. The key analytes chosen appear to be statistically independent; hence, a further reduction in analytical techniques would result in serious loss of information.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geochemical reactivity of subsurface sediments as potential buffer to anthropogenic inputs: a strategy for regional characterization in the Netherlands

Gaans

Griffioen

Mol³

et al. 2010

J Soils Sediments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative is then to run a simple model that is compatible with the full model (a so-called metamodel). See Tiktak et al (2006) for an example of such a model on the exposure side.…”

Section: A Systematic Approach To Scenario Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on good modelling practice in the context of mechanistic effect models for risk assessment of plant protection products

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Panel has interpreted the Terms of Reference as a stepwise analysis of issues relevant to both the development and the evaluation of models to assess ecological effects of pesticides. The regulatory model should be selected or developed to address the relevant specific protection goal. The basis of good modelling practice must be the knowledge of relevant processes and the availability of data of sufficient quality. The opinion identifies several critical steps in order to set models within risk assessment, namely: problem formulation, considering the specific protection goals for the taxa or functional groups of concern; model domain of applicability, which drives the species and scenarios to model; species (and life stage) selection, considering relevant life history traits and toxicological/toxicokinetics characteristics of the pesticide; selection of the environmental scenario, which is defined by a combination of abiotic, biotic and agronomic parameters to provide a realistic worst-case situation. Model development should follow the modelling cycle, in which every step has to be fully documented: (i) problem definition; (ii) model formulation, i.e. design of a conceptual model; (iii) model formalisation, in which variables and parameters are linked together into mathematical equations or algorithms; (iv) model implementation, in which a computer code is produced and verified; (v) model setup, including sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis and comparison with observed data, that delivers the regulatory model; (vi) prior to actual use in risk assessment, the regulatory model should be evaluated for relevance to the specific protection goals; (vii) feedback from risk assessor with possible recommendations for model improvement. Model evaluation by regulatory authorities should consider each step of the modelling cycle: the opinion identifies points of particular attention for the use of mechanistic effect models in pesticide risk assessment. It is recommended that models be documented in a complete and transparent way, that a feedback platform be established involving risk assessors and model developers, and that a set of agreed models be made available. The Panel has interpreted the Terms of Reference to mean a provision of a stepwise analysis of issues relevant to both the development and the assessment of models to assess ecological effects of pesticides. In accordance with the Terms of Reference, the Panel has pointed out mainly those general issues shared by several types of models and/or application fields, but some specific issues have been considered if highly relevant to a given model type and/or application field.The PPR Panel emphasises that the availability and quality of data are of the utmost importance at all stages of modelling. If the data are not sufficient, the regulatory model may not be considered acceptable for risk assessment.Clear and accurate problem formulation is the first critical step to implement the use of any model within risk assessment: the risk assessment ar...

show abstract

“…Gutsche and Rossberg, 1997;Padovani et al, 2004;Tiktak et al, 2006;Vaillant et al, 1995). Yet, observational data cast doubts on the degree of applicability of these parameters as descriptors of contamination risk.…”

Section: Objective Motivation and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical screening for descriptive parameters for pesticide occurrence in a shallow groundwater catchment

Åkesson¹,

Sparrenbom²,

Carlsson³

et al. 2013

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. We have assessed the ability of a range of pesticide, site and climate parameters to discriminate between detected and non-detected pesticides as observed by long-term monitoring data of pesticide use and groundwater occurrence in a small catchment in southern Sweden. Of seventeen investigated parameters, six demonstrated such an ability: dosage applied, the Henry's Law Constant (HLC), the octanolwater partitioning coefficient (log P ow ), the amount of precipitation the week before application, the amount of precipitation the month after application, and the substance degradation potential (DT 50 ). The apparent influence of the investigated parameters on pesticide occurrence in groundwater, and their apparent suitability as descriptive parameters in terms of assessment of related risks, is accordingly discussed. We conclude that knowledge of actual pesticide use appear fundamental for risk assessment of groundwater contamination potential. We further suggest that chemical property-parameters of specific pesticides, although clearly valuable, should be applied in groundwater contamination risk assessments with care. If site-specific values are unattainable, tabular values of log P ow , HLC and water solubility (W s ) are demonstrated to exhibit a superior explanatory ability than those of substance adsorption potential (K oc ) and DT 50 which, in the latter case, is shown to be able to lead to misleading conclusions on actual risks.The demonstrated explanatory ability of precipitation both before and after application suggests that relatively greater precipitation amounts occur in relation to application of non-detected substances. Increased dilution and run-off as well as decreased soil matrix retainment and decreased top-soil cracking are potential explanations although higher-resolution monitoring records are needed in order to confirm these hypotheses.

show abstract

Mapping Ground Water Vulnerability to Pesticide Leaching with a Process‐Based Metamodel of EuroPEARL

Cited by 54 publications

References 22 publications

Geochemical reactivity of subsurface sediments as potential buffer to anthropogenic inputs: a strategy for regional characterization in the Netherlands

Geochemical reactivity of subsurface sediments as potential buffer to anthropogenic inputs: a strategy for regional characterization in the Netherlands

Scientific Opinion on good modelling practice in the context of mechanistic effect models for risk assessment of plant protection products

Statistical screening for descriptive parameters for pesticide occurrence in a shallow groundwater catchment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About