1. Models for Pesticide Selection
Jennifer Grant
NYS IPM Program
Cornell University
This presentation reviews models for incorporating environmental and ecological information into the the pesticide selection process. The presentation is aimed at turfgrass managers as an audience, even though the models were designed for agricultural situations.

2. Pesticide selection criteria: the 3 E’s
Efficacy
Economics
Environmental & health impact
How do you select a pesticide? Once you’ve gone through the IPM process of properly determining the cause of your turfgrass problems, you probably try to solve the problem by cultural, physical or biological means. If that’s not enough, you may decide to use a pesticide. What comes to mind first? Probably what works--the first “E”, efficacy or effectiveness. So you check your list of what’s legal to use. In New York State, that Cornell’s Pest Management Guidelines < or the Pesticide Ingredient Manufacturing System (PIMS) web site < To know what’s effective, you have your own wealth of experience aided by university research and recommendations, and advice from peers.
Next you likely consider economics, the second “E”. Of the effective, legal pesticides--what can you afford? Balancing cost with other factors such as ease of application, number of applications needed and effectiveness of the product is standard operating procedure for most of you.
However, adding in the third E, environmental and health risks, is not as easy. Although this information exists, it can be difficult to find and interpret. We will discuss places to find environmental and health risk data, and more specifically models that combine the data in ways that can be easier to interpret and use in your pesticide selection process.

3. Data Sources MSDS Sheet Label
Cornell Pesticide Management and Education Program, PIMS site
EPA pesticide fact sheets
EXTOXNET pesticide summaries
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) database
Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Database
So where can you find information on environmental and health risks? The pesticide label and MSDS sheets are a good start, especially for information related to acute exposures or pesticide poisonings. The Cornell Pesticide Ingredient and Manufacturer System (PIMS) web site also provides basic information on products and links to pesticide labels, EPA fact sheets and EXTOXNET pesticide summaries. PIMS is also important to New Yorkers in that it only lists pesticides legal for use in NY. The EPA has a wealth of information available on its website and in various publications. Of them, EPA pesticide fact sheets are the easiest to use for practical pesticide selection information. Unfortunately, much of the other information available from the EPA is difficult to navigate. EXTOXNET is the Extension Toxicology Network, a joint project among several U.S. Universities. They produce pesticide summaries that are useful for quick information. The PAN web site provides similar but more extensive information, and is arranged in a user-friendly way. Lastly, the Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Database, a new web site, makes carcinogenicity classifications readily available.
Shortcut list of websites
-PMEP’s PIMS: XXX
-EPA pesticide fact sheets: XXX
-EXTOXNET: XXX
-PAN Database:
-Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Database:
For more information on places to find basic information on turfgrass pesticide safety and impact, see the companion presentation.***
***Are we going to post Rod’s presentation? That information is what this slide is about, and is an essential lead-in to the pesticide selection models talked about in this presentation. Whether we get his presentation or not, I should probably work that up into a separate presentation. Realistically, turf managers are more likely to use these basic tools because the models are not really user friendly and turf directed yet--so this presentation is more on the “future example” and theoretical side. I also think that the “fact sheet” that I will write for this project needs to cover both the basic info sources and the models that index and interpret those data.

4. Water impact models for Agriculture
Based on:
Chemical and physical properties of pesticides that affect environmental fate (e.g. solubility, soil adsorption)
Agricultural crops (row crops with some bare soil)
Physical properties of soils
Once you start looking at environmental and health risk information, it is easy to be overwhelmed. How can you sort and compare the information? To help deal with this complexity, several models have been developed. First we will discuss water Impact models. They have been developed to estimate the potential for pesticides to enter groundwater and/or surface waters after being applied in row crop agriculture. Data inputs are mainly chemical and physical properties of the pesticides as well as the physical properties of the soil.

5. Water impact models for Agriculture
WinPST (USDA National Resource Conservation Service’s Windows Pesticide Screening Tool)
GLEAMS (Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management)
NAPRA (National Pesticide Risk Analysis)
GUS (Groundwater Ubiquity Source)
SPISP (Soil Pesticide Interaction Screening Procedure)
These are examples of Agriculturally-based water impact models.
WinPST (USDA National Resource Conservation Service’s Windows Pesticide Screening Tool)
GLEAMS (Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management)
NAPRA (National Pesticide Risk Analysis)
GUS (Groundwater Ubiquity Source)
SPISP (Soil Pesticide Interaction Screening Procedure)

6. Water impact models for Turfgrass
TurfPQ (model for runoff from turfgrass, Haith, 2001)
estimates pesticide in runoff events from turf
Accounts for thatch
Uses Carbon content, OM and bulk density specific to turf
Useful for water quality studies and environmental assessments
One water impact model has been developed exclusively for pesticide runoff from turf. The “TurfPQ” accounts for several physical and chemical differences between turfgrass and row agricultural that result from turfgrass being a perennial crop that densely and fully covers the soil surface. It is useful for water quality studies and environmental assessments, but unfortunately is not useful for a manager selecting pesticides.

7. Model Complexity
Ecological impacts (e.g. toxicity to fish, other non-targets)
Human health impacts
Site specificity (e.g. soil type, slope)
Management influences
More complex models that include ecological and human health impacts, in addition to water quality impact, are less common. Likewise, site specificity and management influences are seldom addressed. Next we will discuss model that integrate information beyond water impact.

8. NRCS Three-Tiered Pesticide Environmental Risk Screening
Tier 1 - SPISP
Tier 2 = NAPRA
Utilizes GLEAMS
environmental benefits of management alternatives
Regional climatic conditions
Results consider both the off-site movement of pesticide and its toxicity to non-target species
Tier 3 - NAPRA
Site specific
Generic inputs are replaced by individual producers' filing records and field measured soils data
An example of a method for including many of the factors mentioned is the “Environmental Risk Screening” process used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). This is a 3-tiered process.
Tier 1 - Soil/Pesticide Interaction Screening Procedure (SPISP)
• Based on pesticide and soil properties that influence environmental fate
• Screens pesticide/soil combinations into two classes:
-those that result in a low risk of off-site pesticide movement
-those that need further evaluation
Tier 2 = National Agricultural Pesticide Risk Analysis (NAPRA)
• Utilizes the USDA-ARS environmental fate computer model GLEAMS (Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management)
• Helps quantify the potential environmental benefits of management alternatives.
• Focuses on generic management scenarios and how pesticide losses are affected by management under the climatic conditions of the region being studied.
• Results are probability based and consider both the off-site movement of pesticide and its toxicity to non-target species.
Tier 3
• Used if warranted by Tier 2
• Site specific
• Generic inputs are replaced by individual producers' filing records and field measured soils data.

9. This table is an example of the 2nd tier of an NRCS Environmental Risk Screening for pre-emergent herbicides for corn. The application rate, method of application and tillage type are all factored into determining the probability of a pesticide either leaching into groundwater (percolate) or running off into surface waters--at levels greater than the Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) recommended for human drinking water. In all scenarios shown, there is a very low probability of percolate exceeding these levels, whereas the estimate for runoff water varies from 2-47%, depending on the chemical, rate, and tillage type.

10. Integrated models for selection
Decision Tool for Integrated Pesticide Selection and Management (IATP)
Minnesota corn & soybeans
Water contamination focus (WinPST)
Human exposure (drinking water)
Fish as non-target organism
Another example of an integrated model is the “Decision Tool for Integrated Pesticide Selection and Management” from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). It was developed in Minnesota for corn and soybean production and focuses on water contamination. WinPST is used as a screening tool with human exposure from drinking water, and fish as non-target organisms are used as endpoints for comparison.

11. Integrated models for selection
Environmental EIL
Assigns an “environmental cost” to pest management, based on opinion surveys (contingent valuation)
Largely theoretical, but assigns values
The Environmental EIL is yet another model. The authors chose this terminology because they wanted to create a tool for incorporating environmental considerations into the pest management decision making process. “EIL” stands for “economic injury level”, a term borrowed from the fundamentals of IPM. The original EIL was defined as the lowest pest population density that will cause economic damage. The Environmental EIL provides a framework to use the lowest environmental damage/threat that will cause economic impact as an economic threshold. An “environmental cost” is assigned to pest management, based on opinion surveys (contingent valuation). The model is largely theoretical, but assigns values enabling comparisons.
(Higley & Wintersteen, 1992)

12. Risk/Category and Environmental Cost, Environmental EIL
This example compares the risks and subsequent “costs” of using 3 different insecticides, as determined by the Environmental EIL. Dipel has the lowest cost, because it has a low risk of contaminating groundwater; harming aquatic organisms or birds; and having an adverse chronic effect on humans. Conversely, Diazinon has a high risk of harming non-target organisms (aquatic, birds, beneficial insects); a medium risk of contaminating ground and surface waters; and low risk of harming mammals and having acute or chronic effects on humans. The dollar values are based on responses from farmers on how valuable it is to them to avoid environmental problems. These dollar values may not be useful to you as a pesticide selection tool, but they do incorporate many important underlying data components and give a relative risk rating of the pesticides.
NR = No Risk, MR = Medium Risk, HR = High Risk
Sur H20 = Surface H20, Grd H2O = Groundwater, Acute and Chronic refer to adverse effects on humans

13. Integrated models for selection
Environmental Yardstick (Netherlands)
Values risk as environmental impact points
Based on
Acute risk to water organisms
Risk of groundwater contamination
Acute and chronic risks to soil organisms
Provides numerical value for a pesticide applied at a specific rate
Expressed as environmental impact points (EIP)
The “Environmental Yardstick” was developed in the Netherlands where the water table is very high and therefore issues of water contamination and toxicity to aquatic organisms are of primary concern. In this model, risk is valued as environmental impact points, and is based on acute risk to aquatic organisms, risk of groundwater contamination and acute and chronic toxicity to soil organisms. It does not include human toxicity factors. The model provides a numerical value for a pesticide, applied at a specific rate. Therefore it can be used to select the lowest risk pesticide for a given situation and can be used to compare systems.
See
**We may want to walk them through an example with the yardstick. I’ll take your opinions on this and I will also explore how practical I can make it.
( Reus and Pak, 1993; Reus and Leendertse, 2000)

14. Integrated models for selection
Environmental Yardstick (cont’d)
Currently used in the Netherlands
Farm & Greenhouse decision support tool
Environmental performance incentive
Standards for eco-labels
Policy tool
The Environmental Yardstick” is currently being used in the Netherlands for several purposes.
• As a Farm & Greenhouse decision support tool. Farmers and greenhouse growers can use the model to provide the environmental “E’ in their pesticide selection process. Therefore it is a very practical management tool.
• Performance incentive: Programs exist in groundwater protection areas that reward farmers for keeping all of their pesticide choices below a specified level of environmental impact points.
• Standards for eco-labels: Labeling programs set a limit to the number of EIPs that any pesticide application can incur.
• Policy Tool: The yardstick is being used in Europe to assess agricultural practices and determine the environemtal effectiveness of current policies and possible future policies.
( Reus and Pak, 1993; Reus and Leendertse, 2000)

15. Integrated models for selection
Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)
Original model published in 1992 (Kovach et al.) for food crops
Three components: worker, consumer, ecological
Provides numerical value for a pesticide, applied at a specific rate
Can use to select pesticides or compare systems
Another integrated model is the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) that was developed in 1992 by researchers at Cornell University. Designed for food crops, the model combines 13 xxxxxfactors in an algebraic equation comprised of 3 components: worker, consumer, and ecological. It provides a numerical value for a pesticide, applied at a specific rate, and can be used to select pesticides or compare systems. We will now examine the EIQ more closely.
**13 xxxxxfactors

16. [(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3) + (B x P x 5)]}
EIQ =
{C x [DT x 5 + (DT x P)] +
[(C x ((S + P)/2) x SY) + L]
[(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3) + (B x P x 5)]}
÷ 3
Here’s the equation!

17. EIQ Farm worker: Acute and chronic toxicity to humans.
Consumer: Food residues, chronic toxicity to humans, leachability to groundwater.
Ecological: Aquatic and terrestrial non-target toxicity (fish, bees), leachability, persistence.
The components are based on the following information.
-Farm worker: Acute and chronic toxicity to humans.
-Consumer: Food residues, chronic toxicity to humans, likelihood of leaching to groundwater.
-Ecological: Aquatic and terrestrial non-target toxicity (fish, bees), likelihood of leaching to groundwater, persistence.

18. EIQ Risk = toxicity x potential for exposure
E.g. effect on fish depends on toxicity to fish, and likelihood of fish encountering pesticide.
Persistence
Surface loss potential
Risk from a pesticide is determined both by its toxicity to an organism, and the potential of the organism to be exposed to the pesticide. For example, the effect on fish depends on toxicity to fish, and the likelihood of fish encountering pesticide. A fish is more likely to encounter a pesticide if the pesticide has a high surface loss potential, is applied close to water and is persistent in surface waters once it gets there.
Therefore, the risk to fish is based on at least 3 pesticide characteristics: toxicity to fish, surface loss potential, and persistence. The EIQ uses this logic throughout its equation.

19. Farm worker Component Applicator + Picker (C * DT * 5) + (C * DT * P)
For example, here is the farm worker component that can be further broken down into the applicator and the picker sub-components. The applicator is most likely to contact pesticides directly, through the skin, with repeated exposures over time--so the chronic toxicity to humans is multiplied by the dermal toxicity and further multiplied by a weighting factor of 5. Weighting factors in the EIQ are 1, 3, or 5. They express the relative importance of a factor. The potential hazard to an applicator of a pesticide with high chronic and/or dermal toxicity is high. Therefore the weighting factor 5 is used.
For the picker, the exposure is also most likely chronic and through the skin. However, the pesticide exposure is transferred by the fruit (or vegetable) being picked, so the persistence on the plant surface is important. The resulting formula is chronic toxicity multiplied by dermal toxicity, multiplied by plant surface residue half-life.
For turfgrass situations, the applicator exposure and effects would remain the same. The picker formula would represent a person using the site: golfer, athlete, walker.
Dermal Toxicity
Chronic Toxicity
Plant surface residue half-life

20. Chronic Toxicity
Average of Reproductive, Teratogenic, Mutagenic, & Oncogenic effects
Low value if no evidence of carcinogenicity
High value if probable human carcinogen
In the EIQ,the long-term health effects or “chronic toxicity” is discerned by taking an average of ratings of the reproductive, teratogenic, mutagenic, & oncogenic effects of the pesticides on small mammals.
****Should this cancer stuff actually be here?
Low value if no evidence of carcinogenicity
High value if probable human carcinogen

21. Dermal Toxicity 1 = > 2000 mg/kg 1 = > 2000 mg/kg
Dermal LD50 rabbits
Dermal LD50 rats
1 = > 2000 mg/kg
3 = mg/kg
5 = mg/kg
The dermal toxicity to rats and rabbits is categorized and given a value of 1, 3, or 5.
1 = > 2000 mg/kg
3 = mg/kg
5 = mg/kg

22. Plant Surface Residue 1 = < 2 weeks 3 = 2-4 weeks 5 = > 4 weeks
Herbicides
Pre-emergent = 1
Post-emergent = 3
Plant surface residues are measured in half lives and show the persistence of a pesticide. A value is assigned for low (1), medium (2) or high (3).
1 = < 2 weeks
3 = 2-4 weeks
5 = > 4 weeks
Pre-emergent herbicides do not contact leaves, and therefore receive a value of 1, whereas post-emergents get a 3.

23. Food residue + Groundwater
Consumer Component
Food residue + Groundwater
(C * ((S + P)/2) * SY) (L)
With these various factors and measures in mind, here is the equation for the consumer component.
**TOSS THIS?** C is the toxicity aspect, the rest of the blue formula is exposure potential. The half life of the pesticide in soil and on the plant is averaged andIt multiplies the rest of the This is added to the leaching potential
**DIRECTLY FROM EIQ***
The consumer component is the sum of consumer exposure potential (C*((S+P)/2)*SY) plus the potential groundwater effects (L) . Groundwater effects are placed in the consumer component because they are more of a human health issue (drinking well contamination) than a wildlife issue. Consumer exposure is calculated as chronic toxicity (C) times the average for residue potential in soil and plant surfaces (because roots and other plant parts are eaten) times the systemic potential rating of the pesticide (the pesticide's ability to be absorbed by plants).
Soil half-life
Plant half-life
Mode of Action: Systemic or non
Leaching potential
Chronic Toxicity

24. Exposure
Persistence
• Plant half life
• Soil half life

25. Fish + Bird + Bee + Beneficials
Ecological Component
Fish + Bird + Bee + Beneficials
The same logic is followed for the ecological component. Toxicity to fish, birds, bees and beneficial organisms are each multiplied by the potential for exposure.
Each organism X potential for exposure

26. = [(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3)
Ecological component
Fish toxicity (F)
Surface Loss Potential (R)
Bird Toxicity (D)
Soil half life (S)
Plant surface half life (P)
Bee Toxicity (Z)
Beneficial Arthropod toxicity (B)
As shown in the formula.
= [(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3)
+ (B x P x 5)]

27. Beneficial arthropod impact
SELCTV database on 600 chemicals, 400 natural enemies (Oregon State Univ., Theiling and Croft, 1988)
Data generated more recently --standardized on 5 natural enemies (insects) and 3 microbials
(Cornell, Petzoldt & Kovach, 2002)
The toxicity to beneficial insects, as summarized in the SELCTV database was used in the original EIQ publication. More recently, pesticide toxicity to 5 beneficial insects and 3 beneficial microbes was determined and used to update the EIQ.

28. [(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3) + (B x P x 5)]}
EIQ =
{C x [DT x 5 + (DT x P)] +
[(C x ((S + P)/2) x SY) + L]
[(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3) + (B x P x 5)]}
÷ 3
Now the full EIQ equation should make more sense. When all the data are supplied, each pesticide active ingredient gets an EIQ value. Although it seems logical to compare these numbers, don’t! You must first consider the dose.

29. The poison is in the dose!
An EIQ value must be multiplied by the rate it is applied.

30. The poison is in the dose!
An EIQ value must be multiplied by the rate it is applied. This yields a “field EIQ” that can be compared.
An EIQ value must be multiplied by the rate it is applied. This yields a “field EIQ” that can be compared.

31. EIQ as a Pesticide Selection Tool
The EIQ can be used as a pesticide selection tool--giving you information on the third “E”, environmental and health impacts.

32. Insecticide Example
Here is an example of 3 insecticides used on turfgrass--showing the core EIQ value, and its 3components. The ecological value for all 3 is very similar, as are the consumer values, with Ethoprop being slightly higher. The 3 pesticides sort out more clearly in the worker component with Cyfluthrin being very low, Chlorpyrifos being medium, and Ethoprop relatively high. These numbers compare the pesticides on a pound for pound basis--which is not what happens in the real world!
Pesticides are applied at different rates. For turfgrass, Cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids are applied at very low rates*, whereas Ethoprop requires a high rate*. Therefore the field EIQs become very different. If you were choosing an insecticide to treat an insect problem and had gone through the steps of determining what is:
Legal to use
Effective, and
Affordable
Then the EIQ can guide you in your final decision.
**insert actual rates.

33. Fungicide example
Here is a fungicide example. The field EIQs are shown for the range of labeled rates for each product, with field EIQ values for Dollar spot management specifically shown below (DS).
The biological product, Bacillus licheniformis, has an extremely low field EIQ. Iprodione is still relatively low, with Chlorothalonil levels being very high at the higher application rates*. Viewing the 3 components of the EIQ shows you that the ecological factors are what sets Chlorothalonil apart from the other 2 fungicides in terms of environmental risk.
*insert actual rate.

34. Additional Considerations
Resistance management
Ease of application
Weather conditions
Availability of product
Availability of equipment
Of course there is more to the process of pesticide selection than the 3 Es. As a professional you take many other factors into account in making these important choices. Most notably is pesticide resistance. You would not want to continually use the same material simply because it has the lowest EIQ value. Your knowledge of resistance management would have you occasionally rotate in other active ingredients.
Other practical matters such as ease of application, weather conditions, availability of product, and availability of equipment also play a role. However, using the EIQ or other models can significantly improve your ability to make a well informed choice.

35. EIQ for Comparing Management Strategies
The EIQ and other quantitative models can be used to look back and compare different management systems or histories. For example, let’s say you made a concerted effort to select lower risk products in 2006, and you want to compare your overall impact against your 2005 program. Or perhaps you want to compare the environmental impact of the management of your “A” ball field against your “B” fields. You can do it. You could also look forward and pick a hypothetical set of tactics and see the environmental impact. Researchers can take a similar approach in planning an experiment, or comparing the impact of various treatments in an experiment they have already conducted.

36. Conventional Red Delicious
Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total
Nova
Captan
Lorsban
Thiodan
Guthion
Cygon
Omite
Sevin
Kelthane
65.3
16.2
35.0
34.0
26.3
49.6
27.5
21.7
26.1 .4 .5
.35
.43
.68 4 6 1 2 3
0.3
3.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
4.5 31 24 21
105 51 14
128 75 11 41
Here’s an example from agriculture. This is a conventional management strategy for “red delicious” apples that results in a total field EIQ of 501.
Total field EIQ 501

37. IPM Strategy, Red Delicious Apples
Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total
13.6
10.5
1.4
19.1
17.5
Nova
Captan
Dipel
Sevin
Guthion
65.3
16.2
10.6
21.7
26.3 .4 .5
.06 .8
.35 4 1 3 2
.13
1.3
.73
1.1
.95
An IPM management strategy for “red delicious” apples results in a total field EIQ of 62.1
Total field EIQ 62.1

38. IPM Strategy, Liberty Apples
Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total
Imidan
16.1 .5 3
1.5
36.2
“Liberty” is a disease resistant apple variety--employing this IPM tactic cuts the environmental impact of growing IPM apples in half. This variety needed 3 insecticide applications as opposed to the red delicious that needed 5 insecticides and 5 fungicide applications.
Total field EIQ 36.2

39. Organic Strategy, Red Delicious Apples
Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total
997 47 1
Sulfur
Rot/pyr
Ryania
26.4
16.3
10.6 .9
.04
.001 7 6 1 6 12 58
This comparative example of growing the red delicious apples under organic conditions may surprise you. It has a higher EIQ because of the harmful environmental effects of sulfur and because numerous applications are needed. That’s not to say that all organic programs have a high environmental impact, but it does point out that every material and strategy needs to be assessed on a case by case basis.
Total field EIQ 1045

40. SUMMARY Strategy Field EIQ 1045 Organic 501 Conventional 62 IPM 36
IPM on Liberty
Here is a summary of the field EIQs for the 4 management programs.

41. Is the EIQ useful for Turf?
Toxicity and environmental fate characteristics of the pesticides are the same for ag. and turf
The arrangement of these data in the formula are similar to what would be appropriate for turfgrass
the EIQ and other quantitative models are the best we can do until there is a model specifically designed for turf
Is the EIQ useful for Turf?
• Although the EIQ was designed for agricultural food crops, the underlying toxicity and environmental fate data also apply to turfgrass. Unfortunately, environmental fate data is gathered from bare soil agriculture, and plant half-life persistence data is generated on plants with a structure different from turfgrass. However, data from turfgrass plants is rare or non-existent.
• The arrangement of these data in the formula are similar to what would be appropriate for turfgrass
• The EIQ and other quantitative models are the best we can do until there is a model specifically designed for turf
*maybe drop the turfgrass data explanation in the first bullet

42. Environmental Impact of Pesticide Applications, Bethpage Project, 2004, expressed as Field EIQ
Here is an example from a golf course research project using the EIQ to evaluate 6 different management systems over 2 years.
RR = Reduced Risk
UNR = Unrestricted (conventional)
Alt. = Alternative culture
Std = Standard culture
Poa/cb = Poa annua and creeping bentgrass
Velvet = velvet bentgrass
(Grant & Rossi 2006)

43. EIQ Challenges Standardization of data & data gaps
Weighting may not meet criteria of user
Not site specific
The EIQ is challenged on a few fronts. The first obstacle is faced by all models--the lack of standardized data for some factors, and a complete absence of data in some cases. Next the weighting within the formula may not agree with the objectives or perspective of the user, and can sometimes cause distortions--especially of low impact pesticdes. Another weakness is that the EIQ is not site specific.
Any system for assessing the environmental impact of pesticides has weaknesses. There are tradeoffs to be made when meeting the needs of users. Ultimately you need to choose a model that works best for you.
**Recheck wording and content.

44. Turfgrass EIQ Adjust formula to better reflect turfgrass system
replace bee toxicity with earthworm toxicity
“User” for consumer (e.g. golfer)
Weight factors appropriately for turfgrass
Incorporate TurfPQ?
Include site specific information such as soil type and water proximity
The EIQ could be modified to better represent turfgrass in the following ways.
• Adjust formula to better reflect turfgrass system
-replace bee toxicity with earthworm toxicity
-Substitute “User” for consumer (e.g. golfer), and adjust formula accordingly
-Weight factors appropriately for turfgrass
-Possible incorporate TurfPQ?
• Include site specific information such as soil type and water proximity
***Could explain more

45. Pesticide selection criteria: the 3 E’s
Efficacy
Economics
Environmental & health impact
The models discussed can provide you with better information on the third E, the environmental and health impacts of pesticides.
Any system for assessing the environmental impact of pesticides has weaknesses. There are tradeoffs to be made when meeting the needs of users. Ultimately you need to choose a model that works best for you.
Whether you choose to use a model, or search out the underlying information on your own, the environmental impact of a pesticides is an important criteria for pesticide selection.