1. A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators for Agriculture Thomas Greitens Esther Day

2. Risk Indicator Systems Ranking CHEMS 1 (USA) EIQ (USA) MATF (USA) PERI (Sweden) Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) EPRIP (Italy) EYP (The Netherlands) SyPEP (Belgium) SYNOPS (Germany)

3. AFT’s Research Goals Evaluate usability of environmental risk indicators. Analyze potential applicability at farm level. Assess accuracy.

4. Methodology Data Collection: 2000-2001 application data, 4 FL fields, tomatoes and peppers Soil samples Weather data Pesticide parameters

6. Results Most models track reductions in potential risk consistently over time. Some models are “outliers” but consistent with previous research.

7. D 2000 2001 C 2000 2001 B 2000 2001 A 2000 2001 PERIMATFEIQCHEMS 1 “Ranking” Indicators

8. PEC Indicators D 2000 2001 C 2000 2001 B 2000 2001 A 2000 2001 SyPEPEYP (s.w.)EPRIP

9. Usability Ranking method simpler. PEC method more data intensive, more complexbut PEC also gives more complete picture of potential risk.

10. Models – Soil and Water Some consider potential risk to soil All consider potential risk to aquatic organisms. Some calculate potential groundwater leaching. Some consider potential risk to human health (e.g. cancer risks).

11. Models can be used to: Analyze past and future applications Obtain certification. Farmer Applicability

12. Research Concerns Absence of data Adaptability of models? Non-transferable standards (e.g. European drinking water standards)

13. SYNOPS as a Separate Model Synoptisches Bewertungsmodell für PflanzenSchutzmittel Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Institute for Technology Assessment in Plant Protection

14. SYNOPS Modules SYNOPS calculates PEC over time in: –Soil –Surface water –Air –Bio-organisms (earthworms, fish, algae, daphnia) –Groundwater SYNOPS Modules

15. Soil Risk Potential - Paraquat

16. Water Risk Potential - Paraquat

17. Acute: LD 50 and LC 50 of organisms and short term predicted concentration. Chronic: based on NOEC of of organisms and long term predicted concentrations. Risk Potential to Organisms

18. Acute – Fish

19. Acute – Water Organisms* * Chlorothalonil, one field

20. Chronic – Fish* *all chemicals, one field

21. Propensity to Leach

22. SYNOPS lends itself to larger scale evaluation Possible to expand from farm-level, homogeneous environmental conditions to larger, heterogeneous conditions. Scale of SYNOPS

23. Validation of Model ENVIROMAP project - German-South African collaboration. Comparison between actual and predicted concentrations in orchards in the tributaries of the Lourens River catchment.

24. Prediction vs. Measurement Regression analysis: significant positive correlation (R 2 =0.95) between predicted and measured average runoff loads in the tributaries. Basic drift deposition values proved accurate (R 2 =0.96) in predicting in-stream loads.  results indicate applicability to South African conditions.

25. Conclusions Models using: Ranking method  know potential risk before application. PEC method  know potential risk after applicationtherefore  Can be used by farmers to make strategic choices  Measure reductions achieved by IPM programs  Some models better reflect regional concernsBut…  Limited to pesticides, no nutrient impact assessment

26. Future AFT Research Further integrate models in the concept of IPM program evaluation and environmental risk assessment.

27. A Comparison of Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicators for Agriculture