Available methods for the sampling of nectar, pollen, and flowers of different plant species

Background: The new draft EFSA guidance document introduces additional assessment factors for pollinators other than honey bees. However, there are no standard test protocols available. Therefore, the only way for risk assessment refinements, are a more precise estimate of the potential exposure in nectar and pollen. The aim of the paper is to present available sampling methods of nectar and pollen but also tries to refine methodology for sampling of nectar and pollen mentioned in the guidance document.Results: Nectar can be collected by hand from a wide variety of crop plants. This can be done with the help of capillaries as well as with centrifugation. Pollen can be collected with manual sampling or the help of a suction pump. Bees and bumble bees can be used for both matrices with many plants. Solitary bees are able to collect pollen. More detailed results are presented for oil seed rape and Phacelia.Conclusion: Nectar and pollen can be collected from flowering crop plants visited by pollinators in amounts that are high enough to allow residue analysis. However, the minimum number of bees needed to collect the amount is not 20 but much higher, depending on the species of plant sampled. At least 200 honey bees should be collected for each matrix

3.3 ICP-PR Bee Brood Working Group – Variability of brood termination rates in reference to validity criteria and limited effectiveness of method improvement in honeybee semi-field studies (OECD GD 75)

OECD Guidance Document 75 (2007) outlines a test method to assess effects of plant protection products (PPPs) on honeybee brood under semi-field conditions. The assessment of bee brood development is conducted by mapping cells containing eggs and following their development until emergence. Evaluated parameters are: brood termination rate (BTR), brood compensation index (CI) and brood index (BI). Due to high variability of BTRs within treatments and high control mortality in a number of studies no definite conclusions regarding effects on brood were possible in the past and studies needed to be repeated (Pistorius et al. 2012). To address this variance, effort was taken by ICP-PR and AG Bienenschutz to improve the method by further analyzing current and historical data considering possible influencing factors (Pistorius et al. 2012, Becker et al. 2015) to give recommendations for future testing. The main findings were that reliability of the test method was questionable and that further method improvement and data evaluation was required. Therefore in this paper data evaluation of studies conducted between 2014 and 2017 is carried out and potential key parameters influencing outcome of studies are given.To evaluate the improvement of the OECD 75 test method following the recommendations from 2015, a data analysis of 86 studies conducted in Germany, France, Spain and US was performed. The mean BTR value in the control group was 30.2% for studies conducted in Germany (mean of 61 studies), 19.4% in France (mean of 3 studies), 41.8% in Spain (mean of 5 studies) and 50.6% in US (mean of 17 studies). Results from Spain and US displayed higher BTRs in control compared to data from Germany. Evaluation of BTRs for Germany displayed only a slight improvement (historical value of 32.9%). Analysis of data shows a limitation of options to improve the method as no main driver for high variability of BTRs in the control group was found. The cause for low precision may be multifactorial and driven by “caging effect”. There are alternative test methods available to observe bee brood development, without confinement in the tunnels, under field conditions (Oomen et al. (1992), OECD GD 75 field test design). Therefore it is necessary to investigate differences between these open field methods and semi-field testing with regard to routes of exposure, residues in brood and brood mortality, to choose the most reliable and adequate testing method assessing potential effects of PPP on honeybee brood development.OECD Guidance Document 75 (2007) outlines a test method to assess effects of plant protection products (PPPs) on honeybee brood under semi-field conditions. The assessment of bee brood development is conducted by mapping cells containing eggs and following their development until emergence. Evaluated parameters are: brood termination rate (BTR), brood compensation index (CI) and brood index (BI). Due to high variability of BTRs within treatments and high control mortality in a number of studies no definite conclusions regarding effects on brood were possible in the past and studies needed to be repeated (Pistorius et al. 2012). To address this variance, effort was taken by ICP-PR and AG Bienenschutz to improve the method by further analyzing current and historical data considering possible influencing factors (Pistorius et al. 2012, Becker et al. 2015) to give recommendations for future testing. The main findings were that reliability of the test method was questionable and that further method improvement and data evaluation was required. Therefore in this paper data evaluation of studies conducted between 2014 and 2017 is carried out and potential key parameters influencing outcome of studies are given.To evaluate the improvement of the OECD 75 test method following the recommendations from 2015, a data analysis of 86 studies conducted in Germany, France, Spain and US was performed. The mean BTR value in the control group was 30.2% for studies conducted in Germany (mean of 61 studies), 19.4% in France (mean of 3 studies), 41.8% in Spain (mean of 5 studies) and 50.6% in US (mean of 17 studies). Results from Spain and US displayed higher BTRs in control compared to data from Germany. Evaluation of BTRs for Germany displayed only a slight improvement (historical value of 32.9%). Analysis of data shows a limitation of options to improve the method as no main driver for high variability of BTRs in the control group was found. The cause for low precision may be multifactorial and driven by “caging effect”. There are alternative test methods available to observe bee brood development, without confinement in the tunnels, under field conditions (Oomen et al. (1992), OECD GD 75 field test design). Therefore it is necessary to investigate differences between these open field methods and semi-field testing with regard to routes of exposure, residues in brood and brood mortality, to choose the most reliable and adequate testing method assessing potential effects of PPP on honeybee brood development

Risk-Stratified Cardiovascular Screening Including Angiographic and Procedural Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Renal Transplant Candidates

Background. Benefits of cardiac screening in kidney transplant candidates (KTC) will be dependent on the availability of effective interventions. We retrospectively evaluated characteristics and outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in KTC selected for revascularization by a cardiac screening approach. Methods. In 267 patients evaluated 2003 to 2006, screening tests performed were reviewed and PCI characteristics correlated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during a follow-up of 55 months. Results. Stress tests in 154 patients showed ischemia in 28 patients (89% high risk). Of 58 patients with coronary angiography, 38 had significant stenoses and 18 cardiac interventions (6.7% of all). 29 coronary lesions in 17/18 patients were treated by PCI. Angiographic success rate was 93.1%, but procedural success rate was only 86.2%. Long lesions (P=0.029) and diffuse disease (P=0.043) were associated with MACE. In high risk patients, cardiac screening did not improve outcome as 21.7% of patients with versus 15.5% of patients without properly performed cardiac screening had MACE (P=0.319). Conclusion. The moderate procedural success of PCI and poor outcome in long and diffuse coronary lesions underscore the need to define appropriate revascularization strategies in KTC, which will be a prerequisite for cardiac screening to improve outcome in these high-risk patients