Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living Close to Agricultural Fields in the Netherlands:Protocol for an Observational Study

Background: Application of pesticides in the vicinity of homes has caused concern regarding possible health effects in residents living nearby. However, the high spatiotemporal variation of pesticide levels and lack of knowledge regarding the contribution of exposure routes greatly complicates exposure assessment approaches. Objective: The objective of this paper was to describe the study protocol of a large exposure survey in the Netherlands assessing pesticide exposure of residents living close ( Methods: We performed an observational study involving residents living in the vicinity of agricultural fields and residents living more than 500 m away from any agricultural fields (control subjects). Residential exposures were measured both during a pesticide use period after a specific application and during the nonuse period for 7 and 2 days, respectively. We collected environmental samples (outdoor and indoor air, dust, and garden and field soils) and personal samples (urine and hand wipes). We also collected data on spraying applications as well as on home characteristics, participants' demographics, and food habits via questionnaires and diaries. Environmental samples were analyzed for 46 prioritized pesticides. Urine samples were analyzed for biomarkers of a subset of 5 pesticides. Alongside the field study, and by taking spray events and environmental data into account, we developed a modeling framework to estimate environmental exposure of residents to pesticides. Results: Our study was conducted between 2016 and 2019. We assessed 96 homes and 192 participants, including 7 growers and 28 control subjects. We followed 14 pesticide applications, applying 20 active ingredients. We collected 4416 samples: 1018 air, 445 dust (224 vacuumed floor, 221 doormat), 265 soil (238 garden, 27 fields), 2485 urine, 112 hand wipes, and 91 tank mixtures. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study on residents' exposure to pesticides addressing all major nondietary exposure sources and routes (air, soil, dust). Our protocol provides insights on used sampling techniques, the wealth of data collected, developed methods, modeling framework, and lessons learned. Resources and data are open for future collaborations on this important topic

Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living Close to Agricultural Fields in the Netherlands: Protocol for an Observational Study

Contains fulltext : 233734.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Spatio-temporal variation of outdoor and indoor pesticide air concentrations in homes near agricultural fields

Background: Previous research has shown that many current-use pesticides can be detected in air around application areas. Environmental exposure to pesticides may cause adverse health effects, necessitating accurate assessment of outdoor and indoor air concentrations for people living close to spraying sites. We evaluated outdoor and indoor air concentrations of different pesticides, as well as factors influencing spatial and temporal variations. Methods: We collected outdoor air samples at 58 homes located within 250 m of bulb fields and 15 control homes located further than 500 m from any agricultural field. Outdoor air sampling following a pesticide spray event was performed 24-h a day for 7 consecutive days. Two full day samples were collected at the same locations during a non-use period. In homes located within 50 m from agricultural fields (N = 18), indoor air was also sampled for the first 24 h after field spraying. Samples were analysed for a total of 46 pesticides and degradation products. From these, 11 were actively used on nearby fields, 3 were used in bulb disinfection and 6 were degradation products. Results: Compared to non-use periods, pesticides concentrations were 5–10 times higher in outdoor air during application periods. Similar concentration differences were observed between exposed homes and controls both during pesticide use and non-use period. For 14 pesticides, there were moderate correlations (spearman > 0.4–0.7) between outdoor and indoor air concentrations. Wind direction, evapotranspiration and agricultural area surrounding a home were the most important determinants of air concentration of the applied pesticides. Conclusions: This study provides strong evidence suggesting that environmental exposure to pesticides via air is not limited to the day of application and may occur year-round. The concentrations appeared higher during the use period. Factors influencing the local fate of pesticides in air may differ significantly between compounds

Spatio-temporal variation of outdoor and indoor pesticide air concentrations in homes near agricultural fields

Background: Previous research has shown that many current-use pesticides can be detected in air around application areas. Environmental exposure to pesticides may cause adverse health effects, necessitating accurate assessment of outdoor and indoor air concentrations for people living close to spraying sites. We evaluated outdoor and indoor air concentrations of different pesticides, as well as factors influencing spatial and temporal variations. Methods: We collected outdoor air samples at 58 homes located within 250 m of bulb fields and 15 control homes located further than 500 m from any agricultural field. Outdoor air sampling following a pesticide spray event was performed 24-h a day for 7 consecutive days. Two full day samples were collected at the same locations during a non-use period. In homes located within 50 m from agricultural fields (N = 18), indoor air was also sampled for the first 24 h after field spraying. Samples were analysed for a total of 46 pesticides and degradation products. From these, 11 were actively used on nearby fields, 3 were used in bulb disinfection and 6 were degradation products. Results: Compared to non-use periods, pesticides concentrations were 5–10 times higher in outdoor air during application periods. Similar concentration differences were observed between exposed homes and controls both during pesticide use and non-use period. For 14 pesticides, there were moderate correlations (spearman > 0.4–0.7) between outdoor and indoor air concentrations. Wind direction, evapotranspiration and agricultural area surrounding a home were the most important determinants of air concentration of the applied pesticides. Conclusions: This study provides strong evidence suggesting that environmental exposure to pesticides via air is not limited to the day of application and may occur year-round. The concentrations appeared higher during the use period. Factors influencing the local fate of pesticides in air may differ significantly between compounds

OBOMod - Integrated modelling framework for residents' exposure to pesticides

BACKGROUND: Pesticides can be transported from the site of application to homes via different routes and lead to exposure of residents, raising concerns regarding health effects. We built a deterministic model framework (OBOmod) to assess exposure of residents living near fields where pesticides are applied. METHODS: OBOmod connects five independent models operating on an hourly timescale and high spatial resolution (meters). Models include descriptions of spray drift, volatilization, atmospheric transport and dispersion, exchange between outdoor and indoor air and exchange between indoor air and dust. Fourteen bulb field applications under different weather conditions and comprising 12 pesticides were simulated. Each simulation included the first seven days after the application. The concentrations computed with OBOmod were compared with those measured in outdoor and indoor air and the amounts measured in indoor dust samples. RESULTS: Model evaluation indicated suitability of the developed framework to estimate outdoor and indoor air concentrations. For most pesticides, model accuracy was good. The framework explained about 30% to 95% of the temporal and spatial variability of air concentrations. For 20% of the simulations, the framework explained more than 35% of spatial variability of concentrations in dust. In general, OBOmod estimates remained within one order of magnitude from measured levels. Calculations showed that in addition to spray drift during application, volatilization from the field after spraying and pesticides in house dust are important routes for residents' exposure to pesticides. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework covers many processes needed to calculate exposure of residents to pesticides. The evaluation phase shows that, with the exception of the dust model, the framework can be used in support of health and epidemiological studies, and can serve as a tool to support development of regulations and policy making regarding pesticide use

OBOMod - Integrated modelling framework for residents' exposure to pesticides

BACKGROUND: Pesticides can be transported from the site of application to homes via different routes and lead to exposure of residents, raising concerns regarding health effects. We built a deterministic model framework (OBOmod) to assess exposure of residents living near fields where pesticides are applied. METHODS: OBOmod connects five independent models operating on an hourly timescale and high spatial resolution (meters). Models include descriptions of spray drift, volatilization, atmospheric transport and dispersion, exchange between outdoor and indoor air and exchange between indoor air and dust. Fourteen bulb field applications under different weather conditions and comprising 12 pesticides were simulated. Each simulation included the first seven days after the application. The concentrations computed with OBOmod were compared with those measured in outdoor and indoor air and the amounts measured in indoor dust samples. RESULTS: Model evaluation indicated suitability of the developed framework to estimate outdoor and indoor air concentrations. For most pesticides, model accuracy was good. The framework explained about 30% to 95% of the temporal and spatial variability of air concentrations. For 20% of the simulations, the framework explained more than 35% of spatial variability of concentrations in dust. In general, OBOmod estimates remained within one order of magnitude from measured levels. Calculations showed that in addition to spray drift during application, volatilization from the field after spraying and pesticides in house dust are important routes for residents' exposure to pesticides. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework covers many processes needed to calculate exposure of residents to pesticides. The evaluation phase shows that, with the exception of the dust model, the framework can be used in support of health and epidemiological studies, and can serve as a tool to support development of regulations and policy making regarding pesticide use

Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living Close to Agricultural Fields in the Netherlands: Protocol for an Observational Study

Background: Application of pesticides in the vicinity of homes has caused concern regarding possible health effects in residents living nearby. However, the high spatiotemporal variation of pesticide levels and lack of knowledge regarding the contribution of exposure routes greatly complicates exposure assessment approaches. Objective: The objective of this paper was to describe the study protocol of a large exposure survey in the Netherlands assessing pesticide exposure of residents living close (<250 m) to agricultural fields; to better understand possible routes of exposure; to develop an integrative exposure model for residential exposure; and to describe lessons learned. Methods: We performed an observational study involving residents living in the vicinity of agricultural fields and residents living more than 500 m away from any agricultural fields (control subjects). Residential exposures were measured both during a pesticide use period after a specific application and during the nonuse period for 7 and 2 days, respectively. We collected environmental samples (outdoor and indoor air, dust, and garden and field soils) and personal samples (urine and hand wipes). We also collected data on spraying applications as well as on home characteristics, participants' demographics, and food habits via questionnaires and diaries. Environmental samples were analyzed for 46 prioritized pesticides. Urine samples were analyzed for biomarkers of a subset of 5 pesticides. Alongside the field study, and by taking spray events and environmental data into account, we developed a modeling framework to estimate environmental exposure of residents to pesticides. Results: Our study was conducted between 2016 and 2019. We assessed 96 homes and 192 participants, including 7 growers and 28 control subjects. We followed 14 pesticide applications, applying 20 active ingredients. We collected 4416 samples: 1018 air, 445 dust (224 vacuumed floor, 221 doormat), 265 soil (238 garden, 27 fields), 2485 urine, 112 hand wipes, and 91 tank mixtures. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study on residents' exposure to pesticides addressing all major nondietary exposure sources and routes (air, soil, dust). Our protocol provides insights on used sampling techniques, the wealth of data collected, developed methods, modeling framework, and lessons learned. Resources and data are open for future collaborations on this important topic