A two years field experiment to assess the impact of two fungicides on earthworm communities and their recovery

International audienceRecent EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) reports highlighted that the ecological risk assessment of pesticides needed to go further by taking more into account the impacts of chemicals on biodiversity under field conditions. We assessed the effects of two commercial formulations of fungicides separately and in mixture, i.e., Cuprafor Micro® (containing 500 g kg−1 copper oxychloride) at 4 (C1, corresponding to 3.1 mg kg−1 dry soil of copper) and 40 kg ha−1 (C10), and Swing® Gold (50 g L−1 epoxiconazole EPX and 133 g L−1 dimoxystrobin DMX) at one (D1, 5.81 10−2 and 1.55 10−1 mg kg−1 dry soil of EPX and DMX, respectively) and ten times (D10) the recommended field rate, on earthworms at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after the application following the international ISO standard no. 11268-3 to determine the effects on earthworms in field situations. The D10 treatment significantly reduced the species diversity (Shannon diversity index, 54% of the control), anecic abundance (29% of the control), and total biomass (49% of the control) over the first 18 months of experiment. The Shannon diversity index also decreased in the mixture treatment (both fungicides at the recommended dose) at 1 and 6 months after the first application (68% of the control at both sampling dates), and in C10 (78% of the control) at 18 months compared with the control. Lumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea caliginosa, Aporrectodea giardi, Aporrectodea longa, and Allolobophora chlorotica were (in decreasing order) the most sensitive species to the tested fungicides. This study not only addressed field ecotoxicological effects of fungicides at the community level and ecological recovery, but it also pinpointed some methodological weaknesses (e.g., regarding fungicide concentrations in soil and statistics) of the guideline to determine the effects on earthworms in field situations

Évaluation du risque chimique en santé-travail et en santé-environnement : objectifs et méthodes

International audienceChemical risk assessment is a tool used in decision-making processes concerning situations of scientific uncertainty. Approaches to risk assessment in occupational and environmental health share the same objective of risk prevention. Nevertheless, the methods for both differ depending on whether the goal is to enforce regulations or conduct expert assessments and studies. These differences are stronger in occupational health, for which regulations require risk assessments at the work station, to classify and prioritize exposure situations to implement occupational risk prevention strategies. Risk assessment thus has somewhat different meanings in occupational and environmental health. This article attempts to clarify the different terms used in the different contexts and to describe the similarities and differences of the two approaches.L’évaluation des risques liés aux substances chimiques est un outil d’aide à la décision utilisé en situation d’incertitude scientifique. Les démarches d’évaluation des risques sanitaires en santé au travail et en santé environnementale répondent à un objectif commun de prévention des risques. Les méthodes mises en œuvre sont différentes en fonction des contextes : application de la réglementation ou expertises et études. C’est en particulier le cas de l’évaluation du risque au poste de travail, imposée par le code du travail, qui est avant tout définie comme un moyen de classer et hiérarchiser des situations d’exposition pour mettre en œuvre des moyens d’action proportionnés. Ainsi, « évaluer les risques » renvoie à une représentation souvent différente d’un domaine à l’autre. Cet article propose de clarifier les termes employés en les replaçant dans leur contexte et décrit les similarités et les différences existant entre les approches en santé-travail et santé-environnement

Evaluation of different parameterizations of temperature dependences of the line-shape parameters based on ab initio calculations: Case study for the HITRAN database

International audienceTemperature dependences of molecular line-shape parameters are important for the spectroscopic studies of the atmospheres of the Earth and other planets. A number of analytical functions have been proposed as candidates that may approximate the actual temperature dependences of the line-shape parameters. In this article, we use our ab initio collisional line-shape calculations for several molecular systems to compare the four temperature ranges (4TR) representation, adopted in the HITRAN database [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 2017;203:3] in 2016, with the double-power-law (DPL) representation. Besides the collisional broadening and shift parameters, we consider also the most important line-shape parameters beyond Voigt, i.e., the speed dependence of broadening and shift parameters, and real and imaginary parts of the complex Dicke parameter. We demonstrate that DPL gives better overall approximation of the temperature dependencies than 4TR. It should be emphasized that DPL requires fewer parameters and its structure is much simpler and more self-consistent than the structure of 4TR. We recommend the usage of DPL representation in HITRAN, and present DPL parametrization for Voigt and beyond-Voigt line profiles that will be adopted in the HITRAN database. We also discuss the problem of the Hartmann-Tran profile parametrization in which the correlation parameter, η, and frequency of the velocity-changing collisions parameter, ν vc , diverges to infinity when collisional shift crosses zero; we recommend a simple solution for this problem

Toward a harmonized methodology to analyze field side effects of two pesticide products on earthworms at the EU level

International audienceBefore plant protection product (PPP) marketing authorization, a risk assessment for nontarget soil organisms (e.g., earthworms) is required as part of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. Following a stepwise approach, higher tier earthworm field studies are needed if they cannot demonstrate low long-term risk based on laboratory studies. The European guidance for terrestrial ecotoxicology refers to ISO guideline 11268-3 as a standard to conduct earthworm field studies. Assessment of such studies may be challenging, as no European harmonized guidance is available to properly analyze the accuracy, representativeness, and appropriateness of experimental designs, as well as the statistical analysis robustness of results and their scientific reliability. Following the ISO guideline 11268-3, a field study was performed in 2016-2017 (Versailles, France). An assessment of the first year of this field study was performed in agreement with the quality criteria provided in 2006 in the guidance document published by de Jong and collaborators and recommendations by Kula and collaborators that allows describing the protocol and results of earthworm field studies. Not only did we underline the importance of a detailed analysis of raw data on the effects of pesticides on earthworms in field situations, but we also provided recommendations to harmonize protocols for assessing higher tier field studies devoted to earthworms to advance a better assessment of PPP fate and ecotoxicity. In particular, we provided practical field observations related to the study design, pesticide applications, and earthworm sampling. Concurrently, in addition to the conventional earthworm community study, we propose carrying out an assessment of soil function (i.e., organic matter decomposition, soil structuration, etc.) and calculating diversity indices to obtain information about earthworm community dynamics after the application of PPPs. Finally, through field observations, any relevant observation of external and/or internal recovery should be reported. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;00:1-18. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

Valeurs limites d'exposition professionnelles (VLEP),valeurs toxicologiques de référence (VTR) :objectifs et méthodes

International audienceFrench toxicological reference values (VTR) and French occupational exposure limit values (VLEP) are indicators that are widely used in risk assessment for, respectively, human and occupational health. Neither value can replace the other. However, the information obtained for one can be very useful for the other. We propose to clarify the fundamental differences and similarities between these two values. To achieve this, we review first their history and then the methods used to derive them; we conclude by proposing some improvements to harmonize them. A case study of formaldehyde illustrates our analysis.Les valeurs limites d'exposition professionnelle et les valeurs toxicologiques de référence sont des indicateurs très utilisés dans les évaluations du risque sanitaire et professionnel, respectivement. Si ces deux valeurs ne sont pas substituables l'une à l'autre, elles sont, dans certains cas, susceptibles de s'enrichir l'une l'autre. Nous proposons d'expliciter les différences fondamentales mais aussi les points de convergence entre ces deux valeurs. Pour cela, nous nous sommes plongés dans leur historique,dans la méthodologie de leur élaboration, pour, dans un deuxième temps proposer quelques pistes d'harmonisation. Nous illustrons notre analyse par un cas d'étude consacré au formaldéhyd