Effect of surfactant application practices on the vertical transport potential of hydrophobic pesticides in agrosystems

Surfactants have the potential to modify the environmental behavior of hydrophobic pesticides leading to an enhanced or reduced mobility risk. This risk is often overlooked in registration procedures due to a lack of suitable methodologies to quantify the transport potential of pesticides with surfactants. In this study we present a novel methodology designed to study the surfactant facilitated transport of pesticides under controlled equilibrium and dynamic hydrologic conditions. Using this methodology, we investigated the risk of chlorpyrifos enhanced mobility for two common surfactant application practices in agrosystems: pesticide spraying and irrigation with waste water. With the dynamic experiments we showed that a single irrigation event with artificial reclaimed water containing the nonionic surfactant Triton X100 at a concentration of 15 mg/L reduced the leaching of chlorpyrifos by 20% while the presence of the same surfactant in the chlopyrifos spraying formulation reduced the leaching amount by 60%. However, in the first case 90% of the chlropyrifos fraction remaining in soil was retained in the upper 3 cm while in the second cas, 72% was transported to the bottom layers. The presence of Triton X100 in irrigation water or spraying formulation retards the leaching of chlorpyrifos but enhances its downward transport

Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme identifies chemicals, drugs, mixtures, occupational exposures, lifestyles and personal habits, and physical and biological agents that cause cancer in humans and has evaluated about 1000 agents since 1971. Monographs are written by ad hoc Working Groups (WGs) of international scientific experts over a period of about 12 months ending in an eight-day meeting. The WG evaluates all of the publicly available scientific information on each substance and, through a transparent and rigorous process,1 decides on the degree to which the scientific evidence supports that substance's potential to cause or not cause cancer in humans. For Monograph 112,2 17 expert scientists evaluated the carcinogenic hazard for four insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate.3 The WG concluded that the data for glyphosate meet the criteria for classification as a probable human carcinogen. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the primary agency of the European Union for risk assessments regarding food safety. In October 2015, EFSA reported4 on their evaluation of the Renewal Assessment Report5 (RAR) for glyphosate that was prepared by the Rapporteur Member State, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). EFSA concluded that ?glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential?. Addendum 1 (the BfR Addendum) of the RAR5 discusses the scientific rationale for differing from the IARC WG conclusion. Serious flaws in the scientific evaluation in the RAR incorrectly characterise the potential for a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to glyphosate. Since the RAR is the basis for the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) conclusion,4 it is critical that these shortcomings are corrected