2
|
Démares FJ, Schmehl D, Bloomquist JR, Cabrera AR, Huang ZY, Lau P, Rangel J, Sullivan J, Xie X, Ellis JD. Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Exposure to Pesticide Residues in Nectar and Pollen in Urban and Suburban Environments from Four Regions of the United States. ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY 2022; 41:991-1003. [PMID: 35262221 DOI: 10.1002/etc.5298] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2021] [Revised: 02/17/2021] [Accepted: 01/19/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
The risk of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) exposure to pesticide residues while foraging for nectar and pollen is commonly explored in the context of agroecosystems. However, pesticides are also used in urban and suburban areas for vegetation management, vector control, and the management of ornamental plants in public and private landscapes. The extent to which pesticides pose a health risk to honey bees in these settings remains unclear. We addressed this at a landscape scale by conducting pesticide residue screening analyses on 768 nectar and 862 pollen samples collected monthly over 2 years from honey bee colonies located in urban and suburban areas in eight medium to large cities in California, Florida, Michigan, and Texas (USA). A risk assessment was performed using the US Environmental Protection Agency's BeeREX model whenever an oral toxicity value was available for a compound. Chemical analyses detected 17 pesticides in nectar and 60 in pollen samples during the survey. Approximately 73% of all samples contained no detectable pesticide residues. Although the number of detections varied among the sampled regions, fewer pesticides were detected in nectar than in pollen. Per BeeREX, four insecticides showed a potential acute risk to honey bees: imidacloprid, chlorpyrifos, and esfenvalerate in nectar, and deltamethrin in nectar and pollen. In general, exposure of honey bees to pesticides via nectar and pollen collection was low in urban and suburban areas across the United States, and no seasonal or spatial trends were evident. Our data suggest that honey bees are exposed to fewer pesticides in developed areas than in agricultural ones. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:991-1003. © 2022 SETAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fabien J Démares
- Entomology and Nematology Department, Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
- Centre d'Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive, Université de Montpellier, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Montpellier, France
| | - Daniel Schmehl
- Bayer CropScience, Chesterfield, Missouri, USA
- Honey Bee Research and Extension Laboratory, Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Jeffrey R Bloomquist
- Entomology and Nematology Department, Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | | | - Zachary Y Huang
- Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
| | - Pierre Lau
- Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
- US Department of Agriculture, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA
| | - Juliana Rangel
- Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| | | | - Xianbing Xie
- Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
- Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
| | - James D Ellis
- Honey Bee Research and Extension Laboratory, Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Critical assessment and integration of separate lines of evidence for risk assessment of chemical mixtures. Arch Toxicol 2019; 93:2741-2757. [PMID: 31520250 DOI: 10.1007/s00204-019-02547-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2019] [Accepted: 08/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Humans are exposed to multiple chemicals on a daily basis instead of to just a single chemical, yet the majority of existing toxicity data comes from single-chemical exposure. Multiple factors must be considered such as the route, concentration, duration, and the timing of exposure when determining toxicity to the organism. The need for adequate model systems (in vivo, in vitro, in silico and mathematical) is paramount for better understanding of chemical mixture toxicity. Currently, shortcomings plague each model system as investigators struggle to find the appropriate balance of rigor, reproducibility and appropriateness in mixture toxicity studies. Significant questions exist when comparing single-to mixture-chemical toxicity concerning additivity, synergism, potentiation, or antagonism. Dose/concentration relevance is a major consideration and should be subthreshold for better accuracy in toxicity assessment. Previous work was limited by the technology and methodology of the time, but recent advances have resulted in significant progress in the study of mixture toxicology. Novel technologies have added insight to data obtained from in vivo studies for predictive toxicity testing. These include new in vitro models: omics-related tools, organs-on-a-chip and 3D cell culture, and in silico methods. Taken together, all these modern methodologies improve the understanding of the multiple toxicity pathways associated with adverse outcomes (e.g., adverse outcome pathways), thus allowing investigators to better predict risks linked to exposure to chemical mixtures. As technology and knowledge advance, our ability to harness and integrate separate streams of evidence regarding outcomes associated with chemical mixture exposure improves. As many national and international organizations are currently stressing, studies on chemical mixture toxicity are of primary importance.
Collapse
|
4
|
More SJ, Bampidis V, Benford D, Bennekou SH, Bragard C, Halldorsson TI, Hernández-Jerez AF, Koutsoumanis K, Naegeli H, Schlatter JR, Silano V, Nielsen SS, Schrenk D, Turck D, Younes M, Benfenati E, Castle L, Cedergreen N, Hardy A, Laskowski R, Leblanc JC, Kortenkamp A, Ragas A, Posthuma L, Svendsen C, Solecki R, Testai E, Dujardin B, Kass GE, Manini P, Jeddi MZ, Dorne JLC, Hogstrand C. Guidance on harmonised methodologies for human health, animal health and ecological risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. EFSA J 2019; 17:e05634. [PMID: 32626259 PMCID: PMC7009070 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 159] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component‐based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component‐based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1589/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1602/full
Collapse
|