Popendorf W
University of Iowa, Institute of Agricultural Medicine and Occupational Health, Iowa City 52242.
Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 1992;128:71-117.
A review of the reported foliar residue data has revealed a number of deficiencies in the reentry intervals currently regulated, in particular, by the EPA and some by California. Deficiencies were also identified in the available information necessary to recommend better reentry intervals. Information regarding the frequency of exposure for individual or groups of harvesters is the most fundamental deficiency. It is needed to define a more realistic chronic criterion of allowable daily cholinesterase inhibition without cumulative symptoms. The second criterion of preventing acute overexposure is more readily defined. For the purposes of this study, the criteria of 4% mean daily inhibition and 50% acute inhibition were chosen as acceptable. Based on these criteria, the available data, and by using the unified field model assessment as the basis for comparison (Table 9), EPA reentry intervals for nine insecticides in Table 4 appear inadequate (i.e., not within the range of the model recommendations); 10 are adequate; and only one appears excessive as summarized in Table 10. A similar comparison of California's reentry intervals indicates only two may be inadequate or marginal; 13 are adequate; and five may be excessive. Although these conclusions are based on a considerable amount of residue data, the data are not equally distributed among all pesticides nor has the model been confirmed in all the cropping and harvest conditions examined. However, the model has been developed under realistic field tests, most of its premises have been confirmed in a limited number of tests, and its simulated predictions appear to parallel experience in California where pesticide use and decay conditions may have been most severe but recently well scrutinized. The model's recommendations largely substantiate the regulations developed in California. However, its conclusions definitely suggest that improved levels of protection are needed in other regions. Future reentry intervals will require more comprehensive residue data. The toxicities of detectable metabolites for a few insecticides will need to be determined. More crop residue dosing coefficients are also needed for manually harvested crops. These data must be interpreted in terms of the potential both for acute poisoning from variable residues and for chronic poisoning from repeated exposure to more consistent residues. Surveys of the temporal exposure patterns of harvesters or crews of harvesters are vital to assess the cumulative effects and set the most appropriate chronic cholinesterase response limits. While we await further data, there is sufficient information now to justify longer reentry intervals to protect harvesters nationally.
对已报告的叶面残留数据进行审查后发现，目前由美国环境保护局（EPA）以及加利福尼亚州部分规定的再进入间隔存在一些不足之处。在推荐更好的再进入间隔所需的现有信息中也发现了不足。关于个体或收割工人群体接触频率的信息是最基本的不足。需要此信息来定义一个更现实的允许每日胆碱酯酶抑制的慢性标准，且无累积症状。预防急性过度接触的第二个标准更容易定义。在本研究中，选择平均每日抑制4%和急性抑制50%的标准作为可接受标准。基于这些标准、现有数据，并以统一田间模型评估作为比较基础（表9），表4中九种杀虫剂的EPA再进入间隔似乎不足（即不在模型建议范围内）；10种是足够的；如表10总结所示，只有一种似乎过长。对加利福尼亚州再进入间隔的类似比较表明，只有两种可能不足或处于临界状态；13种是足够的；5种可能过长。尽管这些结论基于大量残留数据，但数据在所有农药中分布不均，且该模型也未在所有检查的种植和收获条件下得到验证。然而，该模型是在实际田间试验中开发的，其大部分前提在有限数量的试验中得到了证实，并且其模拟预测似乎与加利福尼亚州的经验相符，在该州农药使用和降解条件可能最为严峻，但最近得到了充分审查。该模型的建议在很大程度上证实了加利福尼亚州制定的法规。然而，其结论明确表明其他地区需要提高保护水平。未来的再进入间隔将需要更全面的残留数据。需要确定一些杀虫剂可检测代谢物的毒性。对于人工收获的作物，还需要更多的作物残留剂量系数。这些数据必须根据可变残留导致急性中毒的可能性以及反复接触更一致残留导致慢性中毒的可能性来解释。对收割工或收割工团队的时间接触模式进行调查对于评估累积影响并设定最合适的慢性胆碱酯酶反应限值至关重要。在我们等待进一步数据的同时，现在有足够的信息来证明延长再进入间隔以在全国范围内保护收割工是合理的。
