Poquet Yannick, Bodin Laurent, Tchamitchian Marc, Fusellier Marion, Giroud Barbara, Lafay Florent, Buleté Audrey, Tchamitchian Sylvie, Cousin Marianne, Pélissier Michel, Brunet Jean-Luc, Belzunces Luc P
INRA, Laboratoire de Toxicologie Environnementale, UR 406 A&E, CS 40509, 84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France.
ANSES, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety, 27-31 Avenue du Général Leclerc, 94701 Maisons-Alfort, France.
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 20;9(11):e113728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113728. eCollection 2014.
Plant protection spray treatments may expose non-target organisms to pesticides. In the pesticide registration procedure, the honey bee represents one of the non-target model species for which the risk posed by pesticides must be assessed on the basis of the hazard quotient (HQ). The HQ is defined as the ratio between environmental exposure and toxicity. For the honey bee, the HQ calculation is not consistent because it corresponds to the ratio between the pesticide field rate (in mass of pesticide/ha) and LD50 (in mass of pesticide/bee). Thus, in contrast to all other species, the HQ can only be interpreted empirically because it corresponds to a number of bees/ha. This type of HQ calculation is due to the difficulty in transforming pesticide field rates into doses to which bees are exposed. In this study, we used a pragmatic approach to determine the apparent exposure surface area of honey bees submitted to pesticide treatments by spraying with a Potter-type tower. The doses received by the bees were quantified by very efficient chemical analyses, which enabled us to determine an apparent surface area of 1.05 cm(2)/bee. The apparent surface area was used to calculate the exposure levels of bees submitted to pesticide sprays and then to revisit the HQ ratios with a calculation mode similar to that used for all other living species. X-tomography was used to assess the physical surface area of a bee, which was 3.27 cm(2)/bee, and showed that the apparent exposure surface was not overestimated. The control experiments showed that the toxicity induced by doses calculated with the exposure surface area was similar to that induced by treatments according to the European testing procedure. This new approach to measure risk is more accurate and could become a tool to aid the decision-making process in the risk assessment of pesticides.
植物保护喷雾处理可能会使非目标生物接触到农药。在农药登记程序中,蜜蜂是一种非目标模式生物,必须根据危害商数(HQ)评估农药对其造成的风险。危害商数定义为环境暴露量与毒性的比值。对于蜜蜂来说,危害商数的计算并不一致,因为它对应于农药田间施用量(单位为农药质量/公顷)与半数致死剂量(单位为农药质量/只蜜蜂)的比值。因此,与所有其他物种不同,危害商数只能凭经验解释,因为它对应于每公顷的蜜蜂数量。这种危害商数的计算方式是由于难以将农药田间施用量转化为蜜蜂接触到的剂量。在本研究中,我们采用了一种实用的方法来确定通过波特式喷雾塔喷洒农药处理的蜜蜂的表观暴露表面积。通过非常高效的化学分析对蜜蜂所接受的剂量进行了量化,这使我们能够确定每只蜜蜂的表观表面积为1.05平方厘米。该表观表面积用于计算接受农药喷雾处理的蜜蜂的暴露水平,然后以与所有其他生物物种类似的计算模式重新审视危害商数比率。利用X射线断层扫描技术评估了蜜蜂的物理表面积,为每只蜜蜂3.27平方厘米,结果表明表观暴露表面积并未被高估。对照实验表明,根据暴露表面积计算的剂量所诱导的毒性与按照欧洲测试程序进行处理所诱导的毒性相似。这种新的风险测量方法更为准确,可能会成为农药风险评估决策过程中的一种辅助工具。