Cambridge Environmental Assessments, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
BASF, Limburgerhof, Germany.
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2022 Oct;41(10):2595-2602. doi: 10.1002/etc.5438. Epub 2022 Aug 24.
Wild birds and mammals that feed in agricultural habitats are potentially exposed to pesticides through various routes. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently published a statement which concluded that the current EFSA risk assessment scheme for birds and mammals does not adequately cover bats (Chiroptera). In the present study, we take a more detailed look at the EFSA statement and assumptions made regarding direct (dermal) and indirect (dietary) exposure of bats to pesticides in terms of their realism and the potential implications for risk assessment outcomes. Regarding dietary exposure, errors in the residue per unit dose (RUD) values for flying insects (bat food), proposed in the EFSA bat statement, were identified and corrected. Lower RUD values based on a much broader data base are proposed. Using these more realistic RUD values, together with current assumptions regarding toxicity and exposure, the acute and long-term risk to bats appears to be within the range of those calculated for birds and ground-dwelling mammals under the current risk assessment scheme. Depending on the assumptions made, some uncertainties may remain and should be investigated further. According to the EFSA bat statement, dermal exposure of bats is the most significant route of exposure, resulting in the highest predicted daily doses. We demonstrated that the dermal exposure models in the EFSA bat statement predict much higher residues for bats than those measured for other flying organisms that have larger surface area to volume ratios, and thus would be expected to have the reverse relationship. We also illustrated that the amounts of spray liquid required to achieve the predicted dermal exposures of bats are implausibly high, with bats carrying an amount of spray liquid that exceeds their body weight many fold. It is recommended that a bat risk assessment framework should be based on realistic, sound science, allowing resources to be focused on those scenarios that are not already covered by the existing bird and mammal framework. Therefore, a quantitative risk assessment scheme should not be implemented until the many scientific uncertainties within the EFSA bat statement are addressed. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2595-2602. © 2022 Cambridge Environmental Assessments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.
野生鸟类和哺乳动物在农业栖息地觅食时，可能会通过多种途径接触到农药。欧洲食品安全局（EFSA）最近发表声明称，目前的鸟类和哺乳动物 EFSA 风险评估方案不能充分涵盖蝙蝠（翼手目）。在本研究中，我们更详细地研究了 EFSA 的声明以及关于蝙蝠直接（皮肤）和间接（饮食）接触农药的假设，分析了这些假设的现实性以及它们对风险评估结果的潜在影响。关于饮食接触，EFSA 蝙蝠声明中提出的飞行昆虫（蝙蝠食物）的单位剂量残留（RUD）值存在错误，并对此进行了纠正。提出了基于更广泛数据库的更低 RUD 值。使用这些更现实的 RUD 值，以及当前关于毒性和接触的假设，蝙蝠的急性和长期风险似乎在当前风险评估方案中计算的鸟类和地面哺乳动物的风险范围内。根据所作的假设，一些不确定性仍然存在，需要进一步调查。根据 EFSA 蝙蝠声明，蝙蝠的皮肤接触是最主要的暴露途径，导致预测的每日最高剂量。我们证明，EFSA 蝙蝠声明中的皮肤暴露模型预测的蝙蝠残留量远高于其他具有更大表面积与体积比的飞行生物的测量值，因此，预计两者之间的关系应该相反。我们还说明了达到蝙蝠皮肤暴露预测值所需的喷雾液量高得令人难以置信，蝙蝠携带的喷雾液量超过其体重的许多倍。建议基于现实、合理的科学制定蝙蝠风险评估框架，使资源集中在现有鸟类和哺乳动物框架尚未涵盖的那些情况上。因此，在解决 EFSA 蝙蝠声明中的许多科学不确定性之前，不应实施定量风险评估方案。Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2595-2602. © 2022 剑桥环境评估公司。由 Wiley Periodicals LLC 代表 SETAC 出版的《环境毒理学与化学》。
