Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Direct dermal and inhalation exposure of bystanders and residents during vine foliar application using sprayer equipment fitted with an anti-drift device: a comparison between measured exposure levels and existing exposure models

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within the European Union (EU) regulatory framework, plant protection products (PPPs) must be evaluated according to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Bystander/resident exposures can be assessed using the current EU harmonised predictive EFSA model; however, the number of experimental data included in this model is rather limited. In the experimental study conducted, direct dermal and inhalation exposures of bystanders/residents caused by the spray drift during vine foliar application using sprayer equipment fitted with an anti-drift device were quantified. The exposure levels measured during the experimental exposure study were compared to those calculated using the BROWSE model, the former German model, and the EFSA model. The measured direct dermal exposure levels of bystanders/residents were found to be lower than the exposure levels calculated with the BROWSE model using the 95th percentiles [experimental study/BROWSE model (%): 3.9% and 2.1%, respectively for adults and children], and using the 75th percentiles (16% and 7.8%, respectively for adults and children), the German model using the 95th percentiles [experimental study/German model (%): 4.0% and 12%, respectively for adults and children], and much lower than those calculated with the EFSA model using the 95th percentiles [experimental study/EFSA model (%): 0.27% and 0.40% for adults and children, respectively] and using the 75th percentiles (0.51% and 0.62%, respectively for adults and children). Exposure levels via the inhalation route represented less than 1.7% of dermal exposures. The results of this experimental exposure study could be used to refine the bystander/resident exposure estimates provided by the EFSA model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BROWSE Project (2014) Bystanders, Residents, Operators and Workers Exposure models for plant protection products. EU 7th Framework Programme. https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/browse/software/. Accessed 3 June 2019

  • Butler Ellis MC, Miller PCH (2010) The Silsoe spray drift model: a model of spray drift for the assessment of non-target exposures to pesticides. Biosyst Eng 107:169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler Ellis MC, Lane AG, O’Sullivan CM, Miller PCH, Glass CR (2010) Bystander exposure to pesticide spray drift: new data for model development and validation. Biosyst Eng 107:162–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.05.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler Ellis MC, Lane AG, O’Sullivan CM, Alanis R, Harris A, Stallinga H, Van de Zande JC (2014) Bystander and resident exposure to spray drift from orchard applications: field measurements, including a comparison of spray drift collectors. Asp Appl Biol 122:187–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler Ellis MC, van de Zande JC, van den Berg F, Kennedy MC, O’Sullivan CM, Jacobs CM, Fragkoulis G, Spanoghe P, Gerritsen-Ebben R, Frewer LJ, Charistou A (2017) The BROWSE model for predicting exposures of residents and bystanders to agricultural use of plant protection products: an overview. Biosyst Eng 154:92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2014) Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment for plant protection products. EFSA J 12(10):3874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (2010) Scientific opinion on preparation of a guidance document on pesticide exposure assessment for workers, operators, bystanders and residents. EFSA J 8(2):1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganzelmeier H, Rautmann D, Spangenberg R, Streloke M, Herrmann M, Wenzelburger HJ, Walter HF (1995) Studies on the spray drift of plant protection products: results of a test program carried out throughout the Federal Republic of Germany. Blackwell, Berlin. ISSN 0067-5849. ISBN 3-8263-3039-0

  • Hoffmann WC, Fritz BK, Thornburg JW, Bagley WE, Birchfield NB, Ellenberger J (2010) Spray drift reduction evaluations of spray nozzles using a standardized testing protocol. ASTM Int 7(8):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI102820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasiotis KM, Glass CR, Tsakirakis AN, Machera K (2014) Spray drift reduction under Southern European conditions: a pilot study in the Ecopest Project in Greece. Sci Total Environ 479–480:132–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.088

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy MC, Butler Ellis MC (2017) Probabilistic modelling for bystander and resident exposure to pesticides using the Browse software. Biosyst Eng 154:105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy MC, Butler Ellis MC, Miller PCH (2012) BREAM: a probabilistic bystander and resident exposure assessment model of spray drift from an agricultural boom sprayer. Comput Electron Agric 88:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis KA, Tzilivakis J (2017) Review of the published exposure data to pesticides for residents and bystanders, and for environmental risk assessment: final report. EFSA supporting publication 2017. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1204. Accessed 19 Oct 2019

  • Lloyd GA, Bell GJ (1983) Hydraulic nozzles: comparative spray drift study. Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd GA, Bell GJ, Samuels SW, Cross JV, Berry AM (1987) Orchard sprayers: comparative operator exposure and spray drift study. Agricultural Science Service, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin S, Westphal D, Erdtmann-Vourliotis M, Dechet F, Schulze-Rosario C, Stauber F, Wicke H, Chester G (2008) Guidance for exposure and risk evaluation for bystanders and residents exposed to plant protection products during and after application. J Verbrauch Lebensm 3:272–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-008-0361-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews G, Hamey P (2003) Exposure of bystanders to pesticides. Pestic Outlook 14:210–212. https://doi.org/10.1039/B311469B

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Note de service DGAL/SDQSPV/2016-686 (2016) Inscription au Bulletin officiel du ministère de l’agriculture et de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt des moyens permettant de diminuer la dérive des produits visés à l’article L.253-1 du Code rural et de la pêche maritime pour les milieux aquatiques. https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/instruction-2016-686. Accessed 19 Oct 2019

  • OECD (1997) Guidance document for the conduct of studies of occupational exposure to pesticides during agricultural application. Environmental Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment No 9, OCDE/GD (97) 148. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ocde/gd(97)148&doclanguage=en. Accessed 19 Oct 2019

  • PROPULPPP (2019) Objectivation de l’exposition des populations aux pulvérisations de produits phytopharmaceutiques en Wallonie et des mesures de protection destinées à limiter cette exposition.http://www.cra.wallonie.be/fr/propulppp. Accessed 11 Jan 2020

  • Rautmann D, Streloke M, Winkler R (2001) New basic drift values in the authorisation procedure of pesticides. In: Workshop on Risk Assessment and Risk Mitigation Measures in the Context of Authorisation of Pesticides (WORMM). Mitt. Biol. Bundesanst. Land-Forstwirtsch. Berlin-Dahlem, Heft 381, Berlin. ISSN 0067-5849. ISBN 3-8263-3359-4

  • Ryberg MW, Rosenbaum RK, Mosqueron L, Fantke P (2018) Addressing bystander exposure to agricultural pesticides in life cycle impact assessment. Chemosphere 197:541–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.01.088

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van de Zande JC, Butler Ellis MC, Wenneker M, Walklate PJ, Kennedy MC (2014) Spray drift and bystander risk from fruit crop spraying. Asp Appl Biol 122:177–185

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank I. Thouvenin from HUMEXPO, acting as study director of the field study.

Funding

ANSES—French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety. Funding was provided by Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Regulated Products Assessment Department, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Maisons-Alfort, France

    Thierry Mercier

Authors
  1. Thierry Mercier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thierry Mercier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Disclaimer The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of ANSES.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 636 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mercier, T. Direct dermal and inhalation exposure of bystanders and residents during vine foliar application using sprayer equipment fitted with an anti-drift device: a comparison between measured exposure levels and existing exposure models. J Consum Prot Food Saf 15, 219–227 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-020-01274-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-020-01274-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation