Person: Hönemann, Linda
Lade...
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Berufsbeschreibung
Nachname
Hönemann
Vorname
Linda
Name
2 Ergebnisse
Suchergebnisse
Gerade angezeigt 1 - 2 von 2
Veröffentlichung A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products(2023) Brendel, Stephan; Duquesne, Sabine; Hönemann, Linda; Konschak, Marco; Pieper, Silvia; Solé, Magali; Wogram, JörnBackground The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve-EbC50), increase in biomass (yield- EyC50) or growth rate (ErC50) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint (ErC50) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on ErC50. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. © The Author(s) 2023Veröffentlichung The auxin herbicide mecoprop-P in new light: Filling the data gap for dicotyledonous macrophytes(2021) Feibicke, Michael; Gergs, René; Sahm, René; Hönemann, Linda; Kusebauch, Björn; Mohr, Silvia; Périllon, CécileMecoprop-P (MCPP-P) is an auxin herbicide which has been used against dicotyledonous weed plants since the 1980s. While fate and monitoring data of MCPP-P in the aquatic environment revealing concentrations up to 103 ÎÌg/L in freshwaters are well documented, only very few toxicity data and no studies with dicotyledonous macrophytes have been published in open literature so far. To fill up this essential data gap, a microcosm study was conducted in order to test the sensitivity of nine dicotyledonous and one Ceratophyllales macrophyte species. The plant species were exposed to seven MCPP-P concentrations ranging from 8 to 512 (micro)g/L for 21/22 days in one microcosm per concentration, and two further microcosms served as controls. Plant preparation was adapted to each species and endpoints were measured to calculate growth rates. Data were generated to obtain effect concentrations (ECX) which then were used to construct species sensitivity distribution curves (SSD). Eight species proved to be sensitive to MCPP-P in the tested concentration range with EC50 values ranging from 46.9 (micro)g/L for Ranunculus aquatilis to 656.4 (micro)g/L MCPP-P for Ludwigia repens. Taking the EC50 values of this study and published data for autotrophic organisms into account, a hazard concentration (HC5) of 2.7 (micro)g/L was derived from the SSD curve, while an SSD curve without dicotyledonous macrophytes resulted in an about 100 times higher HC5 (360.8 (micro)g/L MCCP-P). This confirms that a re-evaluation for old auxin herbicides by including dicotyledonous test species into the environmental risk assessment may be indicated. Furthermore, the use of MCPP-P in bitumen felts as protection against rooting by plants is not in the focus of any risk regulation so far. This application, however, can lead to high run-off concentrations that can enter surface waters easily, exceeding the new regulatory acceptable concentration values. © 2021 The Authors