Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17520053›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2007

Linkage of the California Pesticide Use Reporting Database with spatial land use data for exposure assessment.

John R Nuckols, Robert B Gunier, Philip Riggs, Ryan Miller, Peggy Reynolds, Mary H Ward

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

John R NuckolsDepartment of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1681, USA. junckols@colostate.edu
Robert B Gunier
Philip Riggs
Ryan Miller
Peggy Reynolds
Mary H Ward
Cancer Prevention Institute of California · USColorado State University · USAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Geographic-based exposure assessment of agricultural ch*R01CA092683 · NCI · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY-FORT COLLINS · PI NUCKOLS, JOHN R · 2001 to 2004
$949k
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL EXPOSURES AND CHILDHOOD CANCERR03CA083071 · NCI · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY-FORT COLLINS · PI NUCKOLS, JOHN R · 1999 to 2000
$71k
CHILDHOOD CANCER--ETIOLOGIC CLUES USING GISR01CA071745 · NCI · IMPACT ASSESSMENT, INC. · PI REYNOLDS, PEGGY · 1996 to 1999
–
STRUCTURE AND STABILIZATION OF THE BACTERIAL NUCLEOIDZ01DK036120 · NIDDK · DIABETES, DIGESTIVE, KIDNEY DISEASES · PI ZIMMERMAN, STEVEN C. · 1998 to 2005
–
Intramural NIH HHSNCI NIH HHS R01 CA092683NCI NIH HHS R01CA092683NCI NIH HHS R01CA71745NCI NIH HHS R03 CA83071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe State of California maintains a comprehensive Pesticide Use Reporting Database (CPUR). The California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) maps all crops in agricultural counties in California about once every 5 years.

objectiveWe integrated crop maps with CPUR to more accurately locate where pesticides are applied and evaluated the effects for exposure assessment.

methodsWe mapped 577 residences and used the CPUR and CDWR data to compute two exposure metrics based on putative pesticide use within a 500-m buffer. For the CPUR metric, we assigned pesticide exposure to the residence proportionally for all square-mile Sections that intersected the buffer. For the CDWR metric, we linked CPUR crop-specific pesticide use to crops mapped within the buffer and assigned pesticide exposure. We compared the metrics for six pesticides: simazine, trifluralin (herbicides), dicofol, propargite (insecticides), methyl bromide, and metam sodium (fumigants).

resultsFor all six pesticides we found good agreement (88-98%) as to whether the pesticide use was predicted. When we restricted the analysis to residences with reported pesticide use in Sections within 500 m, agreement was greatly reduced (35-58%). The CPUR metric estimates of pesticide use within 500 m were significantly higher than the CDWR metric for all six pesticides.

conclusionsOur findings may have important implications for exposure classification in epidemiologic studies of agricultural pesticide use using CPUR. There is a need to conduct environmental and biological measurements to ascertain which, if any, of these metrics best represent exposure.

Indexed as

Crops, AgriculturalDatabases, FactualDemographyEnvironmental ExposureAgricultureCaliforniaGeographic Information SystemsHumansPesticidesSensitivity and SpecificityPesticides

Identifiers

PMID17520053
PMCPMC1867967
OpenAlexW2076620551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.