Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33908892›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2021

Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living Close to Agricultural Fields in the Netherlands: Protocol for an Observational Study.

Daniel M Figueiredo, Esmeralda J M Krop, Jan Duyzer, Rianda M Gerritsen-Ebben, Yvonne M Gooijer, Henk J Holterman, Anke Huss, Cor M J Jacobs, Carla M Kivits, Roel Kruijne and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living in Wine Regions: Protocol and First Results of the Pestiprev Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

18 authors.

Daniel M FigueiredoInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6080-0956
Esmeralda J M KropInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6009-1181
Jan DuyzerTNO Urban Environment and Safety, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8608-3649
Rianda M Gerritsen-EbbenTNO Urban Environment and Safety, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3095-0803
Yvonne M GooijerCLM Onderzoek en Advies BV, Culemborg, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4153-9526
Henk J HoltermanWageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5874-3606
Anke HussInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9268-1867
Cor M J JacobsWageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4079-9067
Carla M KivitsSchuttelaar & Partners, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5956-3743
Roel KruijneWageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1518-416X
Hans J G J MolWageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0087-6910
Arné OerlemansDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2043-4538
Pieter J J SauerDepartment of Pediatrics, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8204-049X
Paul T J ScheepersDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8546-2161
Jan C van de ZandeWageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8763-4660
Erik van den BergWageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7990-1324
Marcel WennekerWageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7968-9610
Roel C H VermeulenInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4082-8163

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApplication of pesticides in the vicinity of homes has caused concern regarding possible health effects in residents living nearby. However, the high spatiotemporal variation of pesticide levels and lack of knowledge regarding the contribution of exposure routes greatly complicates exposure assessment approaches.

objectiveThe objective of this paper was to describe the study protocol of a large exposure survey in the Netherlands assessing pesticide exposure of residents living close (<250 m) to agricultural fields; to better understand possible routes of exposure; to develop an integrative exposure model for residential exposure; and to describe lessons learned.

methodsWe performed an observational study involving residents living in the vicinity of agricultural fields and residents living more than 500 m away from any agricultural fields (control subjects). Residential exposures were measured both during a pesticide use period after a specific application and during the nonuse period for 7 and 2 days, respectively. We collected environmental samples (outdoor and indoor air, dust, and garden and field soils) and personal samples (urine and hand wipes). We also collected data on spraying applications as well as on home characteristics, participants' demographics, and food habits via questionnaires and diaries. Environmental samples were analyzed for 46 prioritized pesticides. Urine samples were analyzed for biomarkers of a subset of 5 pesticides. Alongside the field study, and by taking spray events and environmental data into account, we developed a modeling framework to estimate environmental exposure of residents to pesticides.

resultsOur study was conducted between 2016 and 2019. We assessed 96 homes and 192 participants, including 7 growers and 28 control subjects. We followed 14 pesticide applications, applying 20 active ingredients. We collected 4416 samples: 1018 air, 445 dust (224 vacuumed floor, 221 doormat), 265 soil (238 garden, 27 fields), 2485 urine, 112 hand wipes, and 91 tank mixtures.

conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study on residents' exposure to pesticides addressing all major nondietary exposure sources and routes (air, soil, dust). Our protocol provides insights on used sampling techniques, the wealth of data collected, developed methods, modeling framework, and lessons learned. Resources and data are open for future collaborations on this important topic. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/27883.

Indexed as

agriculturebiomonitoringenvironmental samplesmodelingpesticide exposure assessmentpesticidesresidents

Identifiers

PMID33908892
PMCPMC8116989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.