ReviewEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2021
Assessing the Risks to Bats from Plant Protection Products: A Review of the Recent European Food Safety Authority Statement Regarding Toxicity and Exposure Routes.
Review in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicted Dermal and Dietary Exposure of Bats to Pesticides.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild birds and mammals that feed in agricultural habitats are potentially exposed to pesticides through various routes. Until recently, it has been implicitly assumed that the existing European Union risk assessment scheme for birds and mammals also covered bats (Chiroptera). However, recent publications raised concerns and, in 2019, a scientific statement was published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that concluded that bats were not adequately covered by the current risk assessment scheme. We review the evidence presented and assumptions made in the EFSA bat statement relating to toxicity, bioaccumulation, and exposure pathways (oral, dermal, and inhalation), in terms of their relevance for bats potentially foraging in agricultural areas in the European Union; we highlight where uncertainties remain and how these could be addressed. Based on our review, it is clear that there is still much uncertainty with regard to the appropriateness of the assumptions made in the EFSA bat statement. Significantly more information needs to be gathered to answer fundamental questions regarding bat behavior in agricultural landscapes, together with the relative sensitivity of bats to pesticide exposure. Given the current critical information gaps, it is recommended that quantitative risk assessments for bats not be performed for pesticides until more robust, reliable, and relevant data are available. The risk to bats can then be compared with that for birds and ground-dwelling mammals, to determine the protectiveness of the existing scheme and thus whether a bat scenario is indeed required and under what circumstances. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:2978-2989. © 2021 Cambridge Environmental Assessments, part of RSK ADAS Ltd. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.