Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35703133›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2023

Toward a harmonized methodology to analyze field side effects of two pesticide products on earthworms at the EU level.

Franck Brulle, Joël Amossé, Sylvain Bart, Arnaud Conrad, Vanessa Mazerolles, Sylvie Nélieu, Isabelle Lamy, Alexandre Péry, Céline Pelosi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Franck BrulleEcotoxicological and Environmental Fate Unit for Pesticides and Fertilisers, Regulated Products Assessment Department, ANSES, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Joël AmosséUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR ECOSYS, Versailles, France.
Sylvain BartUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR ECOSYS, Versailles, France.
Arnaud ConradEcotoxicological and Environmental Fate Unit for Pesticides and Fertilisers, Regulated Products Assessment Department, ANSES, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Vanessa MazerollesEcotoxicological and Environmental Fate Unit for Pesticides and Fertilisers, Regulated Products Assessment Department, ANSES, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Sylvie NélieuUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR ECOSYS, Versailles, France.
Isabelle LamyUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR ECOSYS, Versailles, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6592-0153
Alexandre PéryUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR ECOSYS, Versailles, France.
Céline PelosiUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR ECOSYS, Versailles, France.
ParisTech · FRAgence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail · FRAgroParisTech · FR

Funding

Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l'Alimentation, de l'Environnement et du Travail CRD- 2015-23_PPV15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Before plant protection product (PPP) marketing authorization, a risk assessment for nontarget soil organisms (e.g., earthworms) is required as part of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. Following a stepwise approach, higher tier earthworm field studies are needed if they cannot demonstrate low long-term risk based on laboratory studies. The European guidance for terrestrial ecotoxicology refers to ISO guideline 11268-3 as a standard to conduct earthworm field studies. Assessment of such studies may be challenging, as no European harmonized guidance is available to properly analyze the accuracy, representativeness, and appropriateness of experimental designs, as well as the statistical analysis robustness of results and their scientific reliability. Following the ISO guideline 11268-3, a field study was performed in 2016-2017 (Versailles, France). An assessment of the first year of this field study was performed in agreement with the quality criteria provided in 2006 in the guidance document published by de Jong and collaborators and recommendations by Kula and collaborators that allows describing the protocol and results of earthworm field studies. Not only did we underline the importance of a detailed analysis of raw data on the effects of pesticides on earthworms in field situations, but we also provided recommendations to harmonize protocols for assessing higher tier field studies devoted to earthworms to advance a better assessment of PPP fate and ecotoxicity. In particular, we provided practical field observations related to the study design, pesticide applications, and earthworm sampling. Concurrently, in addition to the conventional earthworm community study, we propose carrying out an assessment of soil function (i.e., organic matter decomposition, soil structuration, etc.) and calculating diversity indices to obtain information about earthworm community dynamics after the application of PPPs. Finally, through field observations, any relevant observation of external and/or internal recovery should be reported. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:254-271. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Indexed as

OligochaetaPesticidesAnimalsReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSoilPesticidesSoilCopper compoundsDimoxystrobinEarthworm field studyPlant protection productsRegulatory risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID35703133
PMCPMC10084329
OpenAlexW4282931759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.