Advertisement

Results of the Use of Two Environmental Models for Pesticides Ranking by Hazard

  • Fina Kaloyanova
  • Gyula Dura
  • Veska Kambourova
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NAIV, volume 2)

Abstract

Modelling investigation have been performed for determination of estimated concentrations of pesticides in water and for hazard categories. Predicted environmental concentration (PEC) and hazard categories for aquatic life as well as estimated human daily intake were evaluated by USES model for 275 pesticides and by HESP 2.10b software for 99 of them.

Comparison of hazard classification in line with criteria proposed by J.Linders showed that hazard categories obtained by HESP are higher than by USES. The results demonstrated that both models might be used for ranging pesticides by hazard. The appropriate use and limitations of the models should be emphasised.

Keywords

Daily Intake Human Exposure Hazard Assessment Soil Pollutant Plant Protection Product 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard (1975) WHO Chonicle 29, 397–401.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Pesticide Manual. (1994) 10th edition. Ed. by C. Tomlin. BCPC.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engedéelyezett növényvédoszerek, termésnövelo anyagok. /Permitted plant protection products in Hungary/ (1996) Ministry of Agriculture, Budapest.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    USES-RIVM, VROM and WVC (1994). Uniform system for the evaluation of substances /USES/, version 1.0. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), Ministry of Housing, Physical Planing and Environment (VROM), Minnistry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs (WVC). The Hague, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, 1994. Distribution No. 11144/150.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poels C.L.M. Gruntz U. Isnard P. Riley D. Spiteller M. W. ten Berge Veerkamp W. Bontinck W.J. 1991. Hazard assessment of chemical contaminants in soil. Chemosphere 23 1 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linders J.B.H.J., Jansma J.W., Mensink, B.J.W.G., Otermann K. (1994). Pesticides: Benefaction or Pandora Box? A synopsis of the environmental aspects of 243 pesticides. Report No 679101014. March 1994. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Rrotection. Bilthoven. The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lu F.C. (1995). A review of the acceptable daily intakes of pesticides assessed by WHO. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 21, 352–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Camoni et al. (1991) Cit. by Concern for Europe’s Tomorrow. Health and Environment in the WHO European region. WHO European Centre for Environment and Health. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH Stuttgart, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fina Kaloyanova
    • 1
  • Gyula Dura
    • 2
  • Veska Kambourova
    • 1
  1. 1.National Centre for Hygiene, Medical Ecology and NutritionSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.National Centre for Public HealthNational Institute for Environmental Health of “Fodor József”BudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations