土壤有机质含量对农药对隐斑蛭毒力的影响

IF 7.2 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Pollution Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2025.125825
Bart G. van Hall, Cornelis A.M. van Gestel
{"title":"土壤有机质含量对农药对隐斑蛭毒力的影响","authors":"Bart G. van Hall, Cornelis A.M. van Gestel","doi":"10.1016/j.envpol.2025.125825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigated the influence of soil organic matter (OM) content on the toxicity of five pesticides to <em>Enchytraeus crypticus</em> to assess the suitability of the correction factor (CF) of 2 currently applied to lipophilic (log K<sub>ow</sub> &gt; 2) pesticides to correct for differences in bioavailability and toxicity between natural and artificial soil (AS) due to differences in OM content. Toxicity tests were performed following standardized guidelines using AS containing 10%, 5%, and 2.5% peat, and Landwirtschaftliche Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalt (LUFA) 2.2 soil (4.5% OM). Likelihood-ratio tests showed that soil type significantly influenced the toxicity of non-lipophilic and lipophilic pesticides, and linear regression analyses revealed that toxicity strongly correlated with soil OM content in AS (R<sup>2</sup> ≥ 0.96). Pesticide toxicity in LUFA 2.2 soil could not always be accurately predicted based on the OM content. Utilizing the obtainedtoxicity-OM regression equations, pesticide toxicity in soils containing 10.0% and 5.0% OM were modelled to assess the CF of 2. The differences in model-estimated toxicity between these soils ranged from 1.56 – 1.96 for EC<sub>50</sub> values, and between 1.33 – 3.40 for EC<sub>10</sub> values. EC<sub>50</sub> values were compared with data from a sister paper on <em>Eisenia andrei</em> to identify differences between species. Toxicity ratios were always higher for earthworms (2.08 – 3.21) than for enchytraeids. This study shows that the CF of 2 suffers from erroneous assumptions concerning lipophilicity, OM content and toxicity. Moreover, it highlights the importance of assessing CFs for new test species before introducing them into European soil environmental risk assessment.","PeriodicalId":311,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Pollution","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Influence of Soil Organic Matter Content on the Toxicity of Pesticides to the Enchytraeid Enchytraeus crypticus\",\"authors\":\"Bart G. van Hall, Cornelis A.M. van Gestel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envpol.2025.125825\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study investigated the influence of soil organic matter (OM) content on the toxicity of five pesticides to <em>Enchytraeus crypticus</em> to assess the suitability of the correction factor (CF) of 2 currently applied to lipophilic (log K<sub>ow</sub> &gt; 2) pesticides to correct for differences in bioavailability and toxicity between natural and artificial soil (AS) due to differences in OM content. Toxicity tests were performed following standardized guidelines using AS containing 10%, 5%, and 2.5% peat, and Landwirtschaftliche Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalt (LUFA) 2.2 soil (4.5% OM). Likelihood-ratio tests showed that soil type significantly influenced the toxicity of non-lipophilic and lipophilic pesticides, and linear regression analyses revealed that toxicity strongly correlated with soil OM content in AS (R<sup>2</sup> ≥ 0.96). Pesticide toxicity in LUFA 2.2 soil could not always be accurately predicted based on the OM content. Utilizing the obtainedtoxicity-OM regression equations, pesticide toxicity in soils containing 10.0% and 5.0% OM were modelled to assess the CF of 2. The differences in model-estimated toxicity between these soils ranged from 1.56 – 1.96 for EC<sub>50</sub> values, and between 1.33 – 3.40 for EC<sub>10</sub> values. EC<sub>50</sub> values were compared with data from a sister paper on <em>Eisenia andrei</em> to identify differences between species. Toxicity ratios were always higher for earthworms (2.08 – 3.21) than for enchytraeids. This study shows that the CF of 2 suffers from erroneous assumptions concerning lipophilicity, OM content and toxicity. Moreover, it highlights the importance of assessing CFs for new test species before introducing them into European soil environmental risk assessment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Pollution\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Pollution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2025.125825\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Pollution","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2025.125825","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究考察了土壤有机质(OM)含量对5种农药对隐泥鳅(endytraeus crypticus)毒性的影响,以评价目前应用于亲脂性(log Kow >;2)由于有机质含量的差异,天然土壤和人工土壤(AS)在生物利用度和毒性方面存在差异。毒性试验采用含10%、5%和2.5%泥炭的AS和Landwirtschaftliche Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalt (LUFA) 2.2土壤(4.5% OM),按照标准化指南进行。似然比分析显示,土壤类型对非亲脂性和亲脂性农药的毒性有显著影响,线性回归分析显示,毒性与AS土壤OM含量呈显著相关(R2≥0.96)。基于OM含量不能准确预测LUFA 2.2土壤中农药毒性。利用得到的毒性-有机质回归方程,对含有机质10.0%和5.0%土壤的农药毒性进行了建模,评价了2的CF。这些土壤的模型估计毒性差异在EC50值为1.56 - 1.96之间,EC10值为1.33 - 3.40之间。EC50值比较了一篇关于爱森尼亚的姊妹论文的数据,以确定物种之间的差异。蚯蚓的毒性比(2.08 ~ 3.21)始终高于蛭形动物。这项研究表明,CF 2在亲脂性、OM含量和毒性方面存在错误假设。此外,它强调了在将新试验物种引入欧洲土壤环境风险评估之前评估它们的CFs的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Influence of Soil Organic Matter Content on the Toxicity of Pesticides to the Enchytraeid Enchytraeus crypticus
This study investigated the influence of soil organic matter (OM) content on the toxicity of five pesticides to Enchytraeus crypticus to assess the suitability of the correction factor (CF) of 2 currently applied to lipophilic (log Kow > 2) pesticides to correct for differences in bioavailability and toxicity between natural and artificial soil (AS) due to differences in OM content. Toxicity tests were performed following standardized guidelines using AS containing 10%, 5%, and 2.5% peat, and Landwirtschaftliche Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalt (LUFA) 2.2 soil (4.5% OM). Likelihood-ratio tests showed that soil type significantly influenced the toxicity of non-lipophilic and lipophilic pesticides, and linear regression analyses revealed that toxicity strongly correlated with soil OM content in AS (R2 ≥ 0.96). Pesticide toxicity in LUFA 2.2 soil could not always be accurately predicted based on the OM content. Utilizing the obtainedtoxicity-OM regression equations, pesticide toxicity in soils containing 10.0% and 5.0% OM were modelled to assess the CF of 2. The differences in model-estimated toxicity between these soils ranged from 1.56 – 1.96 for EC50 values, and between 1.33 – 3.40 for EC10 values. EC50 values were compared with data from a sister paper on Eisenia andrei to identify differences between species. Toxicity ratios were always higher for earthworms (2.08 – 3.21) than for enchytraeids. This study shows that the CF of 2 suffers from erroneous assumptions concerning lipophilicity, OM content and toxicity. Moreover, it highlights the importance of assessing CFs for new test species before introducing them into European soil environmental risk assessment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Pollution
Environmental Pollution 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
2082
审稿时长
2.9 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Pollution is an international peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality research papers and review articles covering all aspects of environmental pollution and its impacts on ecosystems and human health. Subject areas include, but are not limited to: • Sources and occurrences of pollutants that are clearly defined and measured in environmental compartments, food and food-related items, and human bodies; • Interlinks between contaminant exposure and biological, ecological, and human health effects, including those of climate change; • Contaminants of emerging concerns (including but not limited to antibiotic resistant microorganisms or genes, microplastics/nanoplastics, electronic wastes, light, and noise) and/or their biological, ecological, or human health effects; • Laboratory and field studies on the remediation/mitigation of environmental pollution via new techniques and with clear links to biological, ecological, or human health effects; • Modeling of pollution processes, patterns, or trends that is of clear environmental and/or human health interest; • New techniques that measure and examine environmental occurrences, transport, behavior, and effects of pollutants within the environment or the laboratory, provided that they can be clearly used to address problems within regional or global environmental compartments.
期刊最新文献
Association of exposure to phthalates and substitutes with infection risk among U.S. children Long-term trends and patterns of legacy and emerging cosmetic UV filters in German waters Diversity of contaminants of emerging concern in a semi-arid groundwater system Urinary phthalates and phthalate alternatives, and their associations with oxidative stress biomarkers in Chinese adults: A multi-city population study From exposure to effect: Exploring adverse outcome pathways in fish responses to a large mining disaster
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1