Regulatory limits for pesticide residues in water (IUPAC Technical Report)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
National governments introduced residue limits and guideline levels for pesticide residues in water when policies were implemented to minimize the contamination of ground and surface waters. Initially, the main attention was given to drinking water. Regulatory limits for pesticide residues in waters should have the following characteristics: definition of the type of water, definition of the residue, a suitable analytical method for the residues, and explanation for the basis for each limit. Limits may be derived by applying a safety factor to a no-effect-level, or from levels occurring when good practices are followed and also passing a safety assessment, or from the detection limit of an analytical method, or directly by legislative decision. The basis for limits and guideline values issued by WHO, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, European Union, and Taiwan is described, and examples of the limits are provided. Limits have been most commonly developed for drinking water, but values have also been proposed for environmental waters, effluent waters, irrigation waters, and livestock drinking waters. The contamination of ground water is of concern because it may be used as drinking water and act as a source of contamination for surface waters. Most commonly, drinking water standards have been applied to ground water. The same terminology may have different meanings in different systems. For example, guideline value (GV) in WHO means a value calculated from a toxicology parameter, whereas in Australia, a GV is at or about the analytical limit of determination or a maximum level that might occur if good practices are followed. In New Zealand, the GV is the concentration where aesthetic significance is influenced.The Australian health value (HV) is conceptually the same as the WHO GV. The New Zealand maximum acceptable value (MAV) and the Canadian maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) are also conceptually the same as the WHO GV. Each of the possible ways of defining the residues has its merits. A residue limit in water expressed as the sum of parent and toxicologically relevant transformation products makes sense where it is derived from the acceptable daily intake (ADI). For monitoring purposes, where it is best to keep the residue definition as simple as possible for the sake of practical enforcement and economy, theparent or a marker residue is preferable. It is also possible for parent and degradation products (hydrolysis and photolysis products and metabolites) to become physically separated as the water moves through soil strata, which suggests that separate limits should be set for parent and important degradation products. The Commission has made 12 recommendations for regulatory limits for pesticide residues in water. The recommendations will act as a checklist for authorities introducing or revising limits or guidelines for pesticide residues in water.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,018 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».