Regulatory Limits for Pesticide Residues in Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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, the parent 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. D. J. HAMILTON et al. © 2003 IUPAC, Pure and Applied Chemistry 75, 1123–1155 1124
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".