MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408884468 · doi:10.1080/10937404.2025.2478970

Evaluating pollinator exposures to sulfoxaflor via bee-relevant matrices: a systems-level approach using semi-probabilistic methods for assessing hazards; sulfoxaflor environmental science review part IV

2025· review· en· W4408884468 on OpenAlexaff
Keith R. Solomon, John Purdy, Vincent J. Kramer, John P. Giesy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Guelph
FundersCorteva Agriscience
KeywordsNectarPollenToxicologyPollinatorBiologyPesticideHoney beeBotanyEcologyPollination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sulfoxaflor (SFX) is a newly registered IRAC Group 4C nAChR-receptor-agonist systemic insecticide that is used to control sap-sucking insects in a variety of crops. SFX has a short half-life (< 2 days) in agricultural soil and is only used as a foliar-applied product. Pollinators such as honey bees could be exposed directly to spray if application occurs shortly before or during blooming of flowers, or, as SFX is systemic, via oral exposures to nectar and pollen collected by bees. Guided by a Weight-of-Evidence rubric, this paper critically assessed studies on the fate of SFX in bee-relevant matrices submitted by the registrant in several jurisdictions as well as a few studies published in the open scientific literature. These studies provided data for residues in pollen and/or nectar from 16 crops grown in several countries in both hemispheres. SFX and transformation products were detected in nectar and pollen. Transformation products have low hazard to honeybees, so the focus was on the parent material, SFX, which was observed to dissipate rapidly from pollen and nectar after application. Dietary No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Concentrations (NOAEC) derived from results of 10-day continuous feeding studies of adult (0.50 mg kg−1 diet d−1) and larval honeybees (1.69 mg kg−1 diet d−1) were used as precautionary toxicity benchmarks to characterize hazards. In this paper, we used a tiered process. The initial screening tier was based on the greatest concentration measured in the matrix. For scenarios that did not pass Tier-1, a second tier based on the 10-day time-weighted average (area under the curve, AUC) concentration in the matrix was used as a more realistic measure of exposure. Of the 90 scenarios of use that were characterized, 36 did not pass the initial screening benchmark based on ≥1concentration of SFX exceeding the 10-day NOAEC. When the 10-day AUC of exposure was estimated for these scenarios, 3 of 90 did not pass the more realistic toxicity benchmark. These three scenarios were for residues in pollen or anthers for alfalfa grown in California, strawberries grown in France, peaches grown in Michigan. The two-tier screening procedure for hazard assessment lessened the need for further assessment for 97% of the exposure scenarios and reduced the need for characterizing hazards in field-level whole-hive tests conducted under controlled conditions of exposure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part BSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207