4.7 Review

A Critical Scoping Review of Pesticide Exposure Biomonitoring Studies in Overhead Cultures

期刊

TOXICS
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxics10040170

关键词

human biomonitoring; pesticides; exposure; operators; workers; residents; bystanders; tree-grown produce; fruits; vine; systemic exposure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article summarizes the latest progress in pesticide exposure biomonitoring studies and finds that systemic exposure is mainly driven by pesticide application and reentry work, with higher exposure levels for operators and workers compared to residents and bystanders. However, in nearly all cases, systemic exposure is below the relevant toxicological reference values.
The exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders to pesticides is of high potential concern. Yet, reports on pesticide residues in the environment and near treated fields often spark debates if such findings might indicate a health risk. Although the underlying models are considered conservative, there are only limited field data on systemic exposure available. As a first step to improve the situation, we conducted a scoping review of state-of-the-art pesticide exposure biomonitoring studies in operators, workers, residents or bystanders. In contrast to existing reviews, we focused on target cultures of potential high pesticide exposure such as tree-grown produce, vine or hops. The search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. Out of 17 eligible articles, a total of 11 studies met our search criteria, and 6 of them quantified the systemic exposure of humans. The analysis revealed that exposure was mainly driven by application of pesticides and reentry work, resulting in a higher exposure of operators and workers than of residents and bystanders. In nearly all cases, the systemic exposure was below the relevant toxicological reference values. The studies were subsequently analyzed to identify key criteria for a reliable design of a biomonitoring study on pesticide exposure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据