FINAL REPORT Exposure of reptiles to plant protection products A Report to EFSA CFT/EFSA/PPR/2008/01 Lot 1 Steve Fryday and Helen Thompson1 September 2009 1Tel 44 1904 462515; Fax 44 1094 462111; email [email protected] The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors CFT/EFSA/PPR/2008/01 EXPOSURE OF REPTILES TO PLANT Lot 1 PROTECTION PRODUCTS Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3 2. METHODS ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Literature search ................................................................................................. 4 2.2. Allometric equations .......................................................................................... 4 2.3. Other routes of exposure .................................................................................... 4 3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 4 3.1. Literature search ................................................................................................. 4 3.2. Species accounts ................................................................................................ 5 3.2.1. Tortoises/turtles ........................................................................................... 6 3.2.2. Lizards....................................................................................................... 11 3.2.3. Snakes ....................................................................................................... 27 3.3. Routes of exposure ........................................................................................... 39 3.3.1. Food intake................................................................................................ 39 3.3.2. Water intake .............................................................................................. 43 3.3.3. Soil ingestion ............................................................................................ 49 3.3.4. Dermal exposure ....................................................................................... 49 3.3.5. Inhalation .................................................................................................. 53 3.4. Factors affecting exposure and risk ................................................................. 54 3.4.1. Avoidance ................................................................................................. 54 3.4.2. Proportion of the daily diet obtained from the treated area (PT) and composition of the diet obtained from the treated area (PD). ................... 54 3.4.3. Temperature .............................................................................................. 54 4. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................... 55 4.1. Limitations of methods of estimating food and water intake .......................... 55 4.2. Limitations of the use of allometric equations ................................................. 55 4.3. Soil ingestion ................................................................................................... 56 4.4. Dermal exposure .............................................................................................. 57 5. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 57 APPENDIX 1 Database search terms .......................................................................... 58 APPENDIX 2 Literature found during course of study ............................................... 60 Final report CFT/EFSA/PPR/2008/01 Page 2 of 130 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. CFT/EFSA/PPR/2008/01 EXPOSURE OF REPTILES TO PLANT Lot 1 PROTECTION PRODUCTS 1. INTRODUCTION Reptiles may be exposed to pesticides by various oral routes including feeding on contaminated food, taking solid formulations as food or grit or drinking contaminated water. They may also be exposed directly during pesticide applications (e.g. by being over-sprayed or by inhalation) or by coming into contact with the contaminated environment (e.g. contaminated soil, plants or surface water). In order to estimate the potential dietary exposure of reptiles it is necessary to obtain estimates of daily food intake. The recent scientific opinion of the PPR panel on risk assessment for birds and mammals (EFSA 2008) recommends the use of allometric equations to estimate the daily energy requirements and hence food intake of birds and mammals for which this information is not known. The aims of this project were to: 1. Provide information useful for risk assessment on a range of European species of reptile that might be at risk of exposure. 2. To develop allometric equations for daily energy expenditure (DEE) and daily water flux for reptiles (similar to those developed for birds and mammals) that take account of information published since the reviews of Nagy and Peterson (1988) and Nagy et al. (1999). 3. Identify other possible routes of exposure. The findings for these are presented along with some recommendations about how they may be used and additional research that would assist in exposure assessment. Final report CFT/EFSA/PPR/2008/01 Page 3 of 130 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. CFT/EFSA/PPR/2008/01 EXPOSURE OF REPTILES TO PLANT Lot 1 PROTECTION PRODUCTS 2. METHODS 2.1. Literature search A literature survey was conducted by the Fera Information Centre using a list of search terms as detailed in Appendix 1. Further searches were made of the US EPA Ecotox database, the Reptile and Amphibian Toxicity Literature database (RATL), and key publications and reviews including Campbell and Campbell (2000), Pauli and Money (2000) and Sanchez-Hernandez (2001). Also, previous reviews of energy expenditure and water flux such as Nagy and Peterson (1988) and Nagy et al. (1999) were checked for any publications not found in online searches. The search terms used in the Information Centre search are listed in Appendix 1. 2.2. Allometric equations All data found on DEE and water flux associated with bodyweight for reptiles were collated and used to calculate a mean value for each species. In many cases this required recalculation of values into the correct units (kJ/d or ml/d) from the published values that were often weight adjusted (e.g. kJ/kg0.8/d or ml/kg/d W/kg etc.). For each species the values of DEE or water flux and body weight were combined to provide an average value so that each species appeared only once in the final dataset for analysis. Data were excluded if they were from inactive animals either identified as hibernating, estivating or overwinter values. Data from hatchling and juvenile animals were also excluded (as Nagy et al. 1999). Desert species were assigned as in Nagy et al. (1999) or using information in the publication (e.g. habitat description or rainfall <250mm/year). 2.3. Other routes of exposure The available literature was reviewed to identify other routes of exposure and how they might be assessed. The results of this are presented along with those for dietary and drinking water exposure. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Literature search All references found in the main search and others found during the course of the study are listed in Appendix 2 indicating those used in this study. Reference ID numbers refer to the numbers used in the endnote database provided with this report. Gaps in these numbers are due to removal of duplicates as references obtained from elsewhere were removed from the final list. Final report CFT/EFSA/PPR/2008/01