Search

Your search keyword '"Daria Sgargi"' showing total 17 results
Start Over Author "Daria Sgargi"
17 results on '"Daria Sgargi"'

1. Pesticide residues with hazard classifications relevant to non-target species including humans are omnipresent in the environment and farmer residences

Author

Vera Silva, Lingtong Gai, Paula Harkes, Gaowei Tan, Coen J. Ritsema, Francisco Alcon, Josefa Contreras, Nelson Abrantes, Isabel Campos, Isabelle Baldi, Mathilde Bureau, Florian Christ, Daniele Mandrioli, Daria Sgargi, Igor Pasković, Marija Polić Pasković, Matjaž Glavan, Jakub Hofman, Esperanza Huerta Lwanga, Trine Norgaard, Zuzana Bílková, Rima Osman, Chrow Khurshid, Irene Navarro, Adrián de la Torre, Paloma Sanz, María Ángeles Martínez, Jonatan Dias, Hans Mol, Gerrit Gort, Daniel Martins Figueiredo, Paul T.J. Scheepers, Vivi Schlünssen, Anne Vested, Abdallah Alaoui, and Violette Geissen

Subjects
SPRINT project, Mixtures of pesticide residues, Distribution, Hazard, Prioritization indicator, Environmental sciences, GE1-350
Abstract

Intensive and widespread use of pesticides raises serious environmental and human health concerns. The presence and levels of 209 pesticide residues (active substances and transformation products) in 625 environmental samples (201 soil, 193 crop, 20 outdoor air, 115 indoor dust, 58 surface water, and 38 sediment samples) have been studied. The samples were collected during the 2021 growing season, across 10 study sites, covering the main European crops, and conventional and organic farming systems. We profiled the pesticide residues found in the different matrices using existing hazard classifications towards non-target organisms and humans. Combining monitoring data and hazard information, we developed an indicator for the prioritization of pesticides, which can support policy decisions and sustainable pesticide use transitions. Eighty-six percent of the samples had at least one residue above the respective limit of detection. One hundred residues were found in soil, 112 in water, 99 in sediments, 78 in crops, 76 in outdoor air, and 197 in indoor dust. The number, levels, and profile of residues varied between farming systems. Our results show that non-approved compounds still represent a significant part of environmental cocktails and should be accounted for in monitoring programs and risk assessments. The hazard profiles analysis confirms the dominance of compounds of low-moderate hazard and underscores the high hazard of some approved compounds and recurring “no data available” situations. Overall, our results support the idea that risk should be assessed in a mixture context, taking environmentally relevant mixtures into consideration. We have uncovered uncertainties and data gaps that should be addressed, as well as the policy implications at the EU approval status level. Our newly introduced indicator can help identify research priority areas, and act as a reference for targeted scenarios set forth in the Farm to Fork pesticide reduction goals.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Author

Vivi Schlünssen, Daniele Mandrioli, Frank Pega, Natalie C. Momen, Balázs Ádám, Weihong Chen, Robert A. Cohen, Lode Godderis, Thomas Göen, Kishor Hadkhale, Watinee Kunpuek, Jianlin Lou, Stefan Mandic-Rajcevic, Federica Masci, Ben Nemery, Madalina Popa, Natthadanai Rajatanavin, Daria Sgargi, Somkiat Siriruttanapruk, Xin Sun, Repeepong Suphanchaimat, Panithee Thammawijaya, Yuka Ujita, Stevie van der Mierden, Katya Vangelova, Meng Ye, Muzimkhulu Zungu, and Paul T.J. Scheepers

Subjects
Silica, Asbestos, Coal dust, Exposure prevalence, Exposure levels, Systematic review, Environmental sciences, GE1-350
Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers. Data sources: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Results: Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis.Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies.The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41–43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23–25, 27, 31–32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I2 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level).For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I2 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23–24, 29–30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels).For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I2 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m3 (95% CI −6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence). Conclusions: Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers’ population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes.Protocol identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42018084131.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Hemolymphoreticular Neoplasias from the Ramazzini Institute Long-term Mice and Rat Studies on Aspartame

Author

Federica Gnudi, Simona Panzacchi, Eva Tibaldi, Martina Iuliani, Daria Sgargi, Luciano Bua, and Daniele Mandrioli

Subjects
aspartame, cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, bioassays, Infectious and parasitic diseases, RC109-216, Public aspects of medicine, RA1-1270
Abstract

Background: Haemolymphoreticular neoplasias (HLRNs) from the Ramazzini Institute (RI) carcinogenicity studies on Aspartame (APM) in rats and mice were heterogeneously grouped over the years and different statistical methods were applied. Objective: We report all the detailed HLRN diagnoses of all the RI rats and mice studies on APM and the related statistics. Methods: Histological subtypes and lineage (myeloid or lymphoid) are reported in males (MM) and females (FF) in line with the International Harmonization of Nomenclature and Diagnostic Criteria for Lesions (INHAND) for rodents and the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Statistical analyses included Fisher’s Exact test and Cochran-Armitage trend test. Findings: Results from the post-natal bioassay on Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats (BT6008) showed statistically significant increases in lymphomas (all types) (MM, FF), leukemias (all types) (FF), immunoblastic lymphomas (MM, FF), total lymphoid tumours (MM, FF), monocytic leukemia (FF), myeloid leukemia (FF), histiocytic sarcoma (FF), and total myeloid tumours (FF). Results from the prenatal experiment on SD rats (BT6009), showed statistically significant increases in lymphomas (all types) (FF), leukemias (all types) (FF), total lymphoid tumours (FF), myeloid leukemia (FF), and total myeloid tumours (FF). Finally, results from the prenatal bioassay on Swiss mice (BT6010) showed statistically significant increases in leukemias (all types) (MM, FF), lymphoblastic leukemia (MM, FF), monocytic leukemia (MM) and total myeloid tumours (MM). Conclusions: Our analyses, performed in line with international recommended guidelines for statistics and pathology, confirm and reinforce our previous findings of statistically significant increases of HLRNs in rodents exposed to APM.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Assessor burden, inter-rater agreement and user experience of the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: An analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Author

Natalie C. Momen, Kai N. Streicher, Denise T.C. da Silva, Alexis Descatha, Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen, Diana Gagliardi, Lode Godderis, Tom Loney, Daniele Mandrioli, Alberto Modenese, Rebecca L. Morgan, Daniela Pachito, Paul T.J. Scheepers, Daria Sgargi, Marília Silva Paulo, Vivi Schlünssen, Grace Sembajwe, Kathrine Sørensen, Liliane R. Teixeira, Thomas Tenkate, and Frank Pega

Subjects
Bias, Systematic review methods, Prevalence, Occupational exposure, Occupational epidemiology, Environmental sciences, GE1-350
Abstract

Background: As part of the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, WHO and ILO carried out several systematic reviews to determine the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies is a critical step of a systematic review. No tool existed for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors, so WHO and ILO developed and pilot tested the RoB-SPEO tool for this purpose. Here, we investigate the assessor burden, inter-rater agreement, and user experience of this new instrument, based on the abovementioned WHO/ILO systematic reviews. Methods: Twenty-seven individual experts applied RoB-SPEO to assess risk of bias. Four systematic reviews provided a total of 283 individual assessments, carried out for 137 studies. For each study, two or more assessors independently assessed risk of bias across the eight RoB-SPEO domains selecting one of RoB-SPEO’s six ratings (i.e., “low”, “probably low”, “probably high”, “high”, “unclear” or “cannot be determined”). Assessors were asked to report time taken (i.e. indicator of assessor burden) to complete each assessment and describe their user experience. To gauge assessor burden, we calculated the median and inter-quartile range of times taken per individual risk of bias assessment. To assess inter-rater reliability, we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between Pi = 0.00, indicating no agreement and Pi = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, Pi was also disaggregated by systematic review, assessor experience with RoB-SPEO (≤10 assessments versus > 10 assessments), and assessment time (tertiles: ≤25 min versus 26–66 min versus ≥ 67 min). To describe user experience, we synthesised the assessors’ comments and recommendations. Results: Assessors reported a median of 40 min to complete one assessment (interquartile range 21–120 min). For all domains, raw inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.82. Agreement varied by systematic review and assessor experience with RoB-SPEO between domains, and increased with increasing assessment time. A small number of users recommended further development of instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains, especially bias in selection of participants into the study (domain 1) and bias due to differences in numerator and denominator (domain 7). Discussion: Overall, our results indicated good agreement across the eight domains of the RoB-SPEO tool. The median assessment time was comparable to that of other risk of bias tools, indicating comparable assessor burden. However, there was considerable variation in time taken to complete assessments. Additional time spent on assessments may improve inter-rater agreement. Further development of the RoB-SPEO tool could focus on refining instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains and additional testing to assess agreement for different topic areas and with a wider range of assessors from different research backgrounds.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Collection of human and environmental data on pesticide use in Europe and Argentina: Field study protocol for the SPRINT project

Author

Vera Silva, Abdallah Alaoui, Vivi Schlünssen, Anne Vested, Martien Graumans, Maurice van Dael, Marco Trevisan, Nicoleta Suciu, Hans Mol, Karsten Beekmann, Daniel Figueiredo, Paula Harkes, Jakub Hofman, Ellen Kandeler, Nelson Abrantes, Isabel Campos, María Ángeles Martínez, Joana Luísa Pereira, Dirk Goossens, Juergen Gandrass, Freya Debler, Esperanza Huerta Lwanga, Marlot Jonker, Frank van Langevelde, Martin T. Sorensen, Jerry M. Wells, Jos Boekhorst, Anke Huss, Daniele Mandrioli, Daria Sgargi, Paul Nathanail, Judith Nathanail, Lucius Tamm, Peter Fantke, Jennifer Mark, Christian Grovermann, Ana Frelih-Larsen, Irina Herb, Charlotte-Anne Chivers, Jane Mills, Francisco Alcon, Josefina Contreras, Isabelle Baldi, Igor Pasković, Glavan Matjaz, Trine Norgaard, Virginia Aparicio, Coen J. Ritsema, Violette Geissen, and Paul T. J. Scheepers

Subjects
Medicine, Science
Abstract

Current farm systems rely on the use of Plant Protection Products (PPP) to secure high productivity and control threats to the quality of the crops. However, PPP use may have considerable impacts on human health and the environment. A study protocol is presented aiming to determine the occurrence and levels of PPP residues in plants (crops), animals (livestock), humans and other non-target species (ecosystem representatives) for exposure modelling and impact assessment. To achieve this, we designed a cross-sectional study to compare conventional and organic farm systems across Europe. Environmental and biological samples were/are being/will be collected during the 2021 growing season, at 10 case study sites in Europe covering a range of climate zones and crops. An additional study site in Argentina will inform the impact of PPP use on growing soybean which is an important European protein-source in animal feed. We will study the impact of PPP mixtures using an integrated risk assessment methodology. The fate of PPP in environmental media (soil, water and air) and in the homes of farmers will be monitored. This will be complemented by biomonitoring to estimate PPP uptake by humans and farm animals (cow, goat, sheep and chicken), and by collection of samples from non-target species (earthworms, fish, aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrates, bats, and farm cats). We will use data on PPP residues in environmental and biological matrices to estimate exposures by modelling. These exposure estimates together with health and toxicity data will be used to predict the impact of PPP use on environment, plant, animal and human health. The outcome of this study will then be integrated with socio-economic information leading to an overall assessment used to identify transition pathways towards more sustainable plant protection and inform decision makers, practitioners and other stakeholders regarding farming practices and land use policy.

Published
2021

6. Evaluation of Toxicant-Associated Fatty Liver Disease and Liver Neoplastic Progress in Sprague-Dawley Rats Treated with Low Doses of Aflatoxin B1 Alone or in Combination with Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields

Author

Andrea Vornoli, Eva Tibaldi, Federica Gnudi, Daria Sgargi, Fabiana Manservisi, Fiorella Belpoggi, Francesco Tovoli, and Daniele Mandrioli

Subjects
toxicant associated fatty liver disease, Aflatoxin b, Sprague-Dawley rats, hepatotoxicity, liver, Medicine
Abstract

The term toxicant-associated fatty liver disease (TAFLD) has been proposed to describe fatty liver diseases connected to toxicants other than alcohol. Aflatoxins are mycotoxins commonly found as contaminants in foods and feeds, which are known liver toxicants and potential candidates as potential causes of TAFLD. Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) was administered at low doses to Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats, alone or in combination with S-50 Hz an extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELFEMF), to study the evolution of TAFLD, preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the liver and the potential enhancing effect of lifespan exposure to ELFEMF. Steatosis, inflammation and foci of different types were significantly increased in both aflatoxin-treated males and females, which is consistent with a pattern of TAFLD. A significant increase in adenomas, cystic dilation of biliary ducts, hepatocellular hyperplasia and hypertrophy and oval cell hyperplasia were also observed in treated females only. The administration of low doses of AFB1 caused TAFLD in SD rats, inducing liver lesions encompassing fatty infiltration, foci of different types and adenomas. Furthermore, the pattern of change observed in preneoplastic liver lesions often included liver steatosis and steatohepatitis (TASH). ELFEMF did not result in any enhancing or toxic effect in the liver of SD rats.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. RoB-SPEO: A tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Author

Frank Pega, Susan L. Norris, Claudine Backes, Lisa A. Bero, Alexis Descatha, Diana Gagliardi, Lode Godderis, Tom Loney, Alberto Modenese, Rebecca L. Morgan, Daniela Pachito, Marilia B.S. Paulo, Paul T.J. Scheepers, Vivi Schlünssen, Daria Sgargi, Ellen K. Silbergeld, Kathrine Sørensen, Patrice Sutton, Thomas Tenkate, Denise Torreão Corrêa da Silva, Yuka Ujita, Emilie van Deventer, Tracey J. Woodruff, and Daniele Mandrioli

Subjects
Environmental sciences, GE1-350
Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. Methods: Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. Results: Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51–0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested. Conclusions: We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Pesticide residues with hazard classifications relevant to non-target species including humans are omnipresent in the environment and farmer residences

Author

Silva, Vera, Gai, Lingtong, Harkes, Paula, Tan, Gaowei, Ritsema, Coen, Alcon, Francsico, Contreras, Josefa, Abrantes, Nelson, Campos, Isabel, Baldi, Isabelle, Bureau, Mathilde, Christ, Florian, Mandrioli, Daniele, DARIA, SGARGI, Pasković, Igor, Pasković, Marija Polić, Glavan, Matjaž, Hofman, Jakub, Lwanga, Esperanza Huerta, Nørgaard, Trine, Bílková, Zuzana, Osman, Rima, Khurshid, Chrow, Navarro, Irene, Torre, Adrian de la, Sanz, Paloma, Martínez, María Ángeles, Dias, Jonatan, Mol, Hans, Gort, Gerrit, Figueiredo, Daniel Martins, Scheepers, Paul T.J., Schlünssen, Vivi, Vested, Anne, Alaoui, Abdallah, Geissen, Violette, Silva, Vera, Gai, Lingtong, Harkes, Paula, Tan, Gaowei, Ritsema, Coen, Alcon, Francsico, Contreras, Josefa, Abrantes, Nelson, Campos, Isabel, Baldi, Isabelle, Bureau, Mathilde, Christ, Florian, Mandrioli, Daniele, DARIA, SGARGI, Pasković, Igor, Pasković, Marija Polić, Glavan, Matjaž, Hofman, Jakub, Lwanga, Esperanza Huerta, Nørgaard, Trine, Bílková, Zuzana, Osman, Rima, Khurshid, Chrow, Navarro, Irene, Torre, Adrian de la, Sanz, Paloma, Martínez, María Ángeles, Dias, Jonatan, Mol, Hans, Gort, Gerrit, Figueiredo, Daniel Martins, Scheepers, Paul T.J., Schlünssen, Vivi, Vested, Anne, Alaoui, Abdallah, and Geissen, Violette

Abstract

Intensive and widespread use of pesticides raises serious environmental and human health concerns. The presence and levels of 209 pesticide residues (active substances and transformation products) in 625 environmental samples (201 soil, 193 crop, 20 outdoor air, 115 indoor dust, 58 surface water, and 38 sediment samples) have been studied. The samples were collected during the 2021 growing season, across 10 study sites, covering the main European crops, and conventional and organic farming systems. We profiled the pesticide residues found in the different matrices using existing hazard classifications towards non-target organisms and humans. Combining monitoring data and hazard information, we developed an indicator for the prioritization of pesticides, which can support policy decisions and sustainable pesticide use transitions. Eighty-six percent of the samples had at least one residue above the respective limit of detection. One hundred residues were found in soil, 112 in water, 99 in sediments, 78 in crops, 76 in outdoor air, and 197 in indoor dust. The number, levels, and profile of residues varied between farming systems. Our results show that non-approved compounds still represent a significant part of environmental cocktails and should be accounted for in monitoring programs and risk assessments. The hazard profiles analysis confirms the dominance of compounds of low-moderate hazard and underscores the high hazard of some approved compounds and recurring “no data available” situations. Overall, our results support the idea that risk should be assessed in a mixture context, taking environmentally relevant mixtures into consideration. We have uncovered uncertainties and data gaps that should be addressed, as well as the policy implications at the EU approval status level. Our newly introduced indicator can help identify research priority areas, and act as a reference for targeted scenarios set forth in the Farm to Fork pesticide reduction goals.

Published
2023

9. Pesticide residues with hazard classifications relevant to non-target species including humans are omnipresent in the environment and farmer residences

Author

IRAS OH Epidemiology Chemical Agents, IRAS – One Health Chemical, Silva, Vera, Gai, Lingtong, Harkes, Paula, Tan, Gaowei, Ritsema, Coen, Alcon, Francsico, Contreras, Josefa, Abrantes, Nelson, Campos, Isabel, Baldi, Isabelle, Bureau, Mathilde, Christ, Florian, Mandrioli, Daniele, DARIA, SGARGI, Pasković, Igor, Pasković, Marija Polić, Glavan, Matjaž, Hofman, Jakub, Lwanga, Esperanza Huerta, Nørgaard, Trine, Bílková, Zuzana, Osman, Rima, Khurshid, Chrow, Navarro, Irene, Torre, Adrian de la, Sanz, Paloma, Martínez, María Ángeles, Dias, Jonatan, Mol, Hans, Gort, Gerrit, Figueiredo, Daniel Martins, Scheepers, Paul T.J., Schlünssen, Vivi, Vested, Anne, Alaoui, Abdallah, Geissen, Violette, IRAS OH Epidemiology Chemical Agents, IRAS – One Health Chemical, Silva, Vera, Gai, Lingtong, Harkes, Paula, Tan, Gaowei, Ritsema, Coen, Alcon, Francsico, Contreras, Josefa, Abrantes, Nelson, Campos, Isabel, Baldi, Isabelle, Bureau, Mathilde, Christ, Florian, Mandrioli, Daniele, DARIA, SGARGI, Pasković, Igor, Pasković, Marija Polić, Glavan, Matjaž, Hofman, Jakub, Lwanga, Esperanza Huerta, Nørgaard, Trine, Bílková, Zuzana, Osman, Rima, Khurshid, Chrow, Navarro, Irene, Torre, Adrian de la, Sanz, Paloma, Martínez, María Ángeles, Dias, Jonatan, Mol, Hans, Gort, Gerrit, Figueiredo, Daniel Martins, Scheepers, Paul T.J., Schlünssen, Vivi, Vested, Anne, Alaoui, Abdallah, and Geissen, Violette

Published
2023

10. Assessor burden, inter-rater agreement and user experience of the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors

Author

Liliane Reis Teixeira, Daniele Mandrioli, Kathrine Sørensen, Lode Godderis, Daniela Pachito, Kai N. Streicher, Tom Loney, Daria Sgargi, Vivi Schlünssen, Diana Gagliardi, Paul T.J. Scheepers, Alberto Modenese, Grace Sembajwe, Alexis Descatha, Frank Pega, Denise Torres da Silva, Thomas Tenkate, Rebecca L. Morgan, Natalie C. Momen, Marília Silva Paulo, Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen, WHO-TDR Suisse, Escola Nacional de Saude Publica Sergio Arouca / Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health [Rio de Janeiro] (ENSP), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Réseau International des Instituts Pasteur (RIIP)-Réseau International des Instituts Pasteur (RIIP), École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP), Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail (Irset), Structure Fédérative de Recherche en Biologie et Santé de Rennes ( Biosit : Biologie - Santé - Innovation Technologique )-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP)-Université de Rennes 1 (UR1), Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Université d'Angers (UA), Service de médecine physique et de réadaptation [ CHU Raymond-Poincaré], Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpital Raymond Poincaré [AP-HP], Cohortes épidémiologiques en population (CONSTANCES), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris-Saclay-Université de Paris (UP), Vieillissement et Maladies chroniques : approches épidémiologique et de santé publique (VIMA), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Amsterdam UMC, Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro [Italian Workers Compensation Authority] (INAIL), Catholic University of Leuven - Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven), Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU), Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia (UNIMORE), McMaster University [Hamilton, Ontario], Fundacao Getulio Vargas [Rio de Janeiro] (FGV), Radboud University Medical Center [Nijmegen], United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Aarhus University [Aarhus], City University of New York [New York] (CUNY), Ryerson University [Toronto], World Health Organization from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States of America [1E11OH0010676-02, 6NE11OH010461-02-01, 5NE11OH010461-03-00], German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG Germany) under the BMG-WHO Collaboration Programme 2020-2023 (WHO specified award) [70672], Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECID) [71208], Université d'Angers (UA)-Université de Rennes (UR)-École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Structure Fédérative de Recherche en Biologie et Santé de Rennes ( Biosit : Biologie - Santé - Innovation Technologique ), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris-Saclay-Université Paris Cité (UPCité), Université de Rennes (UR), Amsterdam UMC - Amsterdam University Medical Center, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia = University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (UNIMORE), National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE), Chard-Hutchinson, Xavier, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz / Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Public and occupational health, APH - Quality of Care, and APH - Societal Participation & Health

Subjects
Burden of disease, PROTOCOL, Occupational risk, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Environmental Sciences & Ecology, 010501 environmental sciences, Individual risk, World Health Organization, 01 natural sciences, Work related, Article, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, User experience design, Cost of Illness, Bias, Environmental health, Prevalence, Humans, QUALITY, GE1-350, 030212 general & internal medicine, Reliability (statistics), ComputingMethodologies_COMPUTERGRAPHICS, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, General Environmental Science, Science & Technology, business.industry, Occupational epidemiology, Occupational exposure, Systematic review methods, Reproducibility of Results, SCIENCE, 3. Good health, Environmental sciences, Occupational Diseases, [SDV] Life Sciences [q-bio], SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Inter-rater reliability, Systematic review, ASSESSMENTS, RELIABILITY, Psychology, business, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Environmental Sciences
Abstract

Graphical abstract, Highlights • Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is a critical step of a systematic review. • RoB-SPEO assesses RoB in prevalence studies of occupational risk factor exposure. • Inter-rater agreement for its domains ranged from proportions of 0.54–0.82. • Median time taken to complete one assessment using RoB-SPEO was 40 min. • User experience was positive but called for an online tool and further instructions., Background As part of the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, WHO and ILO carried out several systematic reviews to determine the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies is a critical step of a systematic review. No tool existed for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors, so WHO and ILO developed and pilot tested the RoB-SPEO tool for this purpose. Here, we investigate the assessor burden, inter-rater agreement, and user experience of this new instrument, based on the abovementioned WHO/ILO systematic reviews. Methods Twenty-seven individual experts applied RoB-SPEO to assess risk of bias. Four systematic reviews provided a total of 283 individual assessments, carried out for 137 studies. For each study, two or more assessors independently assessed risk of bias across the eight RoB-SPEO domains selecting one of RoB-SPEO’s six ratings (i.e., “low”, “probably low”, “probably high”, “high”, “unclear” or “cannot be determined”). Assessors were asked to report time taken (i.e. indicator of assessor burden) to complete each assessment and describe their user experience. To gauge assessor burden, we calculated the median and inter-quartile range of times taken per individual risk of bias assessment. To assess inter-rater reliability, we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between Pi = 0.00, indicating no agreement and Pi = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, Pi was also disaggregated by systematic review, assessor experience with RoB-SPEO (≤10 assessments versus > 10 assessments), and assessment time (tertiles: ≤25 min versus 26–66 min versus ≥ 67 min). To describe user experience, we synthesised the assessors’ comments and recommendations. Results Assessors reported a median of 40 min to complete one assessment (interquartile range 21–120 min). For all domains, raw inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.82. Agreement varied by systematic review and assessor experience with RoB-SPEO between domains, and increased with increasing assessment time. A small number of users recommended further development of instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains, especially bias in selection of participants into the study (domain 1) and bias due to differences in numerator and denominator (domain 7). Discussion Overall, our results indicated good agreement across the eight domains of the RoB-SPEO tool. The median assessment time was comparable to that of other risk of bias tools, indicating comparable assessor burden. However, there was considerable variation in time taken to complete assessments. Additional time spent on assessments may improve inter-rater agreement. Further development of the RoB-SPEO tool could focus on refining instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains and additional testing to assess agreement for different topic areas and with a wider range of assessors from different research backgrounds.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. Collection of human and environmental data on pesticide use in Europe and Argentina : Field study protocol for the SPRINT project

Author

Igor Pasković, Juergen Gandrass, Daniele Mandrioli, Esperanza Huerta Lwanga, Josefina Contreras, Lucius Tamm, Martin Tang Sørensen, Jos Boekhorst, Abdallah Alaoui, Dirk Goossens, Virginia Aparicio, Freya Debler, Joana Luísa Pereira, Jakub Hofman, Judith Nathanail, Nicoleta Suciu, María Ángeles Martínez, Christian Grovermann, Paula Harkes, Ellen Kandeler, Irina Herb, Isabelle Baldi, Marco Trevisan, Francisco Alcon, Anke Huss, Glavan Matjaz, Vivi Schlünssen, Vera M. F. da Silva, Jane Mills, C. Paul Nathanail, Martien H.F. Graumans, Anne Vested, Isabel Campos, Hans G.J. Mol, Charlotte-Anne Chivers, Coen J. Ritsema, Jennifer Mark, Frank van Langevelde, Marlot Jonker, Nelson Abrantes, Violette Geissen, Karsten Beekmann, Paul T.J. Scheepers, Peter Fantke, Trine Norgaard, Maurice van Dael, Daria Sgargi, Daniel Martins Figueiredo, Jerry M. Wells, Ana Frelih-Larsen, Silva, Vera [0000-0002-9511-6588], Schlünssen, Vivi [0000-0003-4915-1734], Graumans, Martien [0000-0002-3003-6632], Suciu, Nicoleta [0000-0002-3183-4169], Harkes, Paula [0000-0003-3347-9698], Martínez, María Ángeles [0000-0002-3927-3183], Pereira, Joana Luísa [0000-0001-7573-6184], Debler, Freya [0000-0002-2385-2199], van Langevelde, Frank [0000-0001-8870-0797], Sgargi, Daria [0000-0003-3829-7957], Tamm, Lucius [0000-0003-3725-9406], Fantke, Peter [0000-0001-7148-6982], Chivers, Charlotte-Anne [0000-0003-3267-5558], Pasković, Igor [0000-0002-3937-3926], Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), University of Bern, Aarhus University [Aarhus], National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Nimègue, Pays-Bas], Radboud University Medical Center [Nijmegen], Università cattolica del Sacro Cuore [Piacenza e Cremona] (Unicatt), Utrecht University [Utrecht], Masaryk University [Brno] (MUNI), University of Hohenheim, Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies [Aveiro] (CESAM), Universidade de Aveiro, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas [Madrid] (CIEMAT), Catholic University of Leuven - Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture - Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau (FiBL), Danmarks Tekniske Universitet = Technical University of Denmark (DTU), ECOLOGIC INSTITUTE BERLIN DEU, Partenaires IRSTEA, Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture (IRSTEA)-Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture (IRSTEA), University of Gloucestershire (Cheltenham, GB), Universidad de Cartagena [Cartagena de Indias], Bordeaux population health (BPH), Université de Bordeaux (UB)-Institut de Santé Publique, d'Épidémiologie et de Développement (ISPED)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Cancer environnement (EPICENE ), Université de Bordeaux (UB)-Institut de Santé Publique, d'Épidémiologie et de Développement (ISPED)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université de Bordeaux (UB)-Institut de Santé Publique, d'Épidémiologie et de Développement (ISPED)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institute of Agriculture and Tourism, University of Ljubljana, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Nijmegen, the Netherlands], and European Project: 825619,AI4EU

Subjects
010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, S605.5_Organic, UNCERTAINTY, Biochemistry, 01 natural sciences, Study Protocol, Agricultural Soil Science, SDG 13 - Climate Action, 910 Geography & travel, SDG 15 - Life on Land, Environmental resource management, Geology, Genomics, PE&RC, 6. Clean water, Medical Microbiology, Science & Technology - Other Topics, Medicine, Livestock, Agrochemicals, Crops, Agricultural, S1, Farms, Science, Crop health, quality, protection, Argentina, Soil Science, Growing season, Team Toxicology, Microbial Genomics, Environment, S589.75_Agriculture, Microbiology, 12. Responsible consumption, SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Settore AGR/13 - CHIMICA AGRARIA, Genetics, Humans, SF, Ecosystem, Host-Microbe Interactomics, Pesticides, 550 Earth sciences & geology, Petrology, VLAG, Agricultural, Science & Technology, Biology and Life Sciences, 15. Life on land, Bodemfysica en Landbeheer, Team Pesticides 2, Medio Ambiente, SB599_Pests, Agriculture, Research Proyects, RESIDUES, WIAS, Pest Control, Microbiome, Biomarkers, Plaguicidas, 010501 environmental sciences, Environmental data, AGRICULTURAL SOILS, Animal Management, RISK, Sedimentary Geology, 2. Zero hunger, Multidisciplinary, Data Collection, Collección de Datos, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Europe, Organic farming, Europa, Risk assessment, CHROMATOGRAPHY, Crops, S589.7_Agricultural, Life Science, Animals, EXPOSURE, General, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, Proyectos de Investigación, WIMEK, business.industry, Impact assessment, Soil Physics and Land Management, 13. Climate action, Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Earth Sciences, Environmental science, [SDV.SPEE]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologie, Sediment, business, Crop Science
Abstract

Current farm systems rely on the use of Plant Protection Products (PPP) to secure high productivity and control threats to the quality of the crops. However, PPP use may have considerable impacts on human health and the environment. A study protocol is presented aiming to determine the occurrence and levels of PPP residues in plants (crops), animals (livestock), humans and other non-target species (ecosystem representatives) for exposure modelling and impact assessment. To achieve this, we designed a cross-sectional study to compare conventional and organic farm systems across Europe. Environmental and biological samples were/are being/will be collected during the 2021 growing season, at 10 case study sites in Europe covering a range of climate zones and crops. An additional study site in Argentina will inform the impact of PPP use on growing soybean which is an important European protein-source in animal feed. We will study the impact of PPP mixtures using an integrated risk assessment methodology. The fate of PPP in environmental media (soil, water and air) and in the homes of farmers will be monitored. This will be complemented by biomonitoring to estimate PPP uptake by humans and farm animals (cow, goat, sheep and chicken), and by collection of samples from non-target species (earthworms, fish, aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrates, bats, and farm cats). We will use data on PPP residues in environmental and biological matrices to estimate exposures by modelling. These exposure estimates together with health and toxicity data will be used to predict the impact of PPP use on environment, plant, animal and human health. The outcome of this study will then be integrated with socio-economic information leading to an overall assessment used to identify transition pathways towards more sustainable plant protection and inform decision makers, practitioners and other stakeholders regarding farming practices and land use policy. EEA Balcarce Fil: Silva, Vera. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Alaoui, Abdallah. University of Bern. Institute of Geography. Centre for Development and Environment; Suiza. Fil: Schlünssen, Vivi. Aarhus University. Department of Public Health; Dinamarca. National Research Centre for the Working Environment; Dinamarca. Fil: Vested, Anne. Aarhus University. Department of Public Health; Dinamarca. Fil: Graumans, Martien. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Países Bajos. Fil: Van Dael, Maurice. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Países Bajos. Fil: Trevisan, Marco. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Department for Sustainable Food Process; Italia. Fil: Suciu, Nicoleta. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Department for Sustainable Food Process; Italia. Fil: Mol, Hans. Wageningen University and Research. Wageningen Food Safety Research; Países Bajos. Fil: Beekmann, Karsten. Wageningen University and Research. Wageningen Food Safety Research; Países Bajos. Fil: Figueiredo, Daniel. Utrecht University. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences; Países Bajos. Fil: Harkes, Paula. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Hofman, Jakub. Masaryk University. Faculty of Science. Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment; Republica Checa. Fil: Kandeler, Ellen. University of Hohenheim. Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation; Alemania. Fil: Abrantes, Nelson. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies and Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal. Fil: Campos, Isabel. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies and Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal. Fil: Martínez, María Ángeles. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas; España. Fil: Pereira, Joana Luísa. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies and Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal. Fil: Goossens, Dirk. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group. Países Bajos. KU Leuven Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences; Belgica. Fil: Gandrass, Juergen. Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry; Alemania. Fil: Debler, Freya. Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry; Alemania. Fil: Huerta Lwanga, Esperanza. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Jonker, Marlot. Dutch Mammal Society; Países Bajos. Fil: Van Langevelde, Frank. Wageningen University and Research. Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Sorensen, Martin. Aarhus University. Department of Animal Science; Dinamarca. Fil: Wells, Jerry. Wageningen University and Research. Host-Microbe Interactomics, Animal Sciences Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Boekhorst, Jos. Wageningen University and Research. Host-Microbe Interactomics, Animal Sciences Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Huss, Anke. Utrecht University. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences; Países Bajos. Fil: Mandrioli, Daniele. Ramazzini Institute. Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center; Italia. Fil: Sgargi, Daria. Ramazzini Institute. Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center; Italia. Fil: Nathanail, Paul. Land Quality Management; Reino Unido. Fil: Nathanail, Judith. Land Quality Management; Reino Unido. Fil: Tamm, Lucius. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture; Suiza. Fil: Fantke, Peter. Technical University of Denmark. Department of Technology, Management and Economics; Dinamarca. Fil: Mark, Jennifer. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture; Suiza. Fil: Grovermann, Christian. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture; Suiza. Fil: Larsen, Ana Frelih. Ecologic Institute; Alemania. Fil: Herb, Irina. Ecologic Institute; Alemania. Fil: Chivers, Charlotte Anne. University of Gloucestershire. Countryside and Community Research Institute; Reino Unido. Fil: Mills, Jane. University of Gloucestershire. Countryside and Community Research Institute; Reino Unido. Fil: Alcon, Francisco. Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena; España. Fil: Contreras, Josefina. Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena; España. Fil: Baldi, Isabelle. Bordeaux University. INSERM U1219; Francia. Fil: Pasković, Igor. Institute of Agriculture and Tourism, Department of Agriculture and Nutrition; Croacia. Fil: Matjaz, Glavan. University of Ljubljana. Biotechnical Faculty; Eslovenia. Fil: Norgaard, Trine. Aarhus University. Department of Agroecology; Dinamarca. Fil: Aparicio, Virginia Carolina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Fil: Ritsema, Coen. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Geissen, Violette. University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Scheepers, Paul. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Países Bajos.

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Identification of aspartame-induced haematopoietic and lymphoid tumours in rats after lifetime treatment

Author

Laura Falcioni, Luciano Bua, Fiorella Belpoggi, Federica Gnudi, Daria Sgargi, Marco Manservigi, Andrea Vornoli, Simona Panzacchi, Daniele Mandrioli, and Eva Tibaldi

Subjects
0301 basic medicine, Male, Pathology, medicine.medical_specialty, Histology, Lymphoma, CD3, CD33, Lymphoid hyperplasia, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Neoplasms, medicine, Animals, Humans, Aspartame, CD20, Lung, Hyperplasia, Leukemia, biology, business.industry, CD68, Cell Biology, General Medicine, Rats, 030104 developmental biology, medicine.anatomical_structure, Lymphatic system, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, biology.protein, Immunohistochemistry, Female, medicine.symptom, business
Abstract

Lymphomas and leukaemias involving the lung have in some cases been hard to distinguish from respiratory tract infection in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats from long-term bioassays. In order to differentiate between tumours and immune cell infiltrates, updated pathological criteria and nomenclature were used and immunohistochemistry (IHC) was applied to haematopoietic and lymphoid tissue tumours (HLTs) in the original prenatal long-term Aspartame (APM) study performed by the Ramazzini Institute (RI). All 78 cases of HLTs from treated and control groups were re-examined based on light microscopic morphological characteristics and subjected to a panel of IHC markers including Ki67, CD3, PAX5, CD20, CD68, TdT, CD45, CD14 and CD33. The analysis confirmed the diagnoses of HLTs in 72 cases, identified 3 cases of preneoplastic lesions (lymphoid hyperplasia), and categorized 3 cases as inflammatory lesions. A statistically significant increase in total HLTs (p = 0.006), total lymphomas (p = 0.032) and total leukaemias (p = 0.031) in treated female rats was confirmed (high dose vs control), and a statistically significant linear trend for each HLT type was also observed. After the HLT cases re-evaluation, the results obtained are consistent with those reported in the previous RI publication and reinforce the hypothesis that APM has a leukaemogenic and lymphomatogenic effect.

Published
2020

14. RoB-SPEO: A tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Author

Daniele Mandrioli, Susan L Norris, Kathrine Sørensen, Tracey J. Woodruff, Alexis Descatha, Tom Loney, Denise Torreão Corrêa da Silva, Patrice Sutton, Lisa Bero, Emilie van Deventer, Marília Silva Paulo, Vivi Schlünssen, Paul T.J. Scheepers, Ellen K. Silbergeld, Rebecca L. Morgan, Daria Sgargi, Diana Gagliardi, Frank Pega, Lode Godderis, Daniela Vianna Pachito, Thomas Tenkate, Yuka Ujita, Claudine Backes, Alberto Modenese, Organisation Mondiale de la Santé / World Health Organization Office (OMS / WHO), Vieillissement et Maladies chroniques : approches épidémiologique et de santé publique (VIMA), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Cohortes épidémiologiques en population (CONSTANCES), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris-Saclay-Université de Paris (UP), Department of Public Health [Copenhagen, Denmark] (Danish Ramazzini Centre), Aarhus University [Aarhus]-The National Research Center for Work Environment [Copenhagen, Denmark], Johns Hopkins University (JHU), Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California [San Francisco] (UCSF), University of California-University of California, 1 E11 OH0010676-02, World Health Organization, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ), UMS011 Cohortes épidémiologiques en population (CONSTANCES), Unité de pathologie professionnelle, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (APHP)-Hôpital Raymond Poincaré [AP-HP], IRSET - Épidémiologie en santé au travail et ergonomie (IRSET-ESTER), Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail (Irset), Université d'Angers (UA)-Université de Rennes 1 (UR1), Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Structure Fédérative de Recherche en Biologie et Santé de Rennes ( Biosit : Biologie - Santé - Innovation Technologique )-Université d'Angers (UA)-Université de Rennes 1 (UR1), Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Structure Fédérative de Recherche en Biologie et Santé de Rennes ( Biosit : Biologie - Santé - Innovation Technologique ), and Aarhus University [Copenhagen, Denmark]-The National Research Center for Work Environment [Copenhagen, Denmark]

Subjects
Burden of disease, PROTOCOL, Blinding, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, Occupational risk, MEDLINE, Environmental Sciences & Ecology, 010501 environmental sciences, World Health Organization, 01 natural sciences, Work related, Article, Occupational safety and health, Bias, Risk Factors, Environmental health, Occupational Exposure, Prevalence, Humans, lcsh:Environmental sciences, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, General Environmental Science, lcsh:GE1-350, Science & Technology, Other Research Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 0], Conflict of interest, SCIENCE, 3. Good health, Occupational Diseases, SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Systematic review, ASSESSMENTS, Wounds and Injuries, [SDV.SPEE]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologie, Psychology, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Environmental Sciences
Abstract

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. Methods Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. Results Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51–0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested. Conclusions We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates., Highlights • WHO and ILO are systematically reviewing occupational exposure prevalence studies. • Assessing risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies is a core step of systematic reviews. • We developed RoB-SPEO, a tool to assess RoB in occupational exposure prevalence studies. • The performance of RoB-SPEO will be tested in the WHO/ILO systematic reviews.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission

Author

Ilaria Menghetti, Marco Manservigi, Fabiana Manservisi, Laura Falcioni, Simona Panzacchi, Michelina Lauriola, Federica Gnudi, Daria Sgargi, R. Montella, L. De Angelis, Andrea Vornoli, Daniele Mandrioli, Eva Tibaldi, Luciano Bua, Fiorella Belpoggi, V. Strollo, and I. Manzoli

Subjects
business.industry, Incidence (epidemiology), Physiology, Environmental exposure, 010501 environmental sciences, Hyperplasia, medicine.disease, 01 natural sciences, Biochemistry, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Natural death, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Radiofrequency field, Sprague dawley rats, Medicine, Heart tumors, business, Carcinogen, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, General Environmental Science
Abstract

Background In 2011, IARC classified radiofrequency radiation (RFR) as possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). According to IARC, animals studies, as well as epidemiological ones, showed limited evidence of carcinogenicity. In 2016, the NTP published the first results of its long-term bioassays on near field RFR, reporting increased incidence of malignant glial tumors of the brain and heart Schwannoma in rats exposed to GSM – and CDMA – modulated cell phone RFR. The tumors observed in the NTP study are of the type similar to the ones observed in some epidemiological studies of cell phone users. Objectives The Ramazzini Institute (RI) performed a life-span carcinogenic study on Sprague-Dawley rats to evaluate the carcinogenic effects of RFR in the situation of far field, reproducing the environmental exposure to RFR generated by 1.8 GHz GSM antenna of the radio base stations of mobile phone. This is the largest long-term study ever performed in rats on the health effects of RFR, including 2448 animals. In this article, we reported the final results regarding brain and heart tumors. Methods Male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed from prenatal life until natural death to a 1.8 GHz GSM far field of 0, 5, 25, 50 V/m with a whole-body exposure for 19 h/day. Results A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose (50 V/m). Furthermore, an increase in the incidence of heart Schwann cells hyperplasia was observed in treated male and female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although this was not statistically significant. An increase in the incidence of malignant glial tumors was observed in treated female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although not statistically significant. Conclusions The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are of the same histotype of those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users. These experimental studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of human exposure to pesticide residues in honey and other bees’ products

Author

Paul T.J. Scheepers, Vivi Schlünssen, João Paulo Teixeira, Fiorella Belpoggi, Giovanni Dinelli, Daria Sgargi, Melissa J. Perry, Lygia T. Budnik, Horatiu Remus Moldovan, Balázs Ádám, Daniele Mandrioli, Sgargi D, Adam B, Budnik L.T., Dinelli G., Moldovan H.R., Perry M.J., Scheepers P.T., Schlünssen V., Teixeira J.P., Mandrioli D., Belpoggi, F., and Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto

Subjects
Glyphosate, Insecticides, Acceptable daily intake, Fungicide, Royal jelly, 010501 environmental sciences, 01 natural sciences, Biochemistry, Beeswax, Neonicotinoids, 0302 clinical medicine, Neonicotinoid, Medicine, 030212 general & internal medicine, Insecticide, Fungicides, General Environmental Science, education.field_of_study, Honey, Bees, Occupational Diseases, Pyrethroid, Systematic review, Meta-analysis, visual_art, visual_art.visual_art_medium, Herbicide, Chlorpyrifos, Population, World Health Organization, Propolis, 03 medical and health sciences, Occupational Exposure, Environmental health, Animals, Humans, Pyrethroids, Pesticides, education, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, Protocol (science), Chlorpyrifo, Bees' products, Herbicides, Pesticide residue, Ar e Saúde Ocupacional, business.industry, Other Research Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 0], Pesticide Residues, Pesticide, business, Propoli
Abstract

Meta-Analysis Background: The presence of pesticides in honey and related products is an increasing concern for consumers and producers, although there is lack of data on the current burden of exposure of the general human population through these products. We present a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of contamination to insecticides, herbicides and fungicides of products from honeybees, and an estimation of how much the consumption of these products contributes to the ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) of selected substances. Objectives: We aim to systematically review and meta-analyse studies on the contamination to plant protection products in honey, royal jelly, beeswax and propolis, applying the Navigation Guide and WHO-ILO systematic review methodology as an organizing framework. Data sources: We will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from PubMed, TOXNET and EMBASE. We will include quantitative studies analysing the contamination from insecticides, herbicides and fungicides in honey, propolis, royal jelly and beeswax. In particular, we will evaluate the presence of the following substances and classes of pesticides: Glyphosate, Chlorpyrifos, pyrethroid and neonicotinoid pesticides, fungicides and acaricides. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts at a first stage of review, and full texts at a second stage, of potentially eligible records against the eligibility criteria; data extraction of included studies will then be performed by at least two authors, in blind. At least two authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. The data on prevalence of contaminated samples and concentration of pesticides in the products will be combined using meta-analysis: when more than three studies reporting the necessary measures to fit the models are available, meta-analysis will be performed separately by product and by exposure; otherwise, weighted descriptive analysis will be performed. We will report the results using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA). Highlights: The presence of pesticides in honey and related products is an increasing concern for consumers and producers; We present a protocol for a systematic review of human exposure to pesticide residues in honey and other bees’ products; We will estimate of how much the consumption of these products contributes to the ADI of selected substances. The project is funded by the EU-COST (under Grant no, CA 15129). info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

17. VAR Models for Dynamic Analysis of Prices in the Agri-food System

Author

Stefano Ghinoi, V. J. Wesz Junior, D. Sgargi, Anna Caterina Leucci, Anna Caterina, Leucci, Stefano, Ghinoi, Daria, Sgargi, and Valdemar Joao, Wesz Junior

Subjects
Competition (economics), Variable (computer science), Biodiesel, Granger causality, Biofuel, Economics, Econometrics, Food systems, Production (economics), VAR models, alternative energy source, biofuels, Energy market
Abstract

An adequate understanding of the dynamics that characterize the agri-food market is fundamental for the development of really efficient economic policies, especially after the two recent hikes in the prices of food commodities. The econometric literature provides today advanced analysis tools such as VAR models: these models are based on a system of equations in which each variable is regressed on a set of deterministic variables, on a number of lags related to each covariate in the model. To test the effectiveness of this analytical tool at dealing with the issues related to agri-food economy, we applied a VAR analysis on prices of major food and energy commodities (oil and biodiesel) referring to the period January 2000–December 2012. Our results identified statistically significant intertemporal relationships between the price of corn, soybean oil, rapeseed and oil, and suggested the direction of these relationships; we could conclude that the price of corn and soybeans are influenced mainly in the energy market. Moreover, we focused on the United States market and we set as variables the share of commodities used for the production of biofuels: we could observe that important alterations on the food market are due to the convenience in producing ethanol and biodiesel, since the portion of the crops used for energy is in direct competition with that devoted to the feeding. This kind of model, therefore, deals adequately with data and issues of the agri-food system and provides an analytical basis to develop economic policies that can take into account the complexity of the global food system.

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results