Pyrethroid usage has risen due to restrictions on other insecticides, prompting interest in biomonitoring data as exposure indicators. Occupational exposure, particularly in Plant Protection Product (PPP) applications, is a focus. Regulatory agencies, like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), use tools such as OPEX (https://r4eu.efsa.europa.eu/app/opex) (accessed on 2 April 2024) to assess non-dietary exposure, employing mainly worst-case scenarios for increased protection.
This research explores OPEX’s suitability for non-regulatory realistic aggregate exposure estimations via probabilistic modeling and Monte Carlo simulations. This study uses as background information/data generated within projects funded by EFSA and is part of a case study under the EU PARC project estimating aggregated pyrethroid exposure. This study uses workflows for operators and workers, integrating tasks and applying Monte Carlo simulations for exposure estimation variability. Probability distributions replace default values, addressing real-world uncertainties.
The intention is to present a conceptual model for three occupational exposure scenarios, highlighting variability in task roles and exposure routes. Monte Carlo simulations offer full probability distributions, aiding sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. This study plans to compare aggregated exposure, including dietary exposure, with some preliminary results. The ongoing project aims to refine default values via a probabilistic assessment strategy.
To conclude, there is a need for aggregate exposure models considering shared neurotoxicity among pyrethroids. The proposed approach, based on the regulatory OPEX tool, facilitates comparisons between assessments conducted for regulatory purposes and aggregate assessments. Pyrethroids are chosen due to their proximity to concerning dietary exposure levels. This study’s innovative approach aims to refine occupational exposure assessments, identify aggregate exposure risks, and enhance pesticide risk evaluation in occupational settings, contributing valuable insights for future studies.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/proceedings2024102051/s1.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization and methodology, J.V.T.; software, A.F.-A.; validation, A.F.-A., A.C., N.A., K.M., M.A.G., M.d.C.G.C. and J.V.T.; formal analysis, A.F.-A., A.C., N.A., K.M., M.A.G., M.d.C.G.C. and J.V.T.; resources and data curation, A.C., N.A. and K.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F.-A.; writing—review and editing, A.F.-A., A.C., N.A., K.M., M.A.G., M.d.C.G.C. and J.V.T.; visualization, A.F.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Partnership for the Assessment of Risks for Chemicals (PARC). Co-founded by the EU, Grant number ID: 101057014.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The original data presented in the study are openly available at https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10080451, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7032, https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-846, https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.EN-346.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).