PRoMPT

David PendlingtonUnilever Sustainable Agriculture

Project Co-ordinator

A software system to evaluate the environmental and human health impacts of pesticide use in agriculture.

Simple but meaningful RISK-BASED indicators on - Leaching potential- Aquatic eco-toxicity- Terrestrial eco-toxicity- Operator risk

…with minimum data input required by user

- To inform choice on pest control options- To track progress towards more ‘sustainable’ use- To compare growers, regions or supply chains

What is PRoMPT?

How does it work?

What can it be usedfor?

Structure

User data

Four risk indicators• Groundwater risk• Aquatic eco-tox• Terrestrial eco-tox• Operator risk

Algorithms

Pesticide database

PRPROOMPTMPT

1 3

2

4

User data

Input• Location (lat, lon) and distance to water courses• Active Ingredients (AI) used• Application rate, technique, date• Irrigation

1PRPROOMPTMPT

1

Pesticide database

• Substance data, mainly from public domain• Toxicological & physico-chemical endpoints• Augmented with data from manufacturers• About 600 substances

2PRPROOMPTMPT

2

Algorithms

Example: Leaching to groundwater

R = L / ADIRisk Indicator

Predicted average daily leaching loss

Human Allowable DailyIntake (Toxicity)

Leaching prediction Layered mass balance model Global drainage data set Adjustment for irrigation

3PRPROOMPTMPT

3

Location-specific drainage is derived from the output of water balance model (Vörösmarty et al., 1998 J. Hydrol. 207, 147ff).

Grower location(lat and lon)

Predicted mean monthly runoff for SE Australia

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Month

Ru

no

ff (

mm

)

NB - Long-term average

values NOT site and year specific!

VERY approximate!

Mean Monthly Flux (mm/month)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Flu

x (m

m /

mo

nth

)

Algorithms

Other risk indicators similar to Groundwater• Potential exposure vs. toxicity threshold• Standard screening-level toxicology• Simple exposure models

3PRPROOMPTMPT

3

Output: Four risk indicators• Leaching to groundwater• Aquatic eco-toxicity• Terrestrial eco-toxicity• Operator risk

For each risk indicator and each AI, risks are classed as

<10 Low Risk → 1 point 10-100 Medium Risk → 3 points >100 High Risk → 9 points

4 PRPROOMPTMPT

4

Applications

1. To inform choice on pest control options

2. To track progress towards more ‘sustainable’ use

3. To compare growers, regions or supply chains

Scenario A B C D E

Active Ingredient Ethion Quinalphos Deltamethrin Endosulfan Phosphamidon

Rate (g AI ha-1) 250 190 4 122.5 144.5

Example 1 a: Inform choice on pest control options

Five control options for thrips recommended by the Indian Tea Board and the Indian Pesticide Board

Effect of No-Spray Zone in spinach growing (Italy)profile for individual A.I.’s with and without No Spray Zone (NSZ)

Example 1b : Inform choice on pest control options

Effect of No-Spray Zone in spinach growing (Italy)profile for individual A.I.’s with and without No Spray Zone (NSZ)

Example 1b : Inform choice on pest control options

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

(a) (b)

Example 2: Track progress towards ‘sustainable’ use

Growing tomatoes sustainably in Australia

Example 3: compare growers, regions or supply chains

Comparing Grower Profiles: Eleven (A – K) brassica growers in Eastern England

Problem growers or growers with problems?

Limitations (1)

• PRoMPT can not ‘make’ the choice whether to use a particular pesticide or not. This will depend on additional factors, such as– risk of residues in product– efficacy & risk of crop damage– alternative pest control measures available– action thresholds– national registration– black or white lists and reputation– availability & cost.

Limitations (2)

• PRoMPT will not safeguard against or inform on the effects of bad practice, e.g. – insufficient operator training– not using proper Personal Protective Equipment– bad storage, use and disposal of pesticides.

THANK YOU!