A selection of slides from our EPA kickoff meeting, April 2020

1. Pesticide Management for Better Water
Quality (PEST-MAN)
Steering Committee Meeting #1
April 23, 2020

2. Project Team
Prof Mark Healy
Dr Alma Siggins
Dr Liam Morrison
Dr John McGinley (PhD
student)
MSc student (Feb 2021)
Dr Per-Erik Mellander
Post-doc researcher (to be
recruited immediately)
Dr Paraic Ryan
MSc student (from
Sept 2020)
2/24

3. Aims of Project
PEST-MAN aims to:
(1) understand the drivers and pressures for the use of
pesticides in the environment
(2) examine their fate and persistence
(3) evaluate any potential impact and risks to the environment
and human health
(4) develop a low-cost, passive, in-situ method to remediate
pesticides in the environment, and
(5) disseminate knowledge and engage stakeholders and the
general public
3/24

4. Methodological Framework
Drivers – social, economic, environmental
Pressures – caused by the Drivers
State – Pressures/Drivers impact the state of the environment
Impacts – the State impacts ecosystem services
Responses – may be taken to address the impacts
4/24

5. Methodological Framework
Source
Pathway
Receptor
Examining Drivers
and Pressures for
use of pesticides
Persistence, fate, interactions
and cumulative effects of
pesticides.
Interactions between
pesticides and soil type,
residence time/travel time,
land use
Understanding Impacts on
State of surface and
groundwater
Responses that aim to
minimize negative
impacts:
- Stream monitoring
- Intervention in stream
with suitable media
Human Health impacts
of pesticide use
WP 1
WP 2
WP 3
5/24

6. Work Package 1
Identifying pesticides, understanding drivers and pressures
Objective:
• To identify pesticides of concern for human health
• To elucidate the pressures and drivers for pesticide use in
Ireland
• To identify pesticides for examination in this study
Deliverable:
Literature review on pesticide use in Ireland; Identification of key
pesticides of concern; Identification of study catchments
Methodological Framework
6/24

7. Work Package 2
Pathways of pesticides in the rural and urban environment
Objective:
• Ascertain the effect of the soil environment
on pesticide persistence
• Determine if the pathway from soil to water
sources occurs via leaching or surface runoff
• Identify the influence of pesticides on soil
quality, incl. microbial diversity
Deliverable:
Data on adsorption of pesticides to various soil textures
Papers on leaching and runoff potential of pesticides
Methodological Framework
7/24

8. Work Package 3
Receptors: response and intervention to mitigate impact
Objective:
• Identification of appropriate media for pesticide
adsorption and design of passive treatment
units at lab and field-scale
• Health risk assessment of impacted populations
and quantification of reduction in risk arising
from our inverventions
Deliverable:
Design and implementation of a passive
treatment unit; Human health risk assessment
Methodological Framework
8/24

9. Work Package 4
Engagement of stakeholders and the general public
Objective:
• To engage stakeholders and general public
• To disseminate the study results
Deliverable:
Development of network through collaboration and meetings
Methodological Framework
9/24

10. Work Package 5
Project Management
Objective:
• Management of the project
• To deliver the project on time and on budget
• Dissemination of the results to scientific and non-scientific
audiences
Deliverable:
Submission of technical and financial reports, conference
attendance, etc.
Methodological Framework
10/24

11. Progress to date
Data obtained pesticide use in Ireland obtained for:
Sources Most recent
years of record
Arable1 DAFM
EPA
2012
Grassland and fodder
crops2
2013
1 http://www.pcs.agriculture.gov.ie/media/pesticides/content/sud/pesticidestatistics/Pesticde%20Usage%20-
%202012%20Arable%20Survey%20Report.pdf
2 http://www.pcs.agriculture.gov.ie/media/pesticides/content/sud/pesticidestatistics/Pesticide%20Usage%20-
%202013%20Grassland%20&%20Fodder%20Crops%20Survey%20Report.pdf
12/24

12. Progress to date
Arable land (2012)
Spray hectares Amount of pesticide used (kg)
13/24

13. Progress to date
Grassland and fodder crops (2013)
Spray hectares Amount of pesticide used (kg)
14/24

14. Progress to date
15/24

15. Progress to date
16/24

16. F = Fungicide, H = Herbicide, I = Insecticide, GR = Growth Regulator
# Ingredient Type Treated
area (ha)
%
1 Chlorothalonil F 216,414 19
2 Chlormequat GR 170, 928 15
3 Glyphosate H 98,788 9
4 Isoproturan H 95,116 8
5 Fenpropimorph F 72,787 6
6 Mecoprop-P H 47,178 4
7 Prothioconazole F 44,674 3
8 Mancozeb F 26,892 2
9 Epoxiconaxole F 24,661 2
10 Propamocarb
hydrochloride
F 23,957 2
Arable land (2012)
As kg As Spraying hectares
# Ingredient Type Treated
area (ha)
%
1 Chlorothalonil F 425,897 11
2 Prothioconazole F 368,220 10
3 Epoxiconaxole F 355,736 9
4 Fenpropimorph F 255,733 7
5 Chlormequat GR 202,184 5
6 Tribenuron-methyl H 145,674 4
7 Cypermethrin I 135,390 4
8 Esfenvalerate I 128,595 3
9 Glyphosate H 115,355 3
10 Pinoxaden H 108,424 2
Progress to date
17/24

17. F = Fungicide, H = Herbicide, I = Insecticide, GR = Growth Regulator
# Ingredient Type Treated
area (ha)
%
1 MCPA H 258,703 43
2 Glyphosate H 116,173 19
3 2,4-D H 40,421 7
4 Mecoprop-P H 33,908 6
5 Triclopyr H 30,663 5
6 Pendimethalin H 28,255 4
7 Fluroxypyr H 18,098 3
8 2,4-DB H 12,557 2
9 Metamitron H 12,130 2
10 Dicamba H 9,217 2
Grassland and fodder crops (2013)
As kg As Spraying hectares
# Ingredient Type Treated
area (ha)
%
1 MCPA H 179,646 30
2 Triclopyr H 109,320 18
3 Glyphosate H 95,876 16
4 Fluroxypyr H 79,009 13
5 Dicamba H 48,794 8
6 Mecoprop-P H 45,997 7
7 Clopyralid H 43,404 7
8 2,4-D H 33,215 6
9 Amidosulfuron H 27,284 5
10 Pendimethalin H 21,797 4
Progress to date
We will focus on the top 3 – 4 pesticides,
taking into account:
- Budget and logistical considerations
- Previous data on pesticide use at the
field sites
18/24