1

Hanna MacArthur

Professor Deb King

Today’s Science, Tomorrow’s World

June 6, 2022

Evaluation of a Scientific Paper: Risk of Pesticide Pollution at the Global Scale

This article outlines the global implications of pesticide pollution, evaluating the

environmental pollution risk posed by 92 active ingredients in 168 countries. Through the use of

predicted environmental concentrations and predicted no-effect concentrations of active

ingredients, the authors of the article produced a hierarchical approach of the Pesticide Use Risk

Evaluation decision-support system, effectively identifying regions with a high risk of pesticide

pollution, with consideration to the intersectionality of pesticide pollution and biodiversity, water

scarcity and lower income communities.

The article uses abundant quantitative and qualitative evidence to support their central

argument: that pesticide pollution is a global-scale issue that may critically impact watersheds in

South Africa, China, India, Australia and Argentina. To determine areas at high risk of pesticide

pollution, ratios were formed between the predicted environmental concentration of active

ingredients and the predicted no-effect concentration of those active ingredients within four

observed environmental compartments (soil, surface water, groundwater and atmosphere). These

ratios were referred to as “risk quotients” in the article, and were then used to calculate “risk

points”. These risk points were calculated as the log-transformed sum of all risk-quotients,

however it is not explicitly stated why this step was necessary or relevant. Finally, the article
 2

uses the maximum risk point across the four evironmental compartments to find the “risk score.”

The risk score is used to identify specific regions that are highly susceptible to pesticide

pollution and may benefit from a tailored stategy for the sustainable use of agricultural

pesticides. These risk scores were then synthesized into a global map showing the range of

pesticide pollution risk within each continent, however, the proposed global mapping does not

take into consideration the pesticides impact on human health, nor does it consider all of the

organisms within an environmental compartment. The second figure used in the article is a

global map of the number of active ingredients posing risks to the environment within different

continents. This figure reveals some synergistic effects of the various active ingredients found in

different regions. The sampling conducted in the study described by the article was selected

randomly across the variable space using a uniform distribution.

There are several gaps in evidence found within the article aside from the

non-consideration of pesticide impact on human health. The assessment of pesticide use impact

on biodiversity is limited to tetrapods and therefore doesn’t fully represent all organisms within

an environmental compartment. While this is an understandable limitation due to practicality, it

still reduce the accuracy of their findings. The authors also referenced and used data from 2015,

which may be outdated or irrelevant. While the article provides a clear stream of logic and

reasoning, the authors constantly alternate between the use of percentages and decimals, which

may be misleading or confusing.

The study described in the articles utilises both primary and secondary data. Primary data

can be found in the study within factors such as the calculated risk quotients and the

PEST-CHEMGRIDS global database. Whereas secondary data was incorporated through the use
 3

of resources such as the USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project and the CPC Global Unified

Precipiation dataset provided by the NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSD.

Several sources of error have been identified within this study. A certainty index was

formulated by the authors of the article to measure the probability of the grid cells falling under

the risk class found by the risk score. It is not explained further in the article how exactly this

formulated grid cell certainty index functions and measures accuracy, however it was found that

approximately 22% of grid cells were highly certain, and fewer than 9% of grid cells had low

certainty. Furthermore, AMAE and AMAV indices were used to determine the main factors

contributing to the uncertainty present within the grid cells that the certainty index found to be

less than highly certain. This showed that among all tested variables, active ingredient

application rates contributed the greatest amount of uncertainty in 42% of grid cells. The

pesticide pollution risk presented in this study assumes a single application annually of active

ingredients. This may have lead to an overstatement of the global pesticide pollution risk.

Another notable assumption the study made was that no pesticides were lost due to drift and

interception by crops and pesticide degredation products, which can be just as toxic and

persistent as the parent molecules themselves, were also not considered. Due to these

assumptions made by the study, the authors’ conclusions may have been overstated. However,

the authors do show caution by acknowledging and describing the potential sources of error or

uncertainty. The authors do not consider any real ethical or cultural concerns.

Overall, the article provided a succinct overview of the global implications of pesticide

pollution. The authors’ use of relevant evidence and reasoning followed a clear stream of logic

and provided readers with sufficient information to understand the described impacts of pesticide
 4

pollution at a global scale. The article effectively utilized both primary and secondary data, and

informed readers on possible sources of uncertainty or error.

 5

Works Cited

Tang, Fiona H. M., et al. “Risk of Pesticide Pollution at the Global Scale.” Nature

Geoscience, vol. 14, no. 4, 29 Mar. 2021, pp. 206–210, 10.1038/s41561-021-00712-5.