Assessing the Risks to Bats from Plant Protection Products: A Review of the Recent European Food Safety Authority Statement Regarding Toxicity and Exposure Routes.

Wild birds and mammals that feed in agricultural habitats are potentially exposed to pesticides through various routes. Until recently, it has been implicitly assumed that the existing European Union risk assessment scheme for birds and mammals also covered bats (Chiroptera). However, recent publications raised concerns and, in 2019, a scientific statement was published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that concluded that bats were not adequately covered by the current risk assessment scheme. We review the evidence presented and assumptions made in the EFSA bat statement relating to toxicity, bioaccumulation, and exposure pathways (oral, dermal, and inhalation), in terms of their relevance for bats potentially foraging in agricultural areas in the European Union; we highlight where uncertainties remain and how these could be addressed. Based on our review, it is clear that there is still much uncertainty with regard to the appropriateness of the assumptions made in the EFSA bat statement. Significantly more information needs to be gathered to answer fundamental questions regarding bat behavior in agricultural landscapes, together with the relative sensitivity of bats to pesticide exposure. Given the current critical information gaps, it is recommended that quantitative risk assessments for bats not be performed for pesticides until more robust, reliable, and relevant data are available. The risk to bats can then be compared with that for birds and ground-dwelling mammals, to determine the protectiveness of the existing scheme and thus whether a bat scenario is indeed required and under what circumstances. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:2978-2989. © 2021 Cambridge Environmental Assessments, part of RSK ADAS Ltd. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Randomized controlled trial of the haemodynamic and recovery effects of xenon or propofol anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical experience with xenon in a large number of patients. We present intra- and postoperative haemodynamic and recovery data comparing xenon and total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol. METHODS: A total of 160 patients aged 18-60 years (ASA I and II) undergoing elective surgery took part in this prospective non-blinded randomized controlled trial. After local ethics committee approval and written informed consent, patients were allocated randomly to either the xenon or the propofol group. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and remifentanil and was maintained with xenon at 60% (minimal alveolar concentration 0.95) or with propofol 0.1-0.12 mg kg(-1) min(-1). Remifentanil was titrated to clinical need in both groups. RESULTS: The two study groups were comparable with respect to age, weight, height, gender and ASA classification. Baseline in heart rate and systolic arterial pressure (SAP) were comparable in both groups. Following induction, SAP initially decreased but returned to baseline values over 15 min in the xenon group and differed significantly from the propofol group. Heart rate decreased significantly only in the xenon group and remained at stable values. Occurrence and duration of hypertension, hypotension and bradycardia showed no significant difference between groups. Patient recovery time in the post-anaesthetic care unit and recovery from anaesthesia was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: After induction the xenon/opioid regimen maintains systolic blood pressure at baseline levels and a low heart rate. No differences between groups were found in haemodynamic stability during anaesthesia. Recovery from xenon anaesthesia was similar to that observed in the propofol group.