From fields to gardens: Pesticide contamination in residential areas. A participatory study in Verona (Veneto Region, Italy), 2021-2022

Introduction

Exposure to pesticides through non-occupational pathways, including spray drift and volatilisation, is a growing public health concern, particularly for residents living near agricultural areas.^1,2 Pesticide exposure has been associated with various health issues, ranging from acute symptoms, like skin irritation, to chronic conditions, such as endocrine disruption, neurodevelopmental disorders,^3,4 neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease,⁵ altered immune function,^6,7 and increased risk for various cancers⁸. Pesticides have been linked to colorectal cancer,⁹ lung cancer,¹⁰ childhood^11,12 and adult leukaemias¹³, lymphomas,^14,15 and pancreatic cancer,¹⁶ among others. Glyphosate, marketed as Roundup®, is a common herbicide with an average of 280 million pounds applied to 298 crop acres yearly.¹⁷ Some studies have shown a correlation between exposure to glyphosate and an increased risk of lymphoma.^18-20 The International Agency for Research on Cancer even classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in humans in 2015.²¹ Furthermore, pesticide drift can adversely affect local ecosystems, reducing biodiversity, and compromising the integrity of nearby habitats.²²

Recent studies have highlighted the insufficiency of current mitigation measures to prevent pesticide drift into residential areas.²³ In Italy, particularly in Veneto Region (Northern Italy), few studies have been conducted to investigate the airborne dispersion of toxic pesticides in residential spaces neighbouring crops, a topic that has instead been studied in other geographical areas.^24,25 Therefore, conducting research studies on this topic is essential in order to provide a solid base of knowledge to establish a standardised protocol for detecting the airborne pollution of pesticide derivatives in both residential living spaces and neighbouring cultivated areas. These deficiencies underscore the importance of integrating more effective strategies to safeguard public health and the environment.

Despite European Union initiatives such as Directive 2009/128/EC advocating for sustainable pesticide use, Italy lacks comprehensive monitoring programmes that assess pesticide contamination in residential areas adjacent to farmlands. While similar research has been undertaken in countries like France, the Netherlands, and Belgium,^24-26 Italian studies remain scarce.

In addition to other experiences carried out in this field,^26-28 this study contributes to the literature by examining pesticide contamination in private gardens in Verona (Veneto region), an area characterised by intensive agricultural activity.

The objective of this paper is to detect pesticide residues in biological matrices (deciduous leaves) from gardens located within 40 meters of cultivated fields and evaluate their potential implications for human and environmental health. By addressing the gap in data on residential pesticide exposure in Italy, the aim is to inform policy recommendations and enhance regulatory practices for pesticide use and drift mitigation.

A participatory investigation into pesticide contamination in private gardens bordering crops was carried out. The research was promoted by environmental health networks and carried out with the active involvement of local communities. This participatory design aligns with participatory research, which involves engaging with people who are directly affected by an issue or representing the interests of those affected.²⁹

Materials and methods

Study design

This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2021 and 2022 in Verona province. The sampling areas were identified based on data (2019) from the Agenzia Veneta per l’Innovazione nel Settore Primario Veneto Agricoltura³⁰ to reflect diverse crop types and treatment intensities. Residents were engaged through meetings, local organisations, and social media, with participants providing consent for garden sampling. Fifty private gardens within 40 metres of cultivated fields were included in the study.

The size of the garden and the type of hedges were not considered when selecting the sampling sites; only the presence of deciduous hedges was considered. For adjacent crops, three characteristics were recorded: the predominant crop in the surrounding area, the crop directly bordering the site, and the distance from the site boundary to the nearest cultivated field. Table 1 and Figure 1 summarise the characteristics of the sampling sites for the same locations in 2021 and 2022.

Participatory approach

This research integrated participatory methods by involving volunteers and community groups in site identification and problem formulation. The study design, sampling timeline, and communication strategy were shared and discussed with local networks. Volunteers also contributed contextual information on agricultural surroundings and the use of domestic chemicals.

Sampling procedures

Leaf samples (300 g of deciduous foliage) were collected from each garden in June-July 2021 and June-July-August 2022. Samples were taken only during dry weather to minimise variability. All materials were handled consistently by a single trained operator. Samples were labelled with tamper-proof tags and stored at 2-4°C before laboratory analysis.

Sampling was always carried out in the presence of the garden owner. Containers provided by the laboratory were used, and leaves or twigs were collected by cutting them with clean scissors and placing them directly into the container without hand contact. The quantity requested by the laboratory was collected from various deciduous plant species, excluding evergreens. 

A sampling report was then completed and signed by the owner.

The laboratory was instructed to perform an extended multiresidue analysis covering approximately 480 active ingredients. In addition, specific analyses were requested for glyphosate, CS2-dithiocarbamates, phosetyl and its metabolites, as well as other active ingredients not included in the multiresidue panel.

The presence or absence of a barrier between the garden and the cultivated field was also noted, and each barrier, after measuring its height, was assigned to a class (less than 2 metres, between 2 and 4 metres, and over 4 metres). No distinction was made between the different types of barriers, whether natural or artificial.

Laboratory analysis

The selected laboratory was Agriparadigma, a Tentamus company based in Ravenna (Emilia-Romagna Region, Northern Italy). It is accredited by the Italian national accreditation body ACCREDIA (certificate no. 0060L) and holds Q5 certification, a German-based farm-to-fork quality assurance system for food safety and quality.

Pesticides were extracted using the QuEChERS method (UNI-EN-15662-G) and analysed via liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS).³¹ The detection limit for each compound was 0.01 mg/kg dry weight. Special attention was given to folpet and its degradation products.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise pesticide detection frequency, counts, and concentrations. Toxicological classifications (e.g., H phrases) were used to identify hazard potential (Box 1). Analyses were performed in R (version 4.2.3).

Results

Pesticide presence and distribution

Figure 1 provides a detailed representation of the spatial distribution of the sites where sampling procedures were performed in the province of Verona in 2021-2022. 

Table 2 summarises the number of pesticides detected in the 85 samples collected. In both years, over 70% of gardens contained detectable pesticide residues. The median number of detected pesticides was 2 (IQR 1-3) in 2021 and 1 (IQR 0-3) in 2022. Folpet-phthalimide was the most frequently detected pesticide (55.3% of samples). 

All detected active ingredients complied with the Veneto Region’s guidelines for the protection of fruit and arable crops, with the exception of a single case in which a non-permitted product was found (chlorpyrifos in Zevio, detected in both years).

Concentration levels

Tables 3a and 3b present the concentrations of all pesticides detected at levels above 0.01 mg/kg. The variability in pesticide concentrations between gardens suggests that factors such as wind direction and application methods play critical roles in influencing drift intensity.

Temporal patterns

No significant differences were observed between the number of pesticides sampled in 2021 and 2022. 

Tables 3a and 3b show the number (%) of detection positive for pesticides per year. Folpet-phthalimide was detected in the majority of samples, i.e., 29/44 (65.9%) in 2021 and 18/41 (43.9%) in 2022, and a significant number of sites were polluted with zoxamide (27.3% in 2021, 7.3% in 2021), spiroxamine (13.6% in 2021, 26.8% in 2022), the contact fungicide boscalid (11.4% in 2021, 26.8% in 2022) and dimetomorf (15.9% in 2021, 9.8% in 2022).

Impact of proximity to cultivated fields

Table 4 outlines the relationship between garden proximity to cultivated fields and pesticide hazard statements. Approximately 70% of samples within 30 metres of fields contained pesticides with possible but unconfirmed toxicity (H317, H351, H362). Notably, 1.5% of samples within 40 metres contained highly toxic compounds (H300, H330), contravening regional regulations (DGR Regione Veneto 1082/2019). 

Interestingly, the crop type in the neighbouring field also influenced pesticide presence. This differentiation highlights the role of agricultural diversity in shaping pesticide drift patterns.

Barrier effects

Table 5 describes the total number of pesticides found in the various sites monitored in both 2021 and 2022, distinguished by the presence or absence of a barrier, of which the height class is described.

Median (IQR) pesticide counts were similar for the “no barrier” and “with barrier” groups [2.0 (2.0), N. 30 vs 2.0 (2.0) N. 25]. 

Mean (SD) values for the “no barrier” (N. 30), “<2 m barrier” (N. 13), “2-4 m barrier” (N. 7), and “>4 m barrier” (N. 5) groups were 2.21 (1.88), 2.62 (2.22), 2.29 (1.11), and 1.80 (1.92), respectively.

Discussion

Contextualising findings

The findings of this study demonstrate substantial pesticide drift from agricultural zones into nearby residential gardens, raising critical public health and environmental sustainability concerns. European studies have reported comparable trends.^24,25 Pesticide drift occurs through volatilisation, wind transport, and other environmental processes, making it a persistent challenge for residents and regulatory bodies alike.

Notably, these data reveal the persistence of pesticides despite buffer zone regulations, underscoring their inadequacy in mitigating exposure. This persistence poses risks to human health and local biodiversity, as pesticide residues can accumulate in non-target organisms and disrupt ecological balance.²²

Regarding buffer zones to be maintained near public areas, the Veneto Region has issued guidelines regulating the proper use of pesticides (Regional Resolution 1082/2019). These guidelines were subsequently adopted by municipal administrations and incorporated into their respective Rural Police Regulations. To prevent pesticide drift into public areas, the regulations require a minimum buffer zone of 30 metres for pesticides classified as moderately hazardous (H317, H351, H362, H372) and 40 metres for the most hazardous pesticides (H300, H330). The results obtained from the survey underscore the limitations of current buffer zones, which may not adequately protect nearby residents from pesticide drift.

The temporal stability in pesticide detection rates suggests that drift is a relevant phenomenon influenced by continuous agricultural practices. Moreover, the absence of rainfall during sampling periods likely contributed to the retention of pesticide residues on leaf surfaces, allowing for more reliable detection.

Physical barriers, such as hedges and fences, did not show a significant effect in reducing the number of pesticides detected. This suggests that, under the conditions studied, such structures may not provide effective protection against pesticide drift, possibly due to the ability of certain compounds to volatilise or be transported by wind despite physical obstructions.

Given the intensive vineyard cultivation and the central role of wine production in Verona province, future studies should adopt robust designs combining longitudinal and spatial monitoring, biomonitoring, and exposure modelling. These approaches would not only clarify the health and environmental impact of pesticide practices, but also guide the development of sustainable strategies that protect local communities while enhancing the cultural and economic value of vineyards as a historical heritage of the region

Human and environmental risk assessment

Approximately 25% of the detected pesticides were classified as hazardous to human health (H317, H351). These include endocrine disruptors and potential carcinogens, raising significant public health concerns. From an environmental perspective, pesticides like glyphosate and boscalid, known for their ecological toxicity, pose risks to non-target organisms, including pollinators and soil microbiota.

Detecting banned substances, such as chlorpyrifos, in a few samples further highlights regulatory gaps and potential non-compliance with pesticide application standards. Such findings call for immediate action to strengthen. 

Policy implications

Addressing pesticide drift requires a multifaceted approach that combines regulatory, technological, and community-based interventions. 

First, stricter enforcement of buffer zone regulations is critical. This includes increasing the minimum distance requirements for pesticide application near residential areas and conducting regular inspections to ensure compliance. The study findings highlight that inadequate enforcement of existing regulations undermines public trust and puts vulnerable populations at risk.

Second, adopting integrated pest management (IPM) practices can significantly reduce pesticide use. IPM emphasises biological and mechanical control methods over chemical interventions, aligning with EU strategies like the Farm to Fork initiative. Financial incentives and technical support for farmers adopting IPM could accelerate its widespread implementation.

Third, enhancing community involvement in environmental monitoring can serve as an effective complement to regulatory efforts. Citizen science initiatives, where residents are trained to collect and analyse environmental samples, can provide valuable data for policymakers while fostering public engagement. This approach has been successfully implemented in other contexts^32,33 and could be adapted for pesticide monitoring in Italy. Additionally, including Sentinel Physicians for the Environment (SPE)³⁴ could provide valuable insights for monitoring and mitigating the health impacts of pesticide exposure. These healthcare professionals can act as intermediaries between communities and policymakers, offering real-time data on environmental health conditions and helping to shape more effective regulatory frameworks.

Finally, international collaboration is essential to address the transboundary nature of pesticide drift. Harmonising regulatory frameworks across EU member states would facilitate data sharing and joint enforcement efforts, ensuring a cohesive response to this issue.

Participatory research

This approach aligns with participatory research principles^35,36 and shows how citizen involvement can contribute to more transparent and socially responsive environmental health research.

Enhancing community involvement in environmental monitoring can serve as an effective complement to regulatory efforts. Citizen science initiatives, where residents are trained to collect and analyse environmental samples, can provide valuable data for policymakers while fostering public engagement. This approach has been successfully implemented in other contexts³⁷ and could be adapted for pesticide monitoring in Italy. 

Additionally, including SPE³⁴ could provide valuable insights for monitoring and mitigating the health impacts of pesticide exposure. These healthcare professionals can act as intermediaries between communities and policymakers, offering real-time data on environmental health conditions and helping to shape more effective regulatory frameworks.

Study limitations

While the present study provides robust evidence of pesticide drift, its generalisability is constrained by the focus on gardens within 40 metres of cultivated fields. Self-reported data on private pesticide use may also introduce classification bias. Future research should include a broader geographic scope and more comprehensive exposure assessments. Longitudinal studies could further elucidate the temporal dynamics of pesticide drift and its cumulative impacts on health and ecosystems.

Participatory methods enriched this study by ensuring contextual relevance and community engagement. Residents were not only passive participants, but also co-creators in the research process. Their contributions helped refine sampling strategies and interpret local exposure contexts.

Conclusions

This study highlights the pressing need for enhanced pesticide management policies to protect communities near agricultural zones and confirms the need for continuous monitoring in residential areas near agricultural fields.³⁸ It highlights a measurable presence of pesticides in private gardens located near crops in the province of Verona. The participatory nature of the research facilitated site selection, data collection, and contextual interpretation, enabling a community-grounded approach to environmental monitoring.

Future research should systematically evaluate the design and effectiveness of physical barriers under different environmental and agronomic conditions, in order to clarify their protective role and to inform evidence-based guidelines for mitigating pesticide drift in residential settings.^39-42

From a public health perspective, the presence of hazardous substances within distances shorter than those prescribed by regional and European guidelines suggests that current measures for preventing pesticide drift may be inadequate. These findings support the need for a revision of protective regulations and the introduction of more effective buffer zones, application techniques, and monitoring protocols.

Significantly, this study contributes to the limited but growing body of evidence on non-occupational pesticide exposure in Italy. In this context, it is essential to distinguish between different exposure pathways. While respiratory exposure is more probable during and shortly after spraying events, dermal exposure may occur via contact with contaminated surfaces, soil, or vegetation. Children and elderly individuals are particularly vulnerable due to differences in skin permeability, respiration rate, and behavioural factors such as hand-to-mouth activity.^43-45

These distinctions underline the importance of evaluating both dermal and respiratory routes in risk assessments. Future studies should consider coupling environmental sampling with biomonitoring and spatial exposure models to better capture real-life exposure scenarios in residential areas.

Ultimately, the primary aim of this participatory research is to raise awareness of a pressing public health issue in an appropriate and evidence-based manner, thereby creating the conditions for institutions to implement effective, and where possible definitive and scalable, protective actions. 

In point of fact, this experience demonstrates that community sensitivity and voluntary participation can offer a valuable basis for environmental health investigations. 

Strengthening the connection between local knowledge and institutional monitoring efforts can facilitate more inclusive, transparent, and effective public health action.

Conflicts of interest: none declared.

Consent to participate: informed verbal consent was obtained from all garden owners.

Data availability: data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References

1. Dereumeaux C, Fillol C, Quenel P, Denys S. Pesticide exposure for residents living close to agricultural land: a review. Environ Int 2020;134:105210. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105210
2. Linhart C, Panzacchi S, Belpoggi F, Clausing P, Zalle JG, Hertoge K. Year-round Pesticide Contamination of Public Sites Near Agricultural Areas. Environ Sci Eur 2021;33(1). doi: 10.1186/s12302-020-00446-y
3. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Neurobehavioural Effects of Developmental Toxicity. Lancet Neurol 2014;13(3):330-38. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3
4. Miani A, Imbriani G, De Filippis G, et al. Autism Spectrum Disorder and Prenatal or Early Life Exposure to Pesticides: A Short Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18(20):10991. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010991
5. Kuehn BM. Parkinson disease and pesticides. JAMA 2011;305(12):1188. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.318
6. Lee GH, Choi KC. Adverse effects of pesticides on the functions of the immune system. Comp Biochem Physiol Part C Toxicol Pharmacol 2020;235:108789. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2020.108789
7. Cestonaro LV, Macedo SMD, Piton YV, Garcia SC, Arbo MD. Toxic effects of pesticides on cellular and humoral immunity: an overview. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 2022;44(6):816-31. doi: 10.1080/08923973.2022.2096466
8. Lamure S, Carles C, Aquereburu Q, et al. Association of occupational pesticide exposure with immunochemotherapy response and survival among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. JAMA Netw Open 2019:2(4):e192093. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2093
9. Gerken J, Vincent GT, Zapata D, Barron IG, Zapata I. Comprehensive assessment of pesticide use patterns and increased cancer risk. Front Cancer Control Soc 2024;2:1368086. doi: 10.3389/fcacs.2024.1368086
10. Matich EK, Laryea JA, Seely KA, Stahr S, Su LJ, Hsu PC. Association between pesticide exposure and colorectal cancer risk and incidence: A systematic review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2021;219:112327. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112327
11. Kim B, Park EY, Kim J, Park E, Oh JK, Lim MK. Occupational exposure to pesticides and lung cancer risk: a propensity score analysis. Cancer Res Treat 2022;54(1):130-39. doi: 10.4143/crt. 020.1106
12. Van Maele-Fabry G, Gamet-Payrastre L, Lison D. Household exposure to pesticides and risk of leukaemia in children and adolescents: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2019;222(1):49-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.08.004
13. Maryam Z, Sajad A, Maral N, et al. Relationship between exposure to pesticides and occurrence of acute leukaemia in Iran. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2015;16(1):239-44. doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.1.239
14. Luo D, Zhou T, Tao Y, Feng Y, Shen X, Mei S. Exposure to organochlorine pesticides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Sci Rep 2016;6:25768. doi: 10.1038/srep25768
15. Poh C, McPherson JD, Tuscano J, et al. Environmental pesticide exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma survival: a population-based study. BMC Med 2022;20(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02348-7
16. Andreotti G, Freeman LEB, Hou L, et al. Agricultural pesticide use and pancreatic cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study Cohort. Int J Cancer 2009;124(10):2495-500. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24185
17. Hawkins C, Hanson C. Glyphosate: Response to Comments, Usage, and Benefits (PC Codes: 103601, 103604.5, 103607.8, 103613, 417300). Washington, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 2019. Available from: https://share.google/rX6pnXNGLIMdi0HFI
18. Cressey D. Widely used herbicide linked to cancer. Nature 2015;12:17181. doi: 10.1038/nature 2015.171
19. Zhang L, Rana I, Shaffer RM, Taioli E, Sheppard L. Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a meta-analysis and supporting evidence. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res 2019;781:186-206. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.02.001
20. Meloni F, Satta G, Padoan M, et al. Occupational exposure to glyphosate and risk of lymphoma: results of an Italian multicenter case-control study. Environ Health 2021;20(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00729-8
21. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Glyphosate. Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides: Diazinon, Glyphosate, Malathion, Parathion, and Tetrachlorvinphos. Lyon: IARC; 2115; pp. 321-412.
22. Foster WG, Michael SN, Myoung-Soek H, Dominguez MM. Environmental contaminants and human infertility: hypothesis or cause for concern? J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2008;11(3-4):162-76. doi: 10.1080/10937400701873274
23. Raphaëlle T, Manangama G, Baldi I et al. Determinants of non-dietary exposure to agricultural pesticides in populations living close to fields: A systematic review. Sci Total Environ 2021;761:143294. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143294
24. Figueiredo DM, Esmeralda JMK, Duyzer J, et al. Pesticide Exposure of Residents Living Close to Agricultural Fields in the Netherlands: Protocol for an Observational Study. JMIR Res Protoc 2021;10(4):e27883. doi: 10.2196/27883
25. Oerlemans A, Figueiredo DM, Mol JGJ, et al. Personal exposure assessment of pesticides in residents: the association between hand wipes and urinary biomarkers. Environ Res 2021;199:111282. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111282
26. Fontaine B, Bergerot B, Le Viol I, Julliard R. Impact of urbanisation and gardening practices on common butterfly communities in France. Ecol Evol 2016;6(22):8174-80. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2526
27. Murateta A, Fontaine B. Contrasting impacts of pesticides on butterflies and bumblebees in private gardens in France. Biol Conserv 2015;182:148-54. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.045
28. Tassin de Montaigu C, Goulson D. Habitat quality, urbanisation & pesticides influence bird abundance and richness in gardens. Sci Total Environ 2023;870:161916. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161916
29. Sanchez JJ, Gitau E, Sadki R, Mbuh C, Silver K, Climate and Health Expert Panel. The climate crisis and human health: identifying grand challenges through participatory research. Lancet Global Health 2025;13(2):e199-200. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(25)00003-8
30. Agenzia Veneta per l’Innovazione nel Settore Primario. Veneto Agricoltura. Available from: www.venetoagricoltura.org
31. Barbieri MV, Postigo C, Monllor-Alzaraz LS, Barceló D, De Alda ML. A reliable LC-MS/MS-based method for trace level determination of 50 medium to highly polar pesticide residues in sediments and ecological risk assessment. Anal Bioanal Chem 2019;411(30):7981-96. doi: 10.1007/s00216-019-02188-0
32. Davis LF, Ramírez-Andreotta MD, Buxner SR. Engaging Diverse Citizen Scientists for Environmental Health: Recommendations from Participants and Promotoras. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2020;5(1). doi: 10.5334/cstp.253
33. Sardo AM, De Vito L, Pringle KJ et al. Co-creation in citizen science: sharing learnings and good practice from an indoor, airborne microplastics project JCOM 2025;24(1):N02. doi: 10.22323/2.24010802
34. Lauriola P, Serafini A, Santamaria M et al. Family doctors to connect global concerns due to climate change with local actions: State-of-the-art and some proposals. World Medical & Health Policy 2021;13(2):199-223. doi: 10.1002/wmh3.448
35. Vaughn LM, Jacquez F. Participatory research methods – Choice points in the research process. J Particip Res Methods 2020;1(1). doi: 10.35844/001c.13244
36. Kerr J, Knetsch M. Embedding citizen science into research policy: OECD science, technology and industry. Policy papers No. 175. OECD 2025. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/embedding-citizen-science-into-research-policy_a1cfb1a8-en.html
37. Fraisl D, Hager G, Bedessem B, et al. Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences. Nat Rev Methods Primers 2022;2:64. doi: 10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4
38. Rodrigues A, Delhomme O, Millet M. Assessing environmental exposure to phyto-pharmaceutical products in a wine-growing area of Alsace, France: Combined indoor and outdoor air and dust sampling. Atmos Pollut Res 2025;16(3):102362. doi: 10.1016/j.apr.2024.102362
39. De Schampheleire M, Baetens M, Nuyttens D, Spanoghe P. Spray drift measurements to evaluate the Belgian drift mitigation measures in field crops. Crop Protection 2008;27(3-5):577-89. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2007.08.017
40. Kaul P, Gebauer S, Eckhard M, Ralf N. German Regulation – Drift Modelling. In: Ramsay C, Hewitt A, Thistle H, Hoffmann C, Wolf R, Wolf T (eds). Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, 27-29 October, 2004, Waikoloa, Hawai; pp. 85-96. Available from: https://www.openagrar.de/receive/openagrar_mods_00060908
41. ISO/FDIS 22866:2005. Equipment for crop protection – Methods for field measurement of spray drift. 2005. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/35161.html
42. Ahrens K, Röver M, Peter E, et al. Development of a method for measuring exposure of residents and bystanders following high crop application of plant protection products. J Kulturpflanzen 2023;75(05-06):138-50. doi: 10.5073/JfK.2023.05-06.03
43. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides and Their Impact on Children: Key Facts and Talking Points. Available from: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/pest-impact-hsstaff.pdf (last accessed: 05.08.2025).
44. Roberts JR, Karr CJ; Council on Environmental Health. Pesticide exposure in children. Pediatrics 2012;130(6):e1765-88. doi: 10.1542/peds 2012-2758. Erratum in: Paediatrics 2013;131(5):1013-14.
45. National Pesticide Information Center. Ageing Populations. Available from: https://npic.orst.edu/health/aging.html#:~:text=As%20people%20age%2C%20they%20can,minimize%20their%20exposure%20to%20pesticides (last accessed: 05.08.2025).