Lab Matters Summer 2017 | Page 23

environmental health / food safety

Barinelli / Chabot: As part of our use / misuse and complaint-related analyses, we ensure that licensed applicators are applying pesticides and herbicides at the appropriate rates and locations, thus assuring that the public is not presented with undue risk. Our label claim verifications ensure only registered pesticides and herbicides are sold at their specified levels. Our water quality testing ensures herbicide concentrations( e. g., 2,4-D, Tricolpyr and Diquat) do not exceed swimming or drinking water standards.

What challenges does your laboratory experience as it relates to pesticide testing?

Wegner: Adequate funding and staffing continue to be the biggest challenge. We have excellent equipment and instrumentation and just need additional staff with pesticide testing proficiency to operate it. Pesticide residue analysis trainings do not occur frequently enough to easily balance work load and training opportunities for all staff.

Horvath: FIFRA testing is unique because highly-skilled and experienced analysts are required to quickly develop methodologies to test unknown analytes on varied matrices. However, current state funding levels make it difficult to retain these marketable employees. Combined with the seasonality of pesticide testing, it is challenging to have sufficient staffing.

Barnelli / Chabot: In addition to travel funding, training opportunities and strict state travel restrictions, test methods can be challenging to obtain and implement. It can be difficult to predict which analyses may be requested from year to year.

How do state laboratories interface with the US EPA Analytical Chemistry Branch( ACB) and / or other federal agencies?

Wegner: The CO laboratory relies heavily on the US EPA National Pesticides Standard Repository( NPSR) to obtain the majority of pesticide standards needed for analyses. The laboratory has federal cooperative agreements with USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service Food Emergency Response Network( FERN), FDA Animal Feed Regulatory Program

The US EPA Analytical Chemistry Branch( ACB) at the Environmental Science Center in Fort Meade, MD, supports the US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs by providing expert technical advice and by performing special chemical studies that fill critical data needs. The ACB develops and validates multi-residue analytical methods for specific pesticide classes and their metabolites in foods and feeds. The new methods are designed to gather more pesticide residue data at lower levels in support of regulatory actions protecting human health and the environment.

The ACB Laboratory also operates the US EPA NPSR. The NPSR maintains an inventory of all US-registered pesticides as well as technical grade and pure pesticide analytical reference standards and their regulated metabolites. It supplies pesticide standards to federal, state and tribal enforcement laboratories for test result validation, instrument calibration and for pesticide residue and active ingredient identification and quantification.

Standards and an interagency agreement with FDA’ s Denver District Laboratory to serotype our isolates when we detect a pathogen in our microbiological work.

Horvath: Here in Minnesota we frequently interact with the US EPA ACB. The US EPA NPSR is often the only source beside the registrant for pesticide metabolite standards. They generally provide standards and registration methods requests quickly. We also maintain a FDA FERN cooperative agreement. Many of the pesticide analysts perform work under this program.

Barinelli / Chabot: We obtain most of our pesticide standards from the US EPA NPSR and reach out to the US EPA ACB for test methods. Without this resource we would be hard pressed to acquire the certified reference materials necessary to perform our analyses.

What recommendations would you have for state agricultural / public health laboratories to strengthen their pesticide programs?

Wegner: I would recommend that more states participate in the US EPA’ s Pesticide Regulatory Education Program( PREP), which is an excellent forum.

Horvath: Aside from the necessary equipment and training investments, it is important to maintain an analyst network for sharing technical knowledge and procedures.

Barinelli / Chabot: We are fortunate NH is a small state and we have a very close relationship with our pesticide program. We communicate with the inspectors and director very frequently. If you haven’ t already joined, the FoodSHIELD-hosted AgLabs Listserv is

a great online community resource.

How can the US EPA Analytical Chemistry Branch and state agricultural / public health laboratories collaborate together more in the future?

Wegner: The major hurdle for us with US EPA collaboration is Colorado’ s legalization of cannabis.

Horvath: Speaking for state FIFRA labs, continued support to host national training workshops is essential for building and maintaining analyst networks. Lobbying for funds to maintain state support by the US EPA’ s Fort Meade laboratory is essential to state laboratory success.

Barinelli / Chabot: Communication is key. Opening lines of communication between these groups would be helpful, including sharing training opportunities, test methods and expertise. ■

Elizabeth Niederluecke, a Minnesota Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services Division intern, prepares surface water extracts to help the laboratory search for 150 pesticides using one of five chromatography methods. Photo courtesy of Gary Horvath