There is a long history in environmental sciences to investigate and understand the fate of chemicals in the environment. For pesticides, this has led to systematic assessments of compounds by both academic and regulatory bodies, particularly for soil and water. As we show here, in recent years, there is an increasing interest in the potential presence of pesticide residues in air and related exposure risks. Based on a literature review for the years 2002–2022, we find a growing number of air monitoring studies with an average of 6.7 studies/year since 2020, with passive sampling methods contributing significantly to this rise. Most studies are concentrated in Europe and North America, with France leading in the number of monitoring studies. However, due to a lack of harmonization, and thus, the use of diverse methods and approaches, it remains challenging to derive potential exposure risks, to assess data quality of studies, and to compare datasets. In this perspective, we focus on current and emerging trends of different air monitoring approaches and highlight how they influence the interpretation of data. To improve the comparability and utility of data, and to ensure that air monitorings meet certain quality requirements, we propose a path forward, including: (1) Standardization and harmonization of methods: Adopting well-characterized and widely applied methods from air quality research as a basis for standardizing pesticide monitoring, with a clear distinction between relevant exposure and total air concentrations. (2) Tiered approach for monitoring programs: A dynamic concept where initial passive sampling identifies potential exposure risks, followed by active sampling for quantitative data, and, if necessary, extensive monitoring programs. This approach balances the need for detailed data with resource constraints. (3) Data interpretation and transparency: Public availability of data and clear reporting of methods, analysis, and uncertainties are crucial for the credibility and utility of monitoring studies. Overall, we see that harmonization of standards is critical for assessing exposure risks from pesticides in air and for informing regulatory decisions and mitigation strategies. Collaboration with the air quality and atmospheric research community is strongly recommended to leverage existing expertise in sampling, analysis, and data interpretation.

环境科学研究和了解化学物质在环境中的命运有着悠久的历史。对于农药，这导致学术和监管机构对化合物进行系统评估，特别是土壤和水。正如我们在此所示，近年来，人们对空气中潜在存在的农药残留以及相关的暴露风险越来越感兴趣。根据 2002-2022 年的文献综述，我们发现自 2020 年以来空气监测研究数量不断增加，平均每年有 6.7 项研究，其中被动采样方法对这一增长做出了重大贡献。大多数研究集中在欧洲和北美，其中法国在监测研究数量上领先。然而，由于缺乏统一，因此使用了不同的方法和途径，得出潜在的暴露风险、评估研究的数据质量以及比较数据集仍然具有挑战性。从这个角度来看，我们关注不同空气监测方法的当前和新兴趋势，并强调它们如何影响数据的解释。为了提高数据的可比性和实用性，确保空气监测满足一定的质量要求，我们提出了一条前进的道路，包括：（1）方法的标准化和统一：采用空气质量研究中具有特色且广泛应用的方法作为标准化农药监测的基础，明确区分相关暴露和空气总浓度。(2) 监测计划的分层方法：一个动态概念，其中最初的被动采样识别潜在的暴露风险，然后是主动采样以获得定量数据，并在必要时进行广泛的监测计划。这种方法平衡了详细数据的需求和资源限制。(3) 数据解释和透明度：数据的公开性以及方法、分析和不确定性的清晰报告对于监测研究的可信度和实用性至关重要。总体而言，我们认为标准的统一对于评估空气中农药的暴露风险以及为监管决策和缓解策略提供信息至关重要。强烈建议与空气质量和大气研究界合作，利用采样、分析和数据解释方面的现有专业知识。