Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment of plant protection products

Development of a spatial risk indicator for monitoring residential pesticide exposure in agricultural areas

The global increase in pesticide use has raised concerns about its impact on biodiversity, ecosystems, and human health, in particular of people living near agricultural areas. This study explores the assessment of pesticide exposure and risks to residents at a high spatial granularity using plant protection product data. Our objective was to develop an indicator to monitor pesticide risk levels faced by residents in France by integrating spatial datasets and exposure assessment methodologies. Using spatialized pesticide sales data based on crop authorizations, we mapped potential pesticide loads at the parcel level. This map, combined with population distribution data, allowed us to develop an indicator for monitoring residential pesticide exposures. Our findings indicate that, on average, 13% of people in France may be exposed to various levels of pesticides due to their proximity to treated crops. This indicator demonstrates the usefulness of granular pesticide sales data in monitoring exposure and can support risk reduction strategies, helping to identify regions where efforts towards sustainable farming should concentrate.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Broussard MF, Santonja GG, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Piti A, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance pyraclostrobin

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Germany and co-rapporteur Member State Hungary for the pesticide active substance pyraclostrobin and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of pyraclostrobin as a fungicide and plant growth regulator on cereals (wheat, barley, oats, rye, triticale), maize (forage and grain) and potatoes. MRLs were assessed in sweet corn and fish. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Cumulative risk assessment methodology applied to non-dietary exposures: developmental alterations in professional agricultural settings

The safety assessment of combined exposure to xenobiotics has been an emerging topic for several years. Methodologies and approaches for cumulative risk assessment (CRA) are being developed primarily for the dietary risk assessment of pesticides, thus focusing only on consumer exposure. However, as highlighted in recent years, non-dietary exposures, such as those encountered by professionals in agricultural settings, may pose a significant risk due to their higher levels compared to dietary exposure. Despite this, existing methodologies for cumulative risk assessment (CRA) have not adequately addressed this critical aspect. In the EU, even if several legislations highlight the need to address the non-dietary CRA, no legal requirements are in place yet, therefore, there are no harmonized methodologies and approaches currently available. In a first step to fill this gap, this study is aimed at exploring CRA methodology applied to non-dietary exposure to pesticide in agricultural settings, specifically targeting operators, re-entry workers, and bystanders. The primary objective of the study was to verify the feasibility of an electronic register of plant protection treatments as data source for identifying and characterizing in field mixtures and consequently estimating cumulative non-dietary systemic exposure in real life. The relevant active substances selected for this investigation were those listed in foetal craniofacial alterations cumulative assessment groups (CAGs), established by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for dietary CRA. Exposures to pesticides were estimated using European Union agreed mathematical models. The preliminary findings of this investigation effectively revealed the value of the register of treatments in assessing real-life plant protection products (PPP) usage in professional agricultural settings. In conclusion, the study provides encouraging insights into using the pesticide dietary CRA approach for non-dietary risk assessment in agricultural settings, underlining the necessity for further research and investigation of its feasibility for the evaluation of other acute effects but also for long-term effects related CAGs.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Broussarad MF, Santonja GG, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mazzega S, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Piti A, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance cyprodinil

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State France and co-rapporteur Member State Bulgaria for the pesticide active substance cyprodinil are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of cyprodinil as a fungicide on apples and barley. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Understanding factors that affect dislodgeable foliar residues of pyrimethanil and their dissipation: How relevant is the crop-type for human exposure?

Pesticide dislodgeable foliar residues (DFR) and their dissipation half-time (DT50) after application are important parameters for exposure and risk assessment from intended reentry activities or unintended dermal contact with treated crops. To understand the impact of agronomic factors on residue level a statistical based evaluation was conducted using ten DFR studies, with pyrimethanil applied in Scala® to strawberries, raspberries, peppers, apples, and grapes, 30 trials in total. Influences on initial DFR (DFR0) and DT50 were investigated by multivariate linear regression analysis. The application rate and the crop itself indicate a potential influence on DFR0 when related to ground area applied which is not notable for three dimensional crops regardless of indoor/outdoor cultivation, when related to leaf wall area (LWA). DFR0 values for pyrimethanil do not depend on the number of applications as the range of DT50 values determined for pyrimethanil is consistently small (0.3-2.3 days). All DT50 are significantly lower than the European default (30 days). The noted difference in DT50 of peppers to strawberries is likely attributable to indoor cultivation. A proposal is made how to refine the exposure assessment of pyrimethanil making use of the available DFR0 and DT50 data for other crop types.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Giner Santonja G, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mavriou G, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fludioxonil

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State France and co-rapporteur Member State Spain for the pesticide active substance fludioxonil are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of fludioxonil as a fungicide on wheat, oats, grapes, pome fruit and strawberry. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Santonja GG, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance bixlozone

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, The Netherlands for the pesticide active substance bixlozone are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of bixlozone as an herbicide on winter cereals (wheat and barley), winter oilseed rape and maize via soil broadcast spray application in field. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Batista Leite S, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Giner Santonja G, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Herrero Nogareda L, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance elemental iron

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State Austria for the pesticide active substance elemental iron and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of elemental iron in field and greenhouses (permanent and non-permanent structures) via granule application by spreading on all edible and non-edible crops, ornamental plants and amenity grassland to control molluscs. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Santonja GG, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mavriou G, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance pirimicarb

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Sweden for the pesticide active substance pirimicarb are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use(s) of pirimicarb as an insecticide on winter and spring wheat and sugar beet via foliar spray application and on ornamental pot plants in permanent greenhouses. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Santonja GG, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mavriou G, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance bensulfuron-methyl

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Italy and co-rapporteur Member State Spain for the pesticide active substance bensulfuron-methyl are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of bensulfuron-methyl as an herbicide on rice and spring cereals (spring wheat, spring barley, oat, rye, triticale). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance triclopyr (variant triclopyr-butotyl)

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Poland and co-rapporteur Member State Hungary for the pesticide active substance triclopyr (variant triclopyr-butotyl) and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of triclopyr (variant triclopyr-butotyl) as a herbicide on established pasture and non-recreational amenity grassland (field use). MRLs were assessed in rice. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Batista Leite S, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Giner Santonja G, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Herrero Nogareda L, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mavriou G, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance paraffin oil (CAS 8042-47-5, chain lengths C17-C31)

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Greece, and co-rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance paraffin oil are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of paraffin oil as an acaricide and insecticide on potatoes, ornamentals (flower bulbs) and orchards (pear/apple), on pome fruit and stone fruit, on field and permanent protected fruiting vegetables and on field and permanent protected roses and on citrus. The reliable end points appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Santonja GG, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mavriou G, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mepiquat (evaluated variant mepiquat chloride)

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Finland, and co-rapporteur Member State, Estonia, for the pesticide active substance mepiquat (evaluated variant mepiquat chloride) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of mepiquat chloride as a plant growth regulator on cereals and grass (field uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

The effect of formulation composition and adjuvant type on difenoconazole dislodgeable foliar residue

Rigorous risk assessments for those exposed to pesticides are carried out to satisfy crop protection regulatory requirements. Non-dietary risk assessments involve estimating the amount of residue which can be transferred from plant foliage to the skin or clothes, known as dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs). DFR data are less available than crop residue data as studies are costly and limited by seasonality. European regulatory authorities are reticent to allow extrapolation of study data to different scenarios as the contributory factors have hitherto been poorly identified. This study is the first to use a new laboratory DFR method to investigate how one such factor, pesticide formulation, may affect DFR on a variety of crops. The study used the active substance difenoconazole as both an emulsifiable concentrate (EC 10%) and a wettable powder (WP 10%) with and without adjuvants (Tween 20 and organophosphate tris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate TEHP) on tomato, French bean and oilseed rape. A comparable DFR% was retained from the WP and EC formulation on most crops except for tomato, where lower DFR% was retained in the case of WP (39 ± 4.7%) compared to EC (60 ± 1.2%). No significant effect of adjuvant addition was observed for either formulation except when mixing TEHP (0.1% w/v) to the EC 10% on French bean, resulting in 8% DFR reduction compared to the EC formulation alone. This research demonstrates the value of a unique DFR laboratory technique in investigating the importance of the formulation and in-tank adjuvants as factors that affect DFR.

Toxicological evaluation of microbial secondary metabolites in the context of European active substance approval for plant protection products

Risk assessment (RA) of microbial secondary metabolites (SM) is part of the EU approval process for microbial active substances (AS) used in plant protection products (PPP). As the number of potentially produced microbial SM may be high for a certain microbial strain and existing information on the metabolites often are low, data gaps are frequently identified during the RA. Often, RA cannot conclusively clarify the toxicological relevance of the individual substances. This work presents data and RA conclusions on four metabolites, Beauvericin, 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR), Leucinostatin A and Swainsonin in detail as examples for the challenging process of RA. To overcome the problem of incomplete assessment reports, RA of microbial AS for PPP is in need of new approaches. In view of the Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA), the combination of literature data, omic-methods, in vitro and in silico methods combined in adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) can be used for an efficient and targeted identification and assessment of metabolites of concern (MoC).

In-silico prediction of dislodgeable foliar residues and regulatory implications for plant protection products

BACKGROUND

When experimentally determined dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) values are not available, regulatory agencies use conservative default DFR values as a first-tier approach to assess post-application dermal exposures to plant protection products (PPPs). These default values are based on a limited set of field studies, are very conservative, and potentially overestimate exposures from DFRs.

OBJECTIVE

Use Random Forest to develop classification and regression-type ensemble models to predict DFR values after last application (DFR0) by considering experimentally-based variability due to differences in physical and chemical properties of PPPs, agronomic practices, crop type, and climatic conditions.

METHODS

Random Forest algorithm was used to develop in-silico ensemble DFR0 prediction models using more than 100 DFR studies from Corteva AgriscienceTM. Several variables related to the active ingredient (a.i.) that was applied, crop, and climate conditions at the time of last application were considered as model parameters.

RESULTS

The proposed ensemble models demonstrated 98% prediction accuracy that if a DFR0 is predicted to be less than the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) default DFR0 value of 3 µg/cm2/kg a.i./ha, it is highly indicative that the measured DFR value will be less than the default if the study is conducted. If a value is predicted to be larger than or equal to the EFSA default, the model has an 83% prediction accuracy.

IMPACT STATEMENT

This manuscript is expected to have significant impact globally as it provides: A framework for incorporating in silico DFR data into worker exposure assessment, A roadmap for a tiered approach for conducting re-entry exposure assessment, and A proof of concept for using existing DFR data to provide a read-across framework that can easily be harmonized across all regulatory agencies to provide more robust assessments for PPP exposures.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mavriou G, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance quinolin-8-ol

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Spain, and co-rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance quinolin-8-ol are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of quinolin-8-ol as a fungicide and bactericide against soil-borne pathogens in tomato cultivation in permanent greenhouses applied by drip irrigation. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Safety climate scale for vineyards: an external validity study

OBJECTIVES

Agriculture entered the discussions about safety climates late, despite being one of the most hazardous industries. We recently developed a safety climate scale in Bordeaux vineyards, for which we provided good evidence of reliability and construct validity (Grimbuhler and Viel 2019). In this study, we aimed to establish the external validity of this safety climate scale with the help of an independent national sample of vineyard professionals.

POPULATION AND METHODS

We approached vineyard managers and operators during compulsory training and certification procedures for pesticide-related activities. Trainees giving informed consent for participation in the study were asked to complete a safety climate questionnaire at the start and end of a training session. In total, 406 vineyard managers or operators completed the questionnaire at the start of the study, 37 of whom declined to complete the questionnaire at the end of the training session, leaving 369 subjects available for pretraining/post-training comparisons. Statistical comparisons were based on t-tests and mixed models for repeated measures.

RESULTS

A mean safety climate score of 82.91 (SD: 9.06) was obtained in the initial survey in the Bordeaux region, whereas the safety climate score was estimated at 83.78 (SD 10.39) in this nationwide survey (P = 0.23). A significant increase was observed after the training course, for the safety climate score (7.5%, P < 10-15) and for each of its 7 dimensions (P < 10-4 or less), in both univariate and multivariate analyses. However, the magnitude of these increases varied with dimension, ranging from 2.4% for rules and best practices to 15.5% for communication and feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

External validity was demonstrated by transferability and sensitivity to intervention. This safety climate scale can now be considered to provide a good inference of the safety culture, with a meaning generalizable across vineyards.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Chukwubike NJK, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dimoxystrobin

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Hungary, and co-rapporteur Member State, Ireland, for the pesticide active substance dimoxystrobin as well as the assessment of maximum residue levels (MRLs) and confirmatory data following the review of the existing MRLs of dimoxystrobin according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. In June 2023, the European Commission sent a mandate confirming the need to adopt and publish a conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dimoxystrobin excluding the full assessment of endocrine-disrupting properties, containing all the results of the peer review process related to the renewal of approval as well as the assessment of the application for MRL for oilseed rapeseed, poppy seed, mustard seed and gold of pleasure seed, and the MRL application addressing the confirmatory data identified during the MRL review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of dimoxystrobin as a fungicide on oilseed rape and sunflower. MRLs were assessed in rapeseeds, poppy seed, mustard seed and Gold of pleasure seed. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are presented where identified.

A new laboratory method to study the impact of leaf texture on pesticide dislodgeable foliar residues (DFR)

Pesticides are vital in meeting the challenge of feeding the rapidly increasing world population. However, it is crucial that they are used in a way that does not compromise the safety of humans or the environment. Non-dietary worker risk assessments consider the amount of residue which can be transferred from plant foliage to the skin or clothes, known as dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs). DFR data scarcity due to the costly and seasonal characteristics of DFR studies is an obstacle to the extrapolation of DFR data to different crops/leaves. This paper validates a new proof-of-concept technique to investigate factors that may affect DFR (leaf texture) using the fungicide difenoconazole EC 10% as an example on various leaves (i.e., French bean, soybean, tomato, oilseed rape, and wheat). DFR was the lowest in the case of oilseed rape (31.0 ± 3.4%) and the highest in French beans (82.0 ± 2.9%). This significant difference in DFR in the findings of this study sheds light on the importance of the leaf surface as a major factor affecting DFR and supports the application of the laboratory method for more extensive data generation. More data generation would enable the extrapolation saving money and resources.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia SBLM, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Morte JMP, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metconazole

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Belgium, and co-rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide active substance are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of metconazole as a fungicide on cereals and oilseed rape and as a plant growth regulator on oilseed rape. The reliable end points appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Batista Leite S, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Cioca A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance tritosulfuron

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Slovenia, and co-rapporteur Member State, Austria, for the pesticide active substance tritosulfuron are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of tritosulfuron as a herbicide on spring and winter cereals, spring cereals with undersown grasses and maize (field uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Mangas I, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG), consisting of the competent authorities of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary, acting jointly as rapporteur Member State for the pesticide active substance glyphosate are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of glyphosate as a herbicide as proposed by the applicants, covering uses pre-sowing, pre-planting and pre-emergence plus post-harvest in vegetables and sugar beet; post-emergence of weeds in orchards, vineyards, row vegetables, railway tracks against emerged annual, biennial and perennial weeds. Moreover, uses as spot treatment against invasive species in agricultural and non-agricultural areas, and in vegetables and sugar beet against couch grass are also included. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Adriaanse P, Arce A, Focks A, Ingels B, Jölli D, Lambin S, Rundlöf M, Süßenbach D, Del Aguila M, Ercolano V, Ferilli F, Ippolito A, Szentes C, Neri FM, Padovani L, Rortais A, Wassenberg J, Auteri D. Revised guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees)

The European Commission asked EFSA to revise the risk assessment for honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. This guidance document describes how to perform risk assessment for bees from plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1107/2009. It is a review of EFSA's existing guidance document, which was published in 2013. The guidance document outlines a tiered approach for exposure estimation in different scenarios and tiers. It includes hazard characterisation and provides risk assessment methodology covering dietary and contact exposure. The document also provides recommendations for higher tier studies, risk from metabolites and plant protection products as mixture.

Protection by ordinary light clothing against pesticide spray drift for bystanders and residents

There are stringent EU regulatory requirements to assess pesticide exposure to bystanders and residents to direct spray drift. A “light clothing” adjustment factor (AF) of 0.82 is applied in the exposure assessment, based on simple assumptions for covered body surface and penetration through clothing. To assess the appropriateness of the AF, we collated data from 32 field studies. The mean and 25th percentile % reduction from ordinary light clothing (“reduction %”) in children and adults for all crops and standard and drift-reducing nozzles were 42.7% and 36.2%, resulting in AF of 0.573 and 0.638, respectively. Sources of variation were investigated, e.g. crop type, leaf coverage, buffer, spray pressure, and nozzle type, which indicated that reduction % could be impacted by several conditions. The reduction % is similar between crops; therefore, a single AF value covering all crops can be derived. One exception was for early-stage vineyard scenarios (the reduction % is lower (27%) than late stage (42–47%)) and could be considered individually to avoid unnecessary conservatism for the other scenarios. This evaluation demonstrates the current AF to be overly precautionary, and a more realistic, exposure scenario-relevant value could be applied for bystander/resident risk assessments.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance S-metolachlor excluding the assessment of the endocrine disrupting properties

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Germany and co-rapporteur Member State France for the pesticide active substance S-metolachlor are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. In September 2022, the European Commission asked EFSA to deliver its conclusion on the available outcomes of the assessments in all areas excluding the full assessment of endocrine disrupting properties as several critical areas of concern related to the protection of the environment were identified. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of S-metolachlor as a herbicide on maize and sunflower. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. The concerns identified are presented.

USING OF CALCULATION MODELS OF THE PENETRATION OF SUBSTANCES THROUGH THE SKIN IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RISK OF DERMAL INFLUENCE OF PESTICIDES ON WORKERS

OBJECTIVE

The aim: Quantitative characterization of parameters of penetration of pesticides through the skin and assessment of the risk of their dermal exposure to workers using the basic provisions of diffusion theory and calculation models.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The penetration coefficient was calculated using the Potts's and Guy's equation: logKp,m = -2,8 - 6,0×10-3MW + 0,74logKo/w (R2 = 0.67). Determination of the absorbed dose was carried out using the maximum flow of the substance per unit area and the area of contact of the pesticide with the skin. Calculations were performed using the Microsoft Excel 2010 computer program package, PubChem information databases, EU Pesticides Database.

RESULTS

Results: It was established that the pyrethroid insecticide bifenthrin and triazole fungicides (prothioconazole, propiconazole, and tebuconazole) penetrate the skin the fastest among the studied substances. The highest value of the absorbed dose is observed in the case of bifenthrin, which creates dangerous conditions during production operations with pesticide formulations based on it and conditions the adoption of necessary management decisions.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: The calculation model of Potts and Guy (1992) is sufficiently informative and reliable to determine the coefficient of penetration of pesticides from aqueous solutions in the phase of the steady process of diffusion and allows determining the doses absorbed through the skin and assessing the risk of dermal exposure to workers.

Pesticides in ambient air, influenced by surrounding land use and weather, pose a potential threat to biodiversity and humans

Little is known about (i) how numbers and concentrations of airborne pesticide residues are influenced by land use, interactions with meteorological parameters, or by substance-specific chemo-physical properties, and (ii) what potential toxicological hazards this could pose to non-target organisms including humans. We installed passive air samplers (polyurethane PUF and polyester PEF filter matrices) in 15 regions with different land uses in eastern Austria for up to 8 months. Samples were analyzed for 566 substances by gas-chromatography/mass-spectrometry. We analyzed relationships between frequency and concentrations of pesticides, land use, meteorological parameters, substance properties, and season. We found totally 67 pesticide active ingredients (24 herbicides, 30 fungicides, 13 insecticides) with 10-53 pesticides per site. Herbicides metolachlor, pendimethalin, prosulfocarb, terbuthylazine, and the fungicide HCB were found in all PUF samplers, and glyphosate in all PEF samplers; chlorpyrifos-ethyl was the most abundant insecticide found in 93% of the samplers. Highest concentrations showed the herbicide prosulfocarb (725 ± 1218 ng sample^-1), the fungicide folpet (412 ± 465 ng sample^-1), and the insecticide chlorpyrifos-ethyl (110 ± 98 ng sample^-1). Pesticide numbers and concentrations increased with increasing proportions of arable land in the surroundings. However, pesticides were also found in two National Parks (10 and 33 pesticides) or a city center (17 pesticides). Pesticide numbers and concentrations changed between seasons and correlated with land use, temperature, radiation, and wind, but were unaffected by substance volatility. Potential ecotoxicological exposure of mammals, birds, earthworms, fish, and honeybees increased with increasing pesticide numbers and concentrations. Human toxicity potential of detected pesticides was high, with averaged 54% being acutely toxic, 39% reproduction toxic, 24% cancerogenic, and 10% endocrine disrupting. This widespread pesticide air pollution indicates that current environmental risk assessments, field application techniques, protective measures, and regulations are inadequate to protect the environment and humans from potentially harmful exposure.

Using R in Regulatory Toxicology

Statistical analyses are an essential part of regulatory toxicological evaluations. While projects would be ideally monitored by both toxicologists and statisticians, this is often not possible in practice. Hence, toxicologists should be trained in some common statistical approaches but also need a tool for statistical evaluations. Due to transparency needed in regulatory processes and standard tests that can be evaluated with template approaches, the freely available open-source statistical software R may be suitable. R is a well-established software in the statistical community. The principal input method is via software code, which is both benefit and weakness of the tool. It is increasingly used by regulating authorities globally and can be easily extended by software packages, e.g., for new statistical functions and features. This manuscript outlines how R can be used in regulatory toxicology, allowing toxicologists to perform all regulatory required data evaluations in a single software solution. Practical applications are shown in case studies on simulated and experimental data. The examples cover a) Dunnett testing of treatment groups against a common control and in relation to a biological relevance threshold, assessing the test's assumptions and plotting the results; b) dose-response analysis and benchmark dose derivation for chronic kidney inflammation as a function of Pyridine; and c) graphical/exploratory data analysis of previously published developmental neurotoxicity data for Chlorpyrifos.

In Vitro Assessment and Toxicological Prioritization of Pesticide Mixtures at Concentrations Derived from Real Exposure in Occupational Scenarios

Humans are daily exposed to multiple residues of pesticides with agricultural workers representing a subpopulation at higher risk. In this context, the cumulative risk assessment of pesticide mixtures is an urgent issue. The present study evaluated, as a case study, the toxicological profiles of thirteen pesticide mixtures used for grapevine protection, including ten active compounds (sulfur, potassium phosphonate, metrafenone, zoxamide, cyflufenamid, quinoxyfen, mancozeb, folpet, penconazole and dimethomorph), at concentrations used on field. A battery of in vitro tests for cell viability and oxidative stress endpoints (cytotoxicity, apoptosis, necrosis, ROS production, mitochondrial membrane potential, gene expression of markers for apoptosis and oxidative stress) was performed on two cellular models representative of main target organs of workers' and population exposure: pulmonary A549 and hepatic HepG2 cell lines. All the endpoints provided evidence for effects also at the lower concentrations used. The overall data were integrated into the ToxPI tool obtaining a toxicity ranking of the mixtures, allowing to prioritize effects also among similarly composed blends. The clustering of the toxicological profiles further provided evidence of common and different modes of action of the mixtures. The approach demonstrated to be suitable for the purpose and it could be applied also in other contexts.

Sequential Indoor Use of Pesticides: Operator Exposure via Deposit Transfer from Sprayed Crops and Contaminated Application Equipment

Dermal transfer of pesticide residues to human skin due to contact with treated crops, treated surfaces, or contaminated surfaces is an important route of exposure for operators, workers and possibly for bystanders and residents. However, information on dermal transfer data is limited and mainly available for workers. The aim of the present study has been to generate both dermal exposure and transfer data related for operators involved in sequential tasks of mixing/loading and application of pesticides in a southern EU zone greenhouse. Exposure measurements were based on the principles of the whole-body dosimetry (WBD) method involving the use of cotton coveralls and gloves as dosimeters. Six field trials were conducted in three tomato greenhouses, on the island of Crete, Greece. The study results showed that the contribution of existing pesticide deposits on the treated crops, i.e., from an application conducted earlier the same day, was in the range of 8–16% for the application task and 0.9–18% for the mixing/loading task in relation to the measured total exposure to this pesticide during a short-term sequential application. The results of this study have been incorporated in the GAOEM (Greenhouse Agricultural Operator Exposure Model) included in the updated EFSA Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment of plant protection products. The low values of the pesticide amount penetrating the coverall (actual dermal exposure) in all cases highlight and confirm the need for the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for operator safety.

Theoretical Background of Occupational-Exposure Models-Report of an Expert Workshop of the ISES Europe Working Group "Exposure Models"

On 20 October 2020, the Working Group “Exposure Models” of the Europe Regional Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science (ISES Europe) organised an online workshop to discuss the theoretical background of models for the assessment of occupational exposure to chemicals. In this report, participants of the workshop with an active role before and during the workshop summarise the most relevant discussion points and conclusions of this well-attended workshop. ISES Europe has identified exposure modelling as one priority area for the strategic development of exposure science in Europe in the coming years. This specific workshop aimed to discuss the main challenges in developing, validating, and using occupational-exposure models for regulatory purposes. The theoretical background, application domain, and limitations of different modelling approaches were presented and discussed, focusing on empirical “modifying-factor” or “mass-balance-based” approaches. During the discussions, these approaches were compared and analysed. Possibilities to address the discussed challenges could be a validation study involving alternative modelling approaches. The wider discussion touched upon the close relationship between modelling and monitoring and the need for better linkage of the methods and the need for common monitoring databases that include data on model parameters.