Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)

BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. Th...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A [verfasserIn] Maltby, L

Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2015

Rechteinformationen:	Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR

Schlagwörter:	Alterra - Environmental risk assessment Extern other Extern overig

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Pest management science - Chichester : Wiley, 2000, 71(2015), 8
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:71 ; year:2015 ; number:8

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen

Katalog-ID:	OLC1963365216

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a2200265 4500
001	OLC1963365216
003	DE-627
005	20230513155023.0
007	tu
008	160206s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c
028	5	2	\|a PQ20160617
035			\|a (DE-627)OLC1963365216
035			\|a (DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216
035			\|a (PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3
035			\|a (KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 570 \|a 580 \|a 630 \|a 640 \|a 660 \|q DNB
084			\|a 48.54 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)
264		1	\|c 2015
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen \|b n \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Band \|b nc \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators).
540			\|a Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR
650		4	\|a Alterra - Environmental risk assessment
650		4	\|a Extern other
650		4	\|a Extern overig
700	1		\|a Maltby, L \|4 oth
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Pest management science \|d Chichester : Wiley, 2000 \|g 71(2015), 8 \|w (DE-627)309622565 \|w (DE-600)2001705-4 \|w (DE-576)084508841 \|x 1526-498X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:71 \|g year:2015 \|g number:8
856	4	2	\|u http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736
856	4	2	\|u http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_OLC
912			\|a SSG-OLC-TEC
912			\|a SSG-OLC-CHE
912			\|a SSG-OLC-FOR
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a SSG-OLC-DE-84
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4219
936	b	k	\|a 48.54 \|q AVZ
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 71 \|j 2015 \|e 8

Indexfelder

author_variant	v r w vr vrw
matchkey_str	article:1526498X:2015----::cttiradirefcassmnapoceitefaqaigiacdouetrtesfiinlp
hierarchy_sort_str	2015
bklnumber	48.54
publishDate	2015
allfields	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1963365216 (DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216 (PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3 (KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 580 630 640 660 DNB 48.54 bkl Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A verfasserin aut Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators). Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR Alterra - Environmental risk assessment Extern other Extern overig Maltby, L oth Enthalten in Pest management science Chichester : Wiley, 2000 71(2015), 8 (DE-627)309622565 (DE-600)2001705-4 (DE-576)084508841 1526-498X nnns volume:71 year:2015 number:8 http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736 http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-FOR SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 48.54 AVZ AR 71 2015 8
spelling	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1963365216 (DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216 (PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3 (KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 580 630 640 660 DNB 48.54 bkl Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A verfasserin aut Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators). Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR Alterra - Environmental risk assessment Extern other Extern overig Maltby, L oth Enthalten in Pest management science Chichester : Wiley, 2000 71(2015), 8 (DE-627)309622565 (DE-600)2001705-4 (DE-576)084508841 1526-498X nnns volume:71 year:2015 number:8 http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736 http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-FOR SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 48.54 AVZ AR 71 2015 8
allfields_unstemmed	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1963365216 (DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216 (PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3 (KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 580 630 640 660 DNB 48.54 bkl Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A verfasserin aut Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators). Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR Alterra - Environmental risk assessment Extern other Extern overig Maltby, L oth Enthalten in Pest management science Chichester : Wiley, 2000 71(2015), 8 (DE-627)309622565 (DE-600)2001705-4 (DE-576)084508841 1526-498X nnns volume:71 year:2015 number:8 http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736 http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-FOR SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 48.54 AVZ AR 71 2015 8
allfieldsGer	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1963365216 (DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216 (PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3 (KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 580 630 640 660 DNB 48.54 bkl Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A verfasserin aut Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators). Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR Alterra - Environmental risk assessment Extern other Extern overig Maltby, L oth Enthalten in Pest management science Chichester : Wiley, 2000 71(2015), 8 (DE-627)309622565 (DE-600)2001705-4 (DE-576)084508841 1526-498X nnns volume:71 year:2015 number:8 http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736 http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-FOR SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 48.54 AVZ AR 71 2015 8
allfieldsSound	PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1963365216 (DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216 (PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3 (KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 580 630 640 660 DNB 48.54 bkl Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A verfasserin aut Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators). Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR Alterra - Environmental risk assessment Extern other Extern overig Maltby, L oth Enthalten in Pest management science Chichester : Wiley, 2000 71(2015), 8 (DE-627)309622565 (DE-600)2001705-4 (DE-576)084508841 1526-498X nnns volume:71 year:2015 number:8 http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736 http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-FOR SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219 48.54 AVZ AR 71 2015 8
language	English
source	Enthalten in Pest management science 71(2015), 8 volume:71 year:2015 number:8
sourceStr	Enthalten in Pest management science 71(2015), 8 volume:71 year:2015 number:8
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Alterra - Environmental risk assessment Extern other Extern overig
dewey-raw	570
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	Pest management science
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A @@aut@@ Maltby, L @@oth@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2015-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	309622565
dewey-sort	3570
id	OLC1963365216
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1963365216</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230513155023.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1963365216</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="a">580</subfield><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="a">640</subfield><subfield code="a">660</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">48.54</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Alterra - Environmental risk assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Extern other</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Extern overig</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maltby, L</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Pest management science</subfield><subfield code="d">Chichester : Wiley, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">71(2015), 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)309622565</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2001705-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)084508841</subfield><subfield code="x">1526-498X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:71</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-CHE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-DE-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4219</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">48.54</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">71</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A
spellingShingle	Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A ddc 570 bkl 48.54 misc Alterra - Environmental risk assessment misc Extern other misc Extern overig Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)
authorStr	Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)309622565
format	Article
dewey-ones	570 - Life sciences; biology 580 - Plants (Botany) 630 - Agriculture & related technologies 640 - Home & family management 660 - Chemical engineering
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut
collection	OLC
remote_str	false
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1526-498X
topic_title	570 580 630 640 660 DNB 48.54 bkl Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first) Alterra - Environmental risk assessment Extern other Extern overig
topic	ddc 570 bkl 48.54 misc Alterra - Environmental risk assessment misc Extern other misc Extern overig
topic_unstemmed	ddc 570 bkl 48.54 misc Alterra - Environmental risk assessment misc Extern other misc Extern overig
topic_browse	ddc 570 bkl 48.54 misc Alterra - Environmental risk assessment misc Extern other misc Extern overig
format_facet	Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	nc
author2_variant	l m lm
hierarchy_parent_title	Pest management science
hierarchy_parent_id	309622565
dewey-tens	570 - Life sciences; biology 580 - Plants (Botany) 630 - Agriculture 640 - Home & family management 660 - Chemical engineering
hierarchy_top_title	Pest management science
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)309622565 (DE-600)2001705-4 (DE-576)084508841
title	Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)
ctrlnum	(DE-627)OLC1963365216 (DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216 (PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3 (KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe
title_full	Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)
author_sort	Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A
journal	Pest management science
journalStr	Pest management science
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	500 - Science 600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2015
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A
container_volume	71
class	570 580 630 640 660 DNB 48.54 bkl
format_se	Aufsätze
author-letter	Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A
dewey-full	570 580 630 640 660
title_sort	acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the efsa aquatic guidance diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)
title_auth	Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)
abstract	BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators).
abstractGer	BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators).
abstract_unstemmed	BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators).
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-FOR SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4219
container_issue	8
title_short	Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)
url	http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736 http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736
remote_bool	false
author2	Maltby, L
author2Str	Maltby, L
ppnlink	309622565
mediatype_str_mv	n
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
author2_role	oth
up_date	2024-07-04T05:34:46.099Z
_version_	1803625468881010688
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1963365216</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230513155023.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1963365216</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1963365216</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)n1036-f8f331c313381b635a1676dd2406f5564d79e777ba24a6fb3f5ad338e7a2cdfa3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0016093820150000071000800000acutetuier1andtier2effectassessmentapproachesinthe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="a">580</subfield><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="a">640</subfield><subfield code="a">660</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">48.54</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wijngaarden, van, R.P.A</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BACKGROUND The objective of this paper is to evaluate whether the acute tier-1 and tier-2 methods as proposed by the Aquatic Guidance Document recently published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are appropriate for deriving regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) for insecticides. The tier-1 and tier-2 RACs were compared with RACs based on threshold concentrations from micro/mesocosm studies (ETO-RAC). A lower-tier RAC was considered as sufficiently protective, if less than the corresponding ETO-RAC. RESULTS ETO-RACs were calculated for repeated (n = 13) and/or single pulsed applications (n = 17) of 26 insecticides to micro/mesocosms, giving a maximum of 30 insecticide × application combinations (i.e. cases) for comparison. Acute tier-1 RACs (for 24 insecticides) were lower than the corresponding ETO-RACs in 27 out of 29 cases, while tier-2 Geom-RACs (for 23 insecticides) were lower in 24 out of 26 cases. The tier-2 SSD-RAC (for 21 insecticides) using HC5/3 was lower than the ETO-RAC in 23 out of 27 cases, whereas the tier-2 SSD-RAC using HC5/6 was protective in 25 out of 27 cases. CONCLUSION The tier-1 and tier-2 approaches proposed by EFSA for acute effect assessment are sufficiently protective for the majority of insecticides evaluated. Further evaluation may be needed for insecticides with more novel chemistries (neonicotinoids, biopesticides) and compounds that show delayed effects (insect growth regulators).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nutzungsrecht: © Wageningen UR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Alterra - Environmental risk assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Extern other</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Extern overig</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maltby, L</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Pest management science</subfield><subfield code="d">Chichester : Wiley, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">71(2015), 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)309622565</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2001705-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)084508841</subfield><subfield code="x">1526-498X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:71</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479736</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F479736</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-CHE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-DE-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4219</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">48.54</subfield><subfield code="q">AVZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">71</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4014044

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Acute tuier-1 and tier-2 effect assessment approaches in the EFSA Aquatic Guidance Diocument: are they sufficiently protective for insecticides? (online first)

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?