Statement of the PPR Panel on a framework for conducting the environmental exposure and risk assessment for transition metals when used as active substances in plant protection products (PPP).

The European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to prepare a statement on a framework for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of transition metals (e.g. iron and copper) used as active substances in plant protection products (PPPs). Non-degradability, essentiality and specific conditions affecting fate and behaviour as well as their toxicity are distinctive characteristics possibly not covered in current guidance for PPPs. The proposed risk assessment framework starts with a preliminary phase, in which monitoring data on transition metals in relevant environmental compartments are provided. They deliver the metal natural background and anthropogenic residue levels to be considered in the exposure calculations. A first assessment step is then performed assuming fully bioavailable residues. Should the first step fail, refined ERA can, in principle, consider bioavailability issues; however, non-equilibrium conditions need to be taken into account. Simple models that are fit for purpose should be employed in order to avoid unnecessary complexity. Exposure models and scenarios would need to be adapted to address environmental processes and parameters relevant to the fate and behaviour of transition metals in water, sediment and soils (e.g. speciation). All developments should follow current EFSA guidance documents. If refined approaches have been used in the risk assessment of PPPs containing metals, post-registration monitoring and controlled long-term studies should be conducted and assessed. Utilisation of the same transition metal in other PPPs or for other uses will lead to accumulation in environmental compartments acting as sinks. In general, it has to be considered that the prospective risk assessment of metal-containing PPPs can only cover a defined period as there are limitations in the long-term hazard assessment due to issues of non-degradability. It is therefore recommended to consider these aspects in any risk management decisions and to align the ERA with the goals of other overarching legislative frameworks.

Application of General Unified Threshold Models of Survival Models for Regulatory Aquatic Pesticide Risk Assessment Illustrated with an Example for the Insecticide Chlorpyrifos.

Mathematical models within the General Unified Threshold models of Survival (GUTS) framework translate time-variable chemical exposure information into expected survival of animals. The GUTS models are species and compound specific and explicitly describe the internal exposure dynamics in an organism (toxicokinetics) and the related damage and effect dynamics (toxicodynamics), thereby connecting the external exposure concentration dynamics with the simulated mortality or immobility over time. In a recent scientific opinion on toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) models published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the GUTS modeling framework was considered ready for use in the aquatic risk assessment for pesticides and aquatic fauna. The GUTS models are suggested for use in risk assessment, if they are sufficiently validated for a specific substance-species combination. This paper aims to illustrate how they can be used in the regulatory environmental risk assessment for pesticides for a specific type of refinement, that is, when risks are triggered by lower tiers in acute as well as in chronic risk assessment and mortality or immobility is the critical endpoint. This approach involves the evaluation of time-variable exposure regimes in a so-called "Tier-2C" assessment. The insecticide chlorpyrifos was selected as an example compound because a large data set was available. The GUTS models for 13 different freshwater arthropods and 8 different theoretical aquatic exposure profiles were used to calculate a series of GUTS-based risk estimates, including exposure profile-specific multiplication factors leading to 50% mortality or immobility at the end of the tested profile (LP50/EP50) as "margins of safety." To put the use of GUTS models within the tiered aquatic risk assessment into perspective, GUTS models for the 13 aquatic arthropods were also used to predict the environmental risks of a measured chlorpyrifos exposure profile from an experimental ditch study (Tier-3 approach), and the results are discussed in the context of calibration of the tiered approach. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:243-258. © 2020 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Mechanistic Effect Modeling of Earthworms in the Context of Pesticide Risk Assessment: Synthesis of the FORESEE Workshop.

Earthworms are important ecosystem engineers, and assessment of the risk of plant protection products toward them is part of the European environmental risk assessment (ERA). In the current ERA scheme, exposure and effects are represented simplistically and are not well integrated, resulting in uncertainty when the results are applied to ecosystems. Modeling offers a powerful tool to integrate the effects observed in lower tier laboratory studies with the environmental conditions under which exposure is expected in the field. This paper provides a summary of the (In)Field Organism Risk modEling by coupling Soil Exposure and Effect (FORESEE) Workshop held 28-30 January 2020 in Düsseldorf, Germany. This workshop focused on toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) and population modeling of earthworms in the context of ERA. The goal was to bring together scientists from different stakeholder groups to discuss the current state of soil invertebrate modeling and to explore how earthworm modeling could be applied to risk assessments, in particular how the different model outputs can be used in the tiered ERA approach. In support of these goals, the workshop aimed at addressing the requirements and concerns of the different stakeholder groups to support further model development. The modeling approach included 4 submodules to cover the most relevant processes for earthworm risk assessment: environment, behavior (feeding, vertical movement), TKTD, and population. Four workgroups examined different aspects of the model with relevance for risk assessment, earthworm ecology, uptake routes, and cross-species extrapolation and model testing. Here, we present the perspectives of each workgroup and highlight how the collaborative effort of participants from multidisciplinary backgrounds helped to establish common ground. In addition, we provide a list of recommendations for how earthworm TKTD modeling could address some of the uncertainties in current risk assessments for plant protection products. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:352-363. © 2020 SETAC.

Statement on the translocation potential by Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA342 in plants after seed treatment of cereals and peas and assessment of the risk to humans.

The European Commission requested EFSA to provide scientific advice on the translocation potential by Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA342 in plants after seed treatment of cereals and peas and, if applicable, for a revision of the assessment of the risk to humans by its metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) and this based on the evidence available in the dossier for renewal of the approval. The information from other P. chlororaphis strains than MA342 was taken into account with care, because the studies available in the dossier did not confirm the identity of the strain MA342 as belonging to the species P. chlororaphis. It has been concluded that there is a potential for translocation of P. chlororaphis MA342 to edible plant parts following seed treatment till an estimated concentration up to about 105 cfu/g and some exposure can be assumed by consumption of fresh commodities. Also, production of the metabolite DDR in the plant cannot be excluded. Regarding levels of DDR in the raw agricultural commodities, exposure estimates based on the limit of quantification (LOQ) for DDR in cereals cannot be further refined while there is no information on the levels of DDR in peas in the dossier. As regards genotoxicity, DDR induced chromosomal damage; however, it was not possible to conclude whether it is through an aneugenic or clastogenic mechanism. Hence, it is not possible to draw a reliable conclusion that DDR is producing an aneugenic effect nor to determine a threshold dose for aneugenicity. Thus, it is not possible to revise the human risk assessment as regards exposure to DDR. The concerns identified in the EFSA conclusion of 2017 remain.

Scientific statement on the coverage of bats by the current pesticide risk assessment for birds and mammals.

Bats are an important group of mammals, frequently foraging in farmland and potentially exposed to pesticides. This statement considers whether the current risk assessment performed for birds and ground dwelling mammals exposed to pesticides is also protective of bats. Three main issues were addressed. Firstly, whether bats are toxicologically more or less sensitive than the most sensitive birds and mammals. Secondly, whether oral exposure of bats to pesticides is greater or lower than in ground dwelling mammals and birds. Thirdly, whether there are other important exposure routes relevant to bats. A large variation in toxicological sensitivity and no relationship between sensitivity of bats and bird or mammal test-species to pesticides could be found. In addition, bats have unique traits, such as echolocation and torpor which can be adversely affected by exposure to pesticides and which are not covered by the endpoints currently selected for wild mammal risk assessment. The current exposure assessment methodology was used for oral exposure and adapted to bats using bat-specific parameters. For oral exposure, it was concluded that for most standard risk assessment scenarios the current approach did not cover exposure of bats to pesticide residues in food. Calculations of potential dermal exposure for bats foraging during spraying operations suggest that this may be a very important exposure route. Dermal routes of exposure should be combined with inhalation and oral exposure. Based on the evidence compiled, the Panel concludes that bats are not adequately covered by the current risk assessment approach, and that there is a need to develop a bat-specific risk assessment scheme. In general, there was scarcity of data to assess the risks for bat exposed to pesticides. Recommendations for research are made, including identification of alternatives to laboratory testing of bats to assess toxicological effects.

Scientific Opinion on the state of the science on pesticide risk assessment for amphibians and reptiles.

Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science to support the potential development of a risk assessment scheme of plant protection products for amphibians and reptiles. The coverage of the risk to amphibians and reptiles by current risk assessments for other vertebrate groups was investigated. Available test methods and exposure models were reviewed with regard to their applicability to amphibians and reptiles. Proposals were made for specific protection goals aiming to protect important ecosystem services and taking into consideration the regulatory framework and existing protection goals for other vertebrates. Uncertainties, knowledge gaps and research needs were highlighted.

Scientific Opinion on the state of the art of Toxicokinetic/Toxicodynamic (TKTD) effect models for regulatory risk assessment of pesticides for aquatic organisms.

Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) developed an opinion on the state of the art of Toxicokinetic/Toxicodynamic (TKTD) models and their use in prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides and aquatic organisms. TKTD models are species- and compound-specific and can be used to predict (sub)lethal effects of pesticides under untested (time-variable) exposure conditions. Three different types of TKTD models are described, viz., (i) the 'General Unified Threshold models of Survival' (GUTS), (ii) those based on the Dynamic Energy Budget theory (DEBtox models), and (iii) models for primary producers. All these TKTD models follow the principle that the processes influencing internal exposure of an organism, (TK), are separated from the processes that lead to damage and effects/mortality (TD). GUTS models can be used to predict survival rate under untested exposure conditions. DEBtox models explore the effects on growth and reproduction of toxicants over time, even over the entire life cycle. TKTD model for primary producers and pesticides have been developed for algae, Lemna and Myriophyllum. For all TKTD model calibration, both toxicity data on standard test species and/or additional species can be used. For validation, substance and species-specific data sets from independent refined-exposure experiments are required. Based on the current state of the art (e.g. lack of documented and evaluated examples), the DEBtox modelling approach is currently limited to research applications. However, its great potential for future use in prospective ERA for pesticides is recognised. The GUTS model and the Lemna model are considered ready to be used in risk assessment.

Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for in-soil organisms.

Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science behind the risk assessment of plant protection products for in-soil organisms. The current risk assessment scheme is reviewed, taking into account new regulatory frameworks and scientific developments. Proposals are made for specific protection goals for in-soil organisms being key drivers for relevant ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes such as nutrient cycling, soil structure, pest control and biodiversity. Considering the time-scales and biological processes related to the dispersal of the majority of in-soil organisms compared to terrestrial non-target arthropods living above soil, the Panel proposes that in-soil environmental risk assessments are made at in- and off-field scale considering field boundary levels. A new testing strategy which takes into account the relevant exposure routes for in-soil organisms and the potential direct and indirect effects is proposed. In order to address species recovery and long-term impacts of PPPs, the use of population models is also proposed.

How TK-TD and population models for aquatic macrophytes could support the risk assessment for plant protection products.

This case study of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) workshop MODELINK demonstrates the potential use of mechanistic effects models for macrophytes to extrapolate from effects of a plant protection product observed in laboratory tests to effects resulting from dynamic exposure on macrophyte populations in edge-of-field water bodies. A standard European Union (EU) risk assessment for an example herbicide based on macrophyte laboratory tests indicated risks for several exposure scenarios. Three of these scenarios are further analyzed using effect models for 2 aquatic macrophytes, the free-floating standard test species Lemna sp., and the sediment-rooted submerged additional standard test species Myriophyllum spicatum. Both models include a toxicokinetic (TK) part, describing uptake and elimination of the toxicant, a toxicodynamic (TD) part, describing the internal concentration-response function for growth inhibition, and a description of biomass growth as a function of environmental factors to allow simulating seasonal dynamics. The TK-TD models are calibrated and tested using laboratory tests, whereas the growth models were assumed to be fit for purpose based on comparisons of predictions with typical growth patterns observed in the field. For the risk assessment, biomass dynamics are predicted for the control situation and for several exposure levels. Based on specific protection goals for macrophytes, preliminary example decision criteria are suggested for evaluating the model outputs. The models refined the risk indicated by lower tier testing for 2 exposure scenarios, while confirming the risk associated for the third. Uncertainties related to the experimental and the modeling approaches and their application in the risk assessment are discussed. Based on this case study and the assumption that the models prove suitable for risk assessment once fully evaluated, we recommend that 1) ecological scenarios be developed that are also linked to the exposure scenarios, and 2) quantitative protection goals be set to facilitate the interpretation of model results for risk assessment.