Effect of individual parameter changes on the outcome of the estimated short-term dietary exposure to pesticides.

In 2015 a scientific workshop was held in Geneva, where updating the International Estimate of Short-Term Intake (IESTI) equations was suggested. This paper studies the effects of the proposed changes in residue inputs, large portions, variability factors and unit weights on the overall short-term dietary exposure estimate. Depending on the IESTI case equation, a median increase in estimated overall exposure by a factor of 1.0-6.8 was observed when the current IESTI equations are replaced by the proposed IESTI equations. The highest increase in the estimated exposure arises from the replacement of the median residue (STMR) by the maximum residue limit (MRL) for bulked and blended commodities (case 3 equations). The change in large portion parameter does not have a significant impact on the estimated exposure. The use of large portions derived from the general population covering all age groups and bodyweights should be avoided when large portions are not expressed on an individual bodyweight basis. Replacement of the highest residue (HR) by the MRL and removal of the unit weight each increase the estimated exposure for small-, medium- and large-sized commodities (case 1, case 2a or case 2b equations). However, within the EU framework lowering of the variability factor from 7 or 5 to 3 counterbalances the effect of changes in other parameters, resulting in an estimated overall exposure change for the EU situation of a factor of 0.87-1.7 and 0.6-1.4 for IESTI case 2a and case 2b equations, respectively.

Cumulative risk assessment of pesticide residues in food.

There is increasing need to address the potential risks of combined exposures to multiple residues from pesticides in the diet. The available evidence suggests that the main concern is from dose addition of those compounds that act by the same mode of action. The possibility of synergy needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, where there is a biologically plausible hypothesis that it may occur at the levels of residues occurring in the diet. Cumulative risk assessment is a resource-intense activity and hence a tiered approach to both toxicological evaluation and intake estimation is recommended, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently published such a proposal. Where assessments have already been undertaken by some other authority, full advantage should be taken of these, subject of course to considerations of quality and relevance. Inclusion of compounds in a cumulative assessment group (CAG) should be based on defined criteria, which allow for refinement in a tiered approach. These criteria should include chemical structure, mechanism of pesticidal action, target organ and toxic mode of action. A number of methods are available for cumulating toxicity. These are all inter-related, but some are mathematically more complex than others. The most useful methods, in increasing levels of complexity and refinement, are the hazard index, the reference point index, the Relative Potency Factor method and physiologically based toxicokinetic modelling, although this last method would only be considered should a highly refined assessment be necessary. Four possible exposure scenarios are of relevance for cumulative risk assessment, acute and chronic exposure in the context of maximum residue level (MRL)-setting, and in relation to exposures from the actual use patterns, respectively. Each can be addressed either deterministically or probabilistically. Strategies for dealing with residues below the limit of detection, limit of quantification or limit of reporting need to be agreed. A number of probabilistic models are available, but some of there are geographically constrained due to the underlying datasets used in their construction. Guidance on probabilistic modelling needs to be finalised. Cumulative risk assessments have been performed in a number of countries, on organophosphate insecticides alone (USA) or together with carbamates (UK, DK, NL), triazines, chloroacetanilides, carbamates alone (USA), and all pesticides (DE). All identifiable assumptions and uncertainties should be tabulated and evaluated, at least qualitatively. Those likely to have a major impact on the outcome of the assessment should be examined quantitatively. In cumulative risk assessment, it is necessary, as in other risk assessments, for risk managers to consider what level of risk would be considered "acceptable", for example what percentile of the population should be below the reference value. Criteria for prioritising CAGs for cumulative risk assessment include frequency of detection in monitoring programmes, high usage, high exposure relative to the reference value, large number of compounds (e.g. five or more) in a group.

A European model and case studies for aggregate exposure assessment of pesticides.

Exposures to plant protection products (PPPs) are assessed using risk analysis methods to protect public health. Traditionally, single sources, such as food or individual occupational sources, have been addressed. In reality, individuals can be exposed simultaneously to multiple sources. Improved regulation therefore requires the development of new tools for estimating the population distribution of exposures aggregated within an individual. A new aggregate model is described, which allows individual users to include as much, or as little, information as is available or relevant for their particular scenario. Depending on the inputs provided by the user, the outputs can range from simple deterministic values through to probabilistic analyses including characterisations of variability and uncertainty. Exposures can be calculated for multiple compounds, routes and sources of exposure. The aggregate model links to the cumulative dietary exposure model developed in parallel and is implemented in the web-based software tool MCRA. Case studies are presented to illustrate the potential of this model, with inputs drawn from existing European data sources and models. These cover exposures to UK arable spray operators, Italian vineyard spray operators, Netherlands users of a consumer spray and UK bystanders/residents. The model could also be adapted to handle non-PPP compounds.