A systems-based analysis to rethink the European environmental risk assessment of regulated chemicals using pesticides as a pilot case.

A growing body of scientific literature stresses the need to advance current environmental risk assessment (ERA) methodologies and associated regulatory frameworks to better address the landscape-scale and long-term impact of pesticide use on biodiversity and the ecosystem. Moreover, more collaborative and integrative approaches are needed to meet sustainability goals. The One Health approach is increasingly applied by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to support the transition towards safer, healthier and more sustainable food. To this end, EFSA commissioned the development of a roadmap for action to establish a European Partnership for next-generation, systems-based Environmental Risk Assessment (PERA). Here, we summarise the main conclusions and recommendations reported in the 2022 PERA Roadmap. This roadmap highlights that fragmentation of data, knowledge and expertise across regulatory sectors results in suboptimal processes and hinders the implementation of integrative ERA approaches needed to better protect the environment. To advance ERA, we revisited the underlying assumptions of the current ERA paradigm; that chemical risks are generally assessed and managed in isolation with a substance-by-substance, realistic worst-case and tiered approach. We suggest optimising the use of the vast amount of information and expertise available with pesticides as a pilot area. It is recommended to as soon as possible adopt a systems-based approach, i.e. within the current regulatory framework, to spark a step-wise transition towards an ERA framed at a system level of ecological and societal relevance. Tangible systems-based and integrative steps are available. For instance, the rich sources of existing data for prospective and retrospective ERA of pesticides could be used to reality-benchmark existing and new ERA methods. To achieve these goals, collaboration among stakeholders across scientific disciplines and regulatory sectors must be strengthened.

Statement on the toxicological properties and maximum residue levels of acetamiprid and its metabolites.

Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action whose approval was renewed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/113. In January 2022, the EFSA PPR Panel published a statement following a request from the European Commission to advise on human health or the environment based on new scientific evidence presented by France during the decision-making phase. In July 2022, by means of a further mandate received from the European Commission, EFSA was requested to provide advice if new information and any other scientific evidence that has become available since the assessment conducted for the renewal in 2018 warrant re-evaluation of (i) toxicological parameters used for the risk assessment of acetamiprid during the renewal process, including toxicological endpoints; (ii) the residue definition for acetamiprid in products of plant origin; and (iii) the safety of existing maximum residue levels (MRLs). Meanwhile, the applicant of acetamiprid in the EU submitted new toxicology studies regarding the toxicological profile of the metabolite IM-2-1. Furthermore, the European Commission was made aware that several recent publications in scientific literature were made available after the literature searches conducted by EFSA. As the new data could affect the advice that EFSA was expected to deliver through the 2022 mandate, EFSA was further requested to consider this information by means of a revised mandate received in September 2023. As regards re-evaluation of point (i) in this statement, this was addressed by an EFSA Working Group integrating all the available evidence. The results of the weight of evidence indicated that there are major uncertainties in the body of evidence for the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) properties of acetamiprid and further data are therefore needed to come to a more robust mechanistic understanding to enable appropriate hazard and risk assessment. In view of these uncertainties, the EFSA WG proposed to lower the acceptable daily intake (ADI) and acute reference dose (ARfD) from 0.025 to 0.005 mg/kg body weight (per day). A revised residue definition for risk assessment was proposed for leafy and fruit crops as sum of acetamiprid and N-desmethyl-acetamiprid (IM-2-1), expressed as acetamiprid. Regarding pulses/oilseeds, root crops and cereals, the new data received did not indicate a need to modify the existing residue definition for risk assessment, which therefore remains as parent acetamiprid. Regarding the residue definition for enforcement, the available data did not indicate a need to modify the existing definition because acetamiprid is still a sufficient marker of the residues in all crop groups. Considering the new health-based guidance values derived in the present statement, a risk for consumer has been identified for 38 MRLs currently in place in the EU Regulation. Consequently, EFSA recommended to lower the existing MRLs for 38 commodities based on the assessment of fall-back Good Agricultural Practices received within an ad hoc data call. Some fall-back MRLs proposals require further risk management considerations.

Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Model to Assess Thermal Stress.

Temperature is a crucial environmental factor affecting the distribution and performance of ectothermic organisms. This study introduces a new temperature damage model to interpret their thermal stress. Inspired by the ecotoxicological damage model in the General Unified Threshold model for Survival (GUTS) framework, the temperature damage model assumes that damage depends on the balance between temperature-dependent accumulation and constant repair. Mortality due to temperature stress is driven by the damage level exceeding a threshold. Model calibration showed a good agreement with the measured survival of Gammarus pulex exposed to different constant temperatures. Further, model simulations, including constant temperatures, daily temperature fluctuations, and heatwaves, demonstrated the model's ability to predict temperature effects for various environmental scenarios. With this, the present study contributes to the mechanistic understanding of temperature as a single stressor while facilitating the incorporation of temperature as an additional stressor alongside chemicals in mechanistic multistressor effect models.

Statement of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on the design and conduct of groundwater monitoring studies supporting groundwater exposure assessments of pesticides.

Groundwater monitoring is the highest tier in the leaching assessment of plant protection products in the EU. The European Commission requested EFSA for a review by the PPR Panel of the scientific paper of Gimsing et al. (2019) on the design and conduct of groundwater monitoring studies. The Panel concludes that this paper provides many recommendations; however, specific guidance on how to design, conduct and evaluate groundwater monitoring studies for regulatory purposes is missing. The Panel notes that there is no agreed specific protection goal (SPG) at EU level. Also, the SPG has not yet been operationalised in an agreed exposure assessment goal (ExAG). The ExAG describes which groundwater needs to be protected, where and when. Because the design and interpretation of monitoring studies depends on the ExAG, development of harmonised guidance is not yet possible. The development of an agreed ExAG must therefore be given priority. A central question in the design and interpretation of groundwater monitoring studies is that of groundwater vulnerability. Applicants must demonstrate that the selected monitoring sites represent realistic worst-case conditions as specified in the ExAG. Guidance and models are needed to support this step. A prerequisite for the regulatory use of monitoring data is the availability of complete data on the use history of the products containing the respective active substances. Applicants must further demonstrate that monitoring wells are hydrologically connected to the fields where the active substance has been applied. Modelling in combination with (pseudo)tracer experiments would be the preferred option. The Panel concludes that well-conducted monitoring studies provide more realistic exposure assessments and can therefore overrule results from lower tier studies. Groundwater monitoring studies involve a high workload for both regulators and applicants. Standardised procedures and monitoring networks could help to reduce this workload.

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.

Development of adverse outcome pathways relevant for the identification of substances having endocrine disruption properties Uterine adenocarcinoma as adverse outcome.

Development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for uterine adenocarcinoma can provide a practical tool to implement the EFSA-ECHA Guidance (2018) for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. AOPs can give indications about the strength of the relationship between an adverse outcome (intended as a human health outcome) and chemicals (pesticides but not only) affecting the pathways. In this scientific opinion, the PPR Panel explored the development of AOPs for uterine adenocarcinoma. An evidence-based approach methodology was applied, and literature reviews were produced using a structured framework assuring transparency, objectivity, and comprehensiveness. Several AOPs were developed; these converged to a common critical node, that is increased estradiol availability in the uterus followed by estrogen receptor activation in the endometrium; therefore, a putative AOP network was considered. An uncertainty analysis and a probabilistic quantification of the weight of evidence have been carried out via expert knowledge elicitation for each set of MIEs/KEs/KERs included in individual AOPs. The collected data on the AOP network were evaluated qualitatively, whereas a quantitative uncertainty analysis for weight of the AOP network certainty has not been performed. Recommendations are provided, including exploring further the uncertainties identified in the AOPs and putative AOP network; further methodological developments for quantifying the certainty of the KERs and of the overall AOPs and AOP network; and investigating of NAMs applications in the context of some of the MIEs/KEs currently part of the putative AOP network developed.

The effect of temperature on toxicokinetics and the chronic toxicity of insecticides towards Gammarus pulex.

A comprehensive understanding of chemical toxicity and temperature interaction is essential to improve ecological risk assessment under climate change. However, there is only limited knowledge about the effect of temperature on the toxicity of chemicals. To fill this knowledge gap and to improve our mechanistic understanding of the influence of temperature, the current study explored toxicokinetics and the chronic toxicity effects of two insecticides, imidacloprid (IMI) and flupyradifurone (FPF), on Gammarus pulex at different temperatures (7-24 °C). In the toxicokinetics tests, organisms were exposed to IMI or FPF for 2 days and then transferred to clean water for 3 days of elimination at 7, 18, or 24 °C. In the chronic tests, organisms were exposed to the individual insecticides for 28 days at 7, 11, or 15 °C. Our research found that temperature impacted the toxicokinetics and the chronic toxicity of both IMI and FPF, while the extent of such impact differed for each insecticide. For IMI, the uptake rate and biotransformation rate increased with temperature, and mortality and food consumption inhibition was enhanced by temperature. While for FPF, the elimination rate increased with temperature at a higher rate than the increasing uptake rate, resulting in a smaller pronounced effect of temperature on mortality compared to IMI. In addition, the adverse effects of the insecticides on sublethal endpoints (food consumption and dry weight) were exacerbated by elevated temperatures. Our results highlight the importance of including temperature in the ecological risk assessment of insecticides in light of global climate change.

Explicit Consideration of Temperature Improves Predictions of Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Models for Flupyradifurone and Imidacloprid in Gammarus pulex.

In the face of global climate change, where temperature fluctuations and the frequency of extreme weather events are increasing, it is needed to evaluate the impact of temperature on the ecological risk assessment of chemicals. Current state-of-the-art mechanistic effect models, such as toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TK-TD) models, often do not explicitly consider temperature as a modulating factor. This study implemented the effect of temperature in a widely used modeling framework, the General Unified Threshold model for Survival (GUTS). We tested the model using data from toxicokinetic and toxicity experiments with Gammarus pulex exposed to the insecticides imidacloprid and flupyradifurone. The experiments revealed increased TK rates with increasing temperature and increased toxicity under chronic exposures. Using the widely used Arrhenius equation, we could include the temperature influence into the modeling. By further testing of different model approaches, differences in the temperature scaling of TK and TD model parameters could be identified, urging further investigations of the underlying mechanisms. Finally, our results show that predictions of TK-TD models improve if we include the toxicity modulating effect of temperature explicitly.

Comparing the acute and chronic toxicity of flupyradifurone and imidacloprid to non-target aquatic arthropod species.

Flupyradifurone (FPF) is a new type of butenolide insecticide. It was launched on the market in 2015 and is considered an alternative to the widely used neonicotinoids, like imidacloprid (IMI), some of which are banned from outdoor use in the European Union. FPF is claimed to be safe for bees, but its safety for aquatic organisms is unknown. Its high water solubility, persistence in the environment, and potential large-scale use make it urgent to evaluate possible impacts on aquatic systems. The current study assessed the acute and chronic toxicity of FPF for aquatic arthropod species and compared these results with those of imidacloprid. Besides, toxicokinetics and toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic models were used to understand the mechanisms of the toxicity of FPF. The present study results showed that organisms take up FPF slower than IMI and eliminate it faster. In addition, the hazardous concentration 5th percentiles (HC05) value of FPF derived from a species sensitivity distribution (SSD) based on acute toxicity was found to be 0.052 µmol/L (corresponding to 15 µg/L), which was 37 times higher than IMI (0.0014 µmol/L, corresponding to 0.36 µg/L). The chronic 28 days EC10 of FPF for Cloeon dipterum and Gammarus pulex were 7.5 µg/L and 2.9 µg/L, respectively. For G. pulex, after 28 days of exposure, the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of FPF for food consumption was 0.3 µg/L. A toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) model parameterised on the acute toxicity data well predicted the observed chronic effects of FPF on G. pulex, indicating that toxicity mechanisms of FPF did not change with prolonged exposure time, which is not the case for IMI.

Evaluation of the risks for animal health related to the presence of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in feed for honey bees.

The European Commission has asked the EFSA to evaluate the risk for animal health related to the presence of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in honey bee feed. HMF is a degradation product of particular sugars and can be present in bee feed. HMF is of low acute toxicity in bees but causes increased mortality upon chronic exposure. A benchmark dose lower limit 10% (BMDL10) of 1.16 µg HMF per bee per day has been calculated from mortalities observed in a 20-day study and established as a Reference Point covering also mortality in larvae, drones and queens for which no or insufficient toxicity data were available. Winter bees have a much longer lifespan than summer bees and HMF shows clear time reinforced toxicity (TRT) characteristics. Therefore, additional Reference Point intervals of 0.21-3.1, 0.091-1.1 and 0.019-0.35 µg HMF/bee per day were calculated based on extrapolation to exposure durations of 50, 90 and 180 days, respectively. A total of 219 analytical data of HMF concentrations in bee feed from EU Member States and 88 from Industry were available. Exposure estimates of worker bees and larvae ranged between 0.1 and 0.48, and between 0.1 and 0.51 µg HMF/per day, respectively. They were well below the BMDL10 of 1.16 µg HMF/bee per day, and thus, no concern was identified. However, when accounting for TRT, the probability that exposures were below established reference point intervals was assessed to be extremely unlikely to almost certain depending on exposure duration. A concern for bee health was identified when bees are exposed to HMF contaminated bee feed for several months.

Statement on the active substance flupyradifurone.

Flupyradifurone is a novel butenolide insecticide, first approved as an active substance for use in plant protection products by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2084. Following concerns that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities, in November 2020, asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. In addition, in June 2020, the Dutch Authorities notified the Commission, under Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, of new information on flupyradifurone on the wild bee species Megachile rotundata. This notification is also referred to in the French notification on flupyradifurone. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to quantify the likelihood of this body of evidence constituting proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments. A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For the human health, only one study was considered relevant for the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone in vitro. These data did not provide sufficient information to overrule the EU assessment, as in vivo studies already addressed the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone. Environment: All available data investigated hazards in bee species. For honey bees, the likelihood of the new data indicating higher hazards than the previous EU assessment was considered low or moderate, with some uncertainties. However, among solitary bee species - which were not addressed in the previous EU assessment - there was evidence that Megachile rotundata may be disproportionately sensitive to flupyradifurone. This sensitivity, which may partially be explained by the low bodyweight of this species, was mechanistically linked to inadequate bodily metabolisation processes.

Statement on the active substance acetamiprid.

Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action currently under the third renewal (AIR3) of the Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 844/2012. Following concerns that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to advise on the likelihood that body of evidence would constitute proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments.A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) the data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) the weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) the uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For human health, no conclusive evidence of higher hazards compared to previous assessment was found for genotoxicity, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity including developmental neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity. However, due to the lack of adequate assessment of the current data set, the PPR Panel recommends conducting an assessment of endocrine disrupting properties for acetamiprid in line with EFSA/ECHA guidance document for the identification of endocrine disruptors. For environment, no conclusive, robust evidence of higher hazards compared to the previous assessment was found for birds, aquatic organisms, bees and soil organisms. However, the potential of high inter-species sensitivity of birds and bees towards acetamiprid requires further consideration.

Safety for the environment of a feed additive consisting of nicarbazin (Coxar®) for use in turkeys for fattening (Huvepharma N.V.).

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety for the environment of the coccidiostat Coxar® (nicarbazin) when used in feed for turkeys for fattening. In previous assessments, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of Coxar® for the environment due to concerns on 4,40-dinitrocarbanilide (DNC, one of the moieties of nicarbazin). On the basis of the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel updates its previous conclusions on the safety of Coxar® for the environment as follows: The use of nicarbazin from Coxar® in complete feed for turkeys does not pose a risk for the terrestrial and aquatic compartment and in sediment. No concern for groundwater is expected. The bioaccumulation potential of nicarbazin in the environment is low.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of iron chelate of ethylenediamine for all animal species (Zinpro Animal Nutrition (Europe), Inc.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of iron chelate of ethylenediamine (Iron-EDA-Cl) as a feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) identified several issues related to the data provided concerning the chemical characteristics of the additive. Based on the information provided, the FEEDAP Panel considered unlikely that the additive consists only of iron monochelate of EDA, but of several coexisting (iron) species; therefore, in the absence of adequate experimental data and owing to the uncertainties identified, the Panel cannot conclude on its identity and characterisation. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for poultry for fattening and reared for laying/breeding, but cannot conclude on the safety for other animal species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the consumer or the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that handling the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation. The additive should be considered as non-irritant for the skin but irritant for the eyes and skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of copper chelate of ethylenediamine for all animal species (Zinpro Animal Nutrition (Europe), Inc.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of copper chelate of ethylenediamine (Copper-EDA-Cl) as a feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) identified several issues related to the data provided concerning the chemical characteristics of the additive and, based on the information provided from an in vitro dissociation study, considered it unlikely that the additive consists only of copper mono-chelate of EDA but of several coexisting (copper) species. Therefore, in the absence of adequate experimental data and owing to the uncertainties identified, the Panel cannot conclude on its identity and characterisation of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening and reared for laying/breeding but cannot conclude on the safety for other animal species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the consumer or the environment. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that handling the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation. The additive should be considered as non-irritant for the skin but corrosive for the eyes and a skin sensitiser. The Panel notes the uncertainties on the genotoxicity potential of the additive that might have an impact on the conclusions on the safety for the user. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is efficacious in providing copper to meet the nutritional requirements of this trace element in all animal species.

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.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of zinc chelate of ethylenediamine for all animal species (Zinpro Animal Nutrition (Europe), Inc.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of zinc chelate of ethylenediamine (Zinc-EDA-Cl) as feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) identified several issues related to the data provided concerning the chemical characteristics of the additive. Based on the information provided, the FEEDAP Panel considered unlikely that the additive consists only of zinc mono-chelate of EDA, but of several coexisting (zinc) species; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel was unable to confirm the identity of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel could not evaluate the safety for target species, consumer and environment and the efficacy of the additive owing to the uncertainties and limitations identified in the studies submitted. Concerning the safety of the additive for the users, the Panel considered that handling the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation. The additive should be considered as corrosive to eyes and a skin sensitiser.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of manganese chelate of ethylenediamine for all animal species (Zinpro Animal Nutrition (Europe), Inc.).

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of manganese chelate of ethylenediamine (Manganese-EDA-Cl) as feed additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) identified several issues related to the data provided concerning the chemical characteristics of the additive. Based on the information provided, the FEEDAP Panel considered unlikely that the additive consists only of manganese mono-chelate of EDA, but of several coexisting (manganese) species; therefore, the FEEDAP Panel was unable to confirm the identity of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel could not evaluate the safety for target species, consumer and environment and the efficacy of the additive owing to the uncertainties and limitations identified in the studies submitted. Concerning the safety of the additive for the users, the Panel considered that handling the additive poses a risk to users by inhalation. The additive should be considered as corrosive to eyes and a skin sensitiser.

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).