diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/reference/experimental_data_for_UBA.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/reference/experimental_data_for_UBA.html | 66 |
1 files changed, 64 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/docs/reference/experimental_data_for_UBA.html b/docs/reference/experimental_data_for_UBA.html index 3e8d20ef..bb94fd11 100644 --- a/docs/reference/experimental_data_for_UBA.html +++ b/docs/reference/experimental_data_for_UBA.html @@ -37,7 +37,30 @@ and advance error model specifications. The fact that these data and some results are shown here do not imply a license to use them in the context of pesticide registrations, as the use of the data may be constrained by - data protection regulations." /> + data protection regulations. +Preprocessing of data was performed based on the recommendations of the FOCUS + kinetics workgroup (FOCUS, 2014) as described below. +Datasets 1 and 2 are from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for imazamox + (France, 2015, p. 15). For setting values reported as zero, an LOQ of 0.1 + was assumed. Metabolite residues reported for day zero were added to the + parent compound residues. +Datasets 3 and 4 are from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for isofetamid + (Belgium, 2014, p. 8) and show the data for two different radiolabels. For + dataset 4, the value given for the metabolite in the day zero sampling + in replicate B was added to the parent compound, following the respective + FOCUS recommendation. +Dataset 5 is from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for ethofumesate + (Austria, 2015, p. 16). +Datasets 6 to 10 are from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for glyphosate + (Germany, 2013a, pages 8, 28, 50, 51). For the initial sampling, + the residues given for the metabolite were added to the parent + value, following the recommendation of the FOCUS kinetics workgroup. +Dataset 11 is from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for 2,4-D + (Germany, 2013b, p. 644). Values reported as zero were set to NA, with + the exception of the day three sampling of metabolite A2, which was set + to one half of the LOD reported to be 1% AR. +Dataset 12 is from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for thifensulfuron-methyl + (United Kingdom, 2014, p. 81)." /> <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" /> @@ -139,6 +162,29 @@ results are shown here do not imply a license to use them in the context of pesticide registrations, as the use of the data may be constrained by data protection regulations.</p> +<p>Preprocessing of data was performed based on the recommendations of the FOCUS + kinetics workgroup (FOCUS, 2014) as described below.</p> +<p>Datasets 1 and 2 are from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for imazamox + (France, 2015, p. 15). For setting values reported as zero, an LOQ of 0.1 + was assumed. Metabolite residues reported for day zero were added to the + parent compound residues.</p> +<p>Datasets 3 and 4 are from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for isofetamid + (Belgium, 2014, p. 8) and show the data for two different radiolabels. For + dataset 4, the value given for the metabolite in the day zero sampling + in replicate B was added to the parent compound, following the respective + FOCUS recommendation.</p> +<p>Dataset 5 is from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for ethofumesate + (Austria, 2015, p. 16).</p> +<p>Datasets 6 to 10 are from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for glyphosate + (Germany, 2013a, pages 8, 28, 50, 51). For the initial sampling, + the residues given for the metabolite were added to the parent + value, following the recommendation of the FOCUS kinetics workgroup.</p> +<p>Dataset 11 is from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for 2,4-D + (Germany, 2013b, p. 644). Values reported as zero were set to NA, with + the exception of the day three sampling of metabolite A2, which was set + to one half of the LOD reported to be 1% AR.</p> +<p>Dataset 12 is from the Renewal Assessment Report (RAR) for thifensulfuron-methyl + (United Kingdom, 2014, p. 81).</p> </div> @@ -154,8 +200,24 @@ <h2 class="hasAnchor" id="source"><a class="anchor" href="#source"></a>Source</h2> - <p>Ranke (2019) Documentation of results obtained for the error model expertise + + <p>Austria (2015). Ethofumesate Renewal Assessment Report Volume 3 Annex B.8 (AS)</p> +<p>Belgium (2014). Isofetamid (IKF-5411) Draft Assessment Report Volume 3 Annex B.8 (AS)</p> +<p>France (2015). Imazamox Draft Renewal Assessment Report Volume 3 Annex B.8 (AS)</p> +<p>FOCUS (2014) “Generic guidance for Estimating Persistence and + Degradation Kinetics from Environmental Fate Studies on Pesticides in EU + Registration” Report of the FOCUS Work Group on Degradation Kinetics, + Version 1.1, 18 December 2014 + <a href='http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/degradation-kinetics'>http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/degradation-kinetics</a></p> +<p>Germany (2013a). Renewal Assessment Report Glyphosate Volume 3 Annex B.8: Environmental Fate + and Behaviour</p> +<p>Germany (2013b). Renewal Assessment Report 2,4-D Volume 3 Annex B.8: Fate and behaviour in the + environment</p> +<p>Ranke (2019) Documentation of results obtained for the error model expertise written for the German Umweltbundesamt.</p> +<p>United Kingdom (2014). Thifensulfuron-methyl - Annex B.8 (Volume 3) to the Report and Proposed + Decision of the United Kingdom made to the European Commission under Regulation (EC) No. + 1141/2010 for renewal of an active substance</p> <h2 class="hasAnchor" id="examples"><a class="anchor" href="#examples"></a>Examples</h2> |