The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge‐of‐field surface waters
Open accessAbstract
EFSA's Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) was tasked to revise the Guidance Document (GD) on Aquatic Ecotoxicology under Council Directive 91/414/EEC (SANCO/3268/2001 rev.4 (final), 17 October 2002). This Guidance of the PPR Panel is the first of three requested deliverables within this mandate. It has its focus on tiered acute and chronic effect assessment schemes with detailed guidance on tier 1 and higher tier effect assessments for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters and on proposals regarding how to link effects to exposure estimates. The exposure assessment methodology was not reviewed and it is assumed that the current FOCUS surface water exposure assessment methodology will continue to be used for exposure assessment at EU level. The current GD is intended to be used for authorisation of active substances at EU level as well as for plant protection products at Member State level. The effect assessment schemes in this GD allow for the derivation of regulatory acceptable concentrations (RACs) on the basis of two options: (1) the ecological threshold option (ETO), accepting negligible population effects only, and (2) the ecological recovery option (ERO), accepting some population-level effects if ecological recovery takes place within an acceptable time period. In the tiered effect assessment schemes, in principle, all tiers (1, 2 and 3) are able to address the ETO, while the model ecosystem approach (tier 3), under certain conditions, is able to also address the ERO. The GD provides the scientific background for the risk assessment to aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters and is structured to give detailed guidance on all assessment steps. An executive summary joining all parts of the guidance and decision schemes in a concise way is provided and is intended to help applicants and regulatory authorities in day-to-day use.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
EFSA Scientific Committee, More, S. J., Bampidis, V., Benford, D., Bennekou, S. H., Bragard, C., Halldorsson, T. I., Hernández‐Jerez, A. F., Koutsoumanis, K., Naegeli, H., et al. (2019) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5634 · Cited by 574
European Chemical Agency (ECHA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with the technical support of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), Andersson, N., Arena, M., Auteri, D., Barmaz, S., Grignard, E., Kienzler, A., Lepper, P., Lostia, A. M., Munn, S., et al. (2018) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311 · Cited by 555
Rasmussen, J. J., Wiberg-Larsen, P., Baattrup-Pedersen, A., Cedergreen, N., McKnight, U. S., Kreuger, J., Jacobsen, D., Kristensen, E. A., & Friberg, N. (2015) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2015.07.021 · Cited by 195
Aquatic ecotoxicity of glyphosate, its formulations, and co-formulants: evidence from 2010 to 2023
Klátyik, S., Simon, G., Oláh, M., Takács, E., Mesnage, R., Antoniou, M. N., Zaller, J. G., & Székács, A. (2024) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-024-00849-1 · Cited by 80
Szöcs, E., & Schäfer, R. B. (2015) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-015-4579-3 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- (PPR), E. P. O. P. P. P. A. T. R.
- Venue
- EFSA Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 7
- ISSN
- 1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2585903926
- Cited by
- 753
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 60.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge‐of‐field surface waters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290
- The paper
- (PPR), E. P. O. P. P. P. A. T. R. (2013). Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge‐of‐field surface waters. EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.