• Full Text
    • Scholarly Journal

    Subjectivity of visual assessments in FOCUS kinetics and acceptability of first-order fits for regulatory modelling

    ; 
    ; 
    ; 
    ; 
    . 
    ; Heidelberg Vol. 36, Iss. 1,  (Dec 2024): 187.     DOI:10.1186/s12302-024-01013-5
    PDF CiteCite
    Copy URLPrintAll Options

    References (28)

    • 1.
      CAKE (2023). "CAKE (Computer Assisted Kinetic Evaluation) version 3.6, Tessella Ltd, UK.".
    • 2.
      EC (2009). "Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC." OJ L 309/1, 24.11.2009, pp. 1–50.
    • 3.
      FOCUS (1995). "FOCUS leaching modelling workgroup: “leaching models and EU registration”."
    • 4.
      FOCUS (2001). "FOCUS Surface water scenarios in the EU Evaluation process under 91/414/EEC." Report of the FOCUS working group on surface water scenarios, EC Document Reference SANCO/4802/2001-rev.2. 245 pp.
    • 5.
      FOCUS (2006). guidance document on estimating persistence and degradation kinetics from environmental fate studies on pesticides in EU Registration.
    • 6.
      FOCUS (2014). "Generic guidance for estimating persistence and degradation kinetics from environmental fate studies on pesticides in EU Registration."
    • 7.
      Ford S, J Witt, D Patterson, S Beulke, D Schaefer, J Hingston, R Jones, I Hardy, M Thomas, B Erzgräber and S Payvandi (2019). Calculation of average DFOP input parameters for PEC modelling from mixed kinetics datasets. XVI Symposium in Pesticide Chemistry – Advances in risk assessment and management.
    • 8.
      Klein MT, KM Trapp and D Guerniche (2016). Protection of the groundwater against loads of plant protection products: validation of the new EU-simulation model FOCUS PELMO 4 for a reliable prediction of the leaching potential of PPP into groundwater. G. H. Wolfram König, Anne Osterwald, Section IV 1.3 Plant Protection Products, Umweltbundesamt.
    • 9.
      OECD (2002). Test No. 307: Aerobic and anaerobic transformation in soil, OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section "Results". Paris.
    • 10.

      Evaluation of methods to derive pesticide degradation parameters for regulatory modelling

      Beulke, S; Brown, C. Biol. Fertil. Soils Vol. 33, .
    • 11.

      Modelling degradation kinetics of metformin and guanylurea in soil microcosms to derive degradation end-points

      Briones, R; Sarmah, A. Environ. Pollut Vol. 245, .
    • 12.

      Pesticides groundwater modelling relies on input data characterised by a high intrinsic variability: is the resulting risk for groundwater credible?

      Ullucci, S; Menaballi, L; Di Giorgi, S; Luini, M; Riva, C; Schlitt, C; Clementi, E; Azimonti, G. Sci. Total Environ Vol. 839, .
    • 13.

      Deriving sulfamethoxazole dissipation endpoints in pasture soils using first order and biphasic kinetic models

      Srinivasan, P; Sarmah, A; Rohan, M. Sci Total Environ 488.
    • 14.

      Taking kinetic evaluations of degradation data to the next level with nonlinear mixed-effects models

      J Ranke; J Wöltjen; J Schmidt; E Comets. Environments(2021).
    • 15.

      Parameter sensitivity of SWAP–PEARL models for pesticide leaching in macroporous soils

      Faúndez Urbina, C A; van den Berg, F; van Dam, J C; Tang, D W S; Ritsema, C J.  Vadose Zone Journal; Madison Vol. 19, Iss. 1,  (2020).
    • 16.

      Comparison of software tools for kinetic evaluation of chemical degradation data

      J Ranke; J Wöltjen; S Meinecke. Environ Sci Eur Vol. 30, (2018).
    • 17.

      Quantifying visual assessment of kinetics: development of an objective criterion to support visual assessment of SFO fits of parent soil degradation

      J Witt; S Beulke; S Ford; D Patterson; B Erzgräber; M Thomas; I Hardy; R Jones; K Hammel; J Hingston: 2018.
    • 18.

      EFSA guidance document for predicting environmental concentrations of active substances of plant protection products and transformation products of these active substances in soil

      EFSA. EFSA J Vol. 15, Iss. 10, (2017).
    • 19.

      PEARL model for pesticide behaviour and emissions in soil-plant systems—description of processes Wageningen Wageningen University and Research Centre

      F van den Berg; A Tiktak; JJTI Boesten; AMA Van der Linden: 2016.
    • 20.

      Estimating degradation rates in outdoor stagnant water by inverse modelling with TOXSWA: a case study with prosulfocarb

      PI Adriaanse; JJ Boesten; SJ Crum. Pest Manag Sci Vol. 69, Iss. 6, (2013): 755-767.