Laurine Lucas, Pierre L'Yvonnet, Alexandra Mienné, Xavier Sarda
{"title":"模拟评估:急性前瞻性累积风险评估","authors":"Laurine Lucas, Pierre L'Yvonnet, Alexandra Mienné, Xavier Sarda","doi":"10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This Mock assessment is a part of the Framework Partnership Agreement between ANSES and EFSA with the help of RIVM to investigate the feasibility of a tiered approach proposed by EFSA for prospective acute cumulative risk assessment (CRA). Three tiers address successively a need for prospective CRA (Tier 0), the safety of the MRL (Tier I) and the safety of the intended GAP (Tier II). ANSES tested this approach with an application for change of MRL for the active substance tefluthrin (with acute effects on functional alterations of the motor division) on carrot based on a new intended use. For each tier, the Margin of Exposure (MOE) was calculated for 9 populations with MCRA software using input data provided by EFSA. At P99.9 of exposure, all the adjusted MOET at Tier I and Tier II of all populations were below the threshold of 100. Different settings were tested (IESTI equation, consumption data, adjustment for uncertainties, cycle of monitoring data…). With respect to Tier I, the trigger value of 1000 for the MOE<sub>Tier 0</sub> is pragmatic. In the vast majority of cases, when the MOE<sub>Tier 0</sub> is above 1000, the MOET<sub>Tier I</sub> would be above 100. With respect to Tier II, a MOE<sub>Tier 0</sub> higher than 1000 ensures a MOET<sub>Tier II</sub> above 100. Tier I could be considered a good first estimate for a prospective CRA with conservative parameters for the foreground. Two routes were tested to account for uncertainties. One was not possible. The second resulted in a new median multiplicative factor (MF)<sub>exposure*toxicology</sub> of 2.82 that differs significantly from the value of 5.13 found in the retrospective assessment. Despite the simplifications envisaged, the uncertainty analysis seems difficult to be implemented on a routine basis and it might be useful to define criteria to identify cases where an uncertainty analysis is really needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":100395,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Supporting Publications","volume":"21 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9014","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mock Assessment: Acute prospective cumulative risk assessment\",\"authors\":\"Laurine Lucas, Pierre L'Yvonnet, Alexandra Mienné, Xavier Sarda\",\"doi\":\"10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This Mock assessment is a part of the Framework Partnership Agreement between ANSES and EFSA with the help of RIVM to investigate the feasibility of a tiered approach proposed by EFSA for prospective acute cumulative risk assessment (CRA). Three tiers address successively a need for prospective CRA (Tier 0), the safety of the MRL (Tier I) and the safety of the intended GAP (Tier II). ANSES tested this approach with an application for change of MRL for the active substance tefluthrin (with acute effects on functional alterations of the motor division) on carrot based on a new intended use. For each tier, the Margin of Exposure (MOE) was calculated for 9 populations with MCRA software using input data provided by EFSA. At P99.9 of exposure, all the adjusted MOET at Tier I and Tier II of all populations were below the threshold of 100. Different settings were tested (IESTI equation, consumption data, adjustment for uncertainties, cycle of monitoring data…). With respect to Tier I, the trigger value of 1000 for the MOE<sub>Tier 0</sub> is pragmatic. In the vast majority of cases, when the MOE<sub>Tier 0</sub> is above 1000, the MOET<sub>Tier I</sub> would be above 100. With respect to Tier II, a MOE<sub>Tier 0</sub> higher than 1000 ensures a MOET<sub>Tier II</sub> above 100. Tier I could be considered a good first estimate for a prospective CRA with conservative parameters for the foreground. Two routes were tested to account for uncertainties. One was not possible. The second resulted in a new median multiplicative factor (MF)<sub>exposure*toxicology</sub> of 2.82 that differs significantly from the value of 5.13 found in the retrospective assessment. Despite the simplifications envisaged, the uncertainty analysis seems difficult to be implemented on a routine basis and it might be useful to define criteria to identify cases where an uncertainty analysis is really needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EFSA Supporting Publications\",\"volume\":\"21 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9014\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EFSA Supporting Publications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EFSA Supporting Publications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
该模拟评估是 ANSES 和欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)之间的框架合作伙伴协议的一部分,在 RIVM 的帮助下,旨在调查欧洲食品安全局提出的前瞻性急性累积风险评估(CRA)分级方法的可行性。该方法分为三层,分别针对前瞻性 CRA 的需求(第 0 层)、最大残留限量的安全性(第 I 层)和预期 GAP 的安全性(第 II 层)。ANSES 根据新的预期用途,通过申请更改胡萝卜中活性物质氟氯氰菊酯(对运动分裂的功能改变有急性影响)的最大残留限量,对该方法进行了测试。利用欧洲食品安全局提供的输入数据,使用 MCRA 软件计算了 9 个人群的暴露限值(MOE)。在 P99.9 的暴露水平下,所有人群在第 I 级和第 II 级的调整后暴露限值均低于 100 的阈值。测试了不同的设置(IESTI 方程、消费数据、不确定性调整、监测数据周期......)。关于第 I 级,MOETier 0 的触发值 1000 是实用的。在绝大多数情况下,当 MOETier 0 超过 1000 时,MOETTier I 也会超过 100。至于第 II 层,MOETTier 0 高于 1000 就能确保 MOETTier II 高于 100。对于前景参数保守的潜在 CRA 来说,第 I 层可以说是一个很好的初步估计。为考虑不确定性,测试了两条路线。其中一条不可行。第二种方法得出的新中位乘法系数(MF)为 2.82,与回顾性评估中的 5.13 有很大差异。尽管进行了简化,但不确定性分析似乎难以在日常基础上实施,因此,可能需要确定标准,以确定确实需要进行不确定性分析的情况。
This Mock assessment is a part of the Framework Partnership Agreement between ANSES and EFSA with the help of RIVM to investigate the feasibility of a tiered approach proposed by EFSA for prospective acute cumulative risk assessment (CRA). Three tiers address successively a need for prospective CRA (Tier 0), the safety of the MRL (Tier I) and the safety of the intended GAP (Tier II). ANSES tested this approach with an application for change of MRL for the active substance tefluthrin (with acute effects on functional alterations of the motor division) on carrot based on a new intended use. For each tier, the Margin of Exposure (MOE) was calculated for 9 populations with MCRA software using input data provided by EFSA. At P99.9 of exposure, all the adjusted MOET at Tier I and Tier II of all populations were below the threshold of 100. Different settings were tested (IESTI equation, consumption data, adjustment for uncertainties, cycle of monitoring data…). With respect to Tier I, the trigger value of 1000 for the MOETier 0 is pragmatic. In the vast majority of cases, when the MOETier 0 is above 1000, the MOETTier I would be above 100. With respect to Tier II, a MOETier 0 higher than 1000 ensures a MOETTier II above 100. Tier I could be considered a good first estimate for a prospective CRA with conservative parameters for the foreground. Two routes were tested to account for uncertainties. One was not possible. The second resulted in a new median multiplicative factor (MF)exposure*toxicology of 2.82 that differs significantly from the value of 5.13 found in the retrospective assessment. Despite the simplifications envisaged, the uncertainty analysis seems difficult to be implemented on a routine basis and it might be useful to define criteria to identify cases where an uncertainty analysis is really needed.