The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThis guidance on the assessment of dermal absorption has been developed to assist notifiers, users of test facilities and Member State authorities on critical aspects related to the setting of dermal absorption values to be used in risk assessments of active substances in Plant Protection Products (PPPs). It is based on the 'scientific opinion on the science behind the revision of the guidance document on dermal absorption' issued in 2011 by the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR). The guidance refers to the EFSA PPR opinion in many instances. In addition, the first version of this guidance, issued in 2012 by the EFSA PPR Panel, has been revised in 2017 on the basis of new available data on human in vitro dermal absorption for PPPs and wherever clarifications were needed. Basic details of experimental design, available in the respective test guidelines and accompanying guidance for the conduct of studies, have not been addressed but recommendations specific to performing and interpreting dermal absorption studies with PPPs are given. Issues discussed include a brief description of the skin and its properties affecting dermal absorption. To facilitate use of the guidance, flow charts are included. Guidance is also provided, for example, when there are no data on dermal absorption for the product under evaluation. Elements for a tiered approach are presented including use of default values, data on closely related products, in vitro studies with human skin (regarded to provide the best estimate), data from experimental animals (rats) in vitro and in vivo, and the so called 'triple pack' approach. Various elements of study design and reporting that reduce experimental variation and aid consistent interpretation are presented. A proposal for reporting data for assessment reports is also provided. The issue of nanoparticles in PPPs is not addressed. Data from volunteer studies have not been discussed since their use is not allowed in EU for risk assessment of PPPs.

The increasing use of tissue dosimetry estimated using pharmacokinetic models in chemical risk assessments in various jurisdictions necessitates the development of internationally recognized good modelling practice (GMP). These practices would facilitate sharing of models and model evaluations and consistent applications in risk assessments. Clear descriptions of good practices for (1) model development i.e., research and analysis activities, (2) model characterization i.e., methods to describe how consistent the model is with biology and the strengths and limitations of available models and data, such as sensitivity analyses, (3) model documentation, and (4) model evaluation i.e., independent review that will assist risk assessors in their decisions of whether and how to use the models, and also model developers to understand expectations for various purposes e.g., research versus application in risk assessment. Next steps in the development of guidance for GMP and research to improve the scientific basis of the models are described based on a review of the current status of the application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models in risk assessments in Europe, Canada, and the United States at the International Workshop on the Development of GMP for PBPK Models in Greece on April 27-29, 2007.

No abstract

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a wellestablished method to evaluate impacts of chemicals on the environment and human health along the lifespan of products. However, the increasingly produced and applied nanomaterials (defined as one dimension \100 nm) show particular characteristics which are different from conventional chemicals or larger particles. As a consequence, LCA does not provide sufficient guidance on how to deal with synthetic nanomaterials, neither in the exposure, nor in the effect assessment. This is particularly true for the workplace, where significant exposure can be expected via the lung, the route of major concern. Therefore, we developed a concise method which allows the inclusion of indoor nanoparticle

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract