Modification of the existing maximum residue levels and setting of import tolerances for pyraclostrobin in various crops.

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the applicant BASF SE submitted two requests to the competent national authority in Germany. The first one, to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRL) for the active substance pyraclostrobin in various crops and to set import tolerances for sugar canes and American persimmons; the second one to set import tolerances for pineapples and passion fruits/maracujas. The data submitted in support of the requests were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for mandarins, grapefruits, lemons, limes, passion fruits/maracujas, pineapples, flowering brassica, head cabbages, lamb's lettuce, cresses and other sprouts, land cresses, rucola, red mustards, baby leaf crops, globe artichokes and leeks. For oranges, American persimmons, spinaches and similar leaves and sugar canes, data gaps were identified which precluded the derivation of MRL proposals. The data submitted did not provide evidence that the existing MRLs for crops belonging to the group of lettuces and maize have to be modified to accommodate for the intended uses. For escaroles, no MRL was proposed as the intended use was found to lead to residues for which a potential consumer health risk cannot be excluded. EFSA concluded that the short-term intake of residues resulting from the uses of pyraclostrobin according to the reported agricultural practices assessed is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health, except for escaroles, where the expected intake was found to exceed the toxicological reference value. Taking into account the existing and the proposed new MRLs, a long-term intake concern for consumers was not identified.

Summary

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, BASF SE submitted two applications to the competent national authority in Germany (evaluating Member State (EMS)). The first one to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRL) for the active substance pyraclostrobin in various crops and to set import tolerances in sugar canes and American persimmons. The second one to set import tolerances for pineapples and passion fruits/maracujas. The details of the applications are outlined below. Germany drafted two evaluation reports in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which were submitted to the European Commission and forwarded to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The MRL proposals derived by the EMS are also reported in the table below.

EFSA assessed the applications and the evaluation reports as required by Article 10 of the MRL regulation. EFSA identified data gaps and points which needed further clarification for both applications, which were requested from the EMS. On 8 February 2018, the EMS submitted revised evaluation reports, which replaced the previously submitted evaluation reports.

The metabolism of pyraclostrobin following a foliar application was sufficiently investigated in crops belonging to the groups of fruit, and leafy crops, root and tuber vegetables and cereals.

The metabolism of pyraclostrobin in rotational crops was found to be similar to the one depicted in the primary crops. Under representative conditions for food processing (standard hydrolysis studies), pyraclostrobin was stable.

Based on the metabolic pattern identified in the metabolism studies, in the hydrolysis studies and the toxicological significance of metabolites and degradation products, the residue definitions for plant products were proposed as pyraclostrobin for enforcement and risk assessment. The residue definitions are applicable to primary crops, rotational crops and processed products.

Sufficiently validated analytical methods based on high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) are available to quantify pyraclostrobin residues in the crops assessed in this application according to the enforcement residue definition. The methods enable quantification of residues at or above 0.02 mg/kg in the crops assessed (limit of quantification (LOQ)). For high water content, acidic and dry commodities, the CEN QuEChERS method is validated to a LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg.

The submitted data was sufficient to derive MRL proposals for all crops assessed except for American persimmons, spinaches and similar leaves, and sugar canes. For oranges, lettuce and maize, the information provided did not provide evidence that the existing MRLs have to be changed.

For a number of processed products derived from the crops assessed in this application, processing factors (PF) were derived that can be used for enforcement purposes and should be included in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as follows:

The occurrence of pyraclostrobin residues in rotational crops was investigated in the framework of the European Union (EU) pesticides peer review. Based on the available information on the nature and magnitude of residues, it was concluded that significant residue levels are unlikely to occur in rotational crops, provided that the active substance is used according to the proposed good agricultural practice (GAP).

As the crops under consideration and their by‐products are used as feed products, a potential carry‐over into food of animal origin was assessed. However, the contribution of pyraclostrobin residues in the crops under consideration in this MRL application to the total livestock exposure was found to be insignificant and therefore a modification of the existing MRLs for commodities of animal origin was considered unnecessary.

The toxicological profile of pyraclostrobin was assessed in the framework of the EU pesticides peer review under Directive 91/414/EEC and the data were sufficient to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.03 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and an acute reference dose (ARfD) of 0.03 mg/kg bw.

The consumer risk assessment was performed with revision 2 of the EFSA Pesticide Residues Intake Model (PRIMo). EFSA concluded that the proposed use of pyraclostrobin on escaroles could result in an acute consumer exposure exceeding the toxicological reference value and therefore did not propose a MRL. For the remaining crops for which a need to modify the existing MRLs was identified (i.e. mandarins, grapefruits, lemons, limes, passion fruits/maracuja, pineapples, flowering brassica, head cabbages, globe artichokes, leeks), the acute risk assessment did not identify a consumer exposure exceeding the ARfD. Although the residue data submitted do not require a modification of the existing MRL for lettuce, the risk assessment indicated a potential acute intake concern for the intended southern European (SEU) GAP.

Based on the results of the chronic risk assessment, EFSA concluded that residues resulting from the GAPs assessed in the framework of this application are unlikely to pose a risk to consumers’ health.

EFSA proposes to amend the existing MRLs as reported in the summary table below.

Full details of all end points and the consumer risk assessment can be found in Appendices B–D.

It is noted that the renewal of the approval for pyraclostrobin under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is currently ongoing; the conclusions reported in this reasoned opinion might need to be reconsidered in the light of the outcome of this process.

Assessment

The detailed descriptions of the intended European Union (EU) uses of pyraclostrobin in various crops for which an amendment of the existing maximum residue level (MRL) was requested, the existing uses authorised on sugar cane and persimmons in the USA and the existing uses on pineapples and passion fruits authorised in Brazil for which the setting of import tolerances were requested, are reported in Appendix A.

Pyraclostrobin is the ISO common name for methyl 2‐[1‐(4‐chlorophenyl)pyrazol‐3‐yloxymethyl]‐N‐methoxycarbanilate (IUPAC). The chemical structures of the active substance and its main metabolites are reported in Appendix E.

Pyraclostrobin was evaluated in the framework of Directive 91/414/EEC1 with Germany designated as rapporteur Member State (RMS); the representative use assessed was a foliar application on grapes. The draft assessment report (DAR) prepared by the RMS was not peer reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA.) Therefore, no EFSA conclusion is available. Pyraclostrobin was approved2 for the use as a fungicide on 1 June 2004. In 2009, the approval for pyraclostrobin was extended to be used as a plant growth regulator.3 The process of renewal of the approval of the active substance under Regulation (EC) No 1107/20094 is ongoing.

The review of existing MRLs according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/20055 (MRL review) has been performed (EFSA, 2011b) and EU MRLs for pyraclostrobin are now established in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. After completion of the MRL review, EFSA has issued several reasoned opinions on the modification of MRLs for pyraclostrobin (EFSA, 2012, 2013, 2014a,b, 2016, 2017, 2018a,b,c). The proposals from these reasoned opinions have been implemented in recent regulations6 for EU MRL legislation, except for the proposals derived in the most recent assessments published in 2018.

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, BASF SE submitted an application to the competent national authority in Germany (evaluating Member State (EMS)) to set import tolerances for the active substance pyraclostrobin in pineapple and passion fruit. Germany drafted the evaluation report in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which was submitted to the European Commission and forwarded to EFSA on 7 April 2017. The EMS proposed to establish an MRL for pineapple imported from Brazil at the level of 0.3 mg/kg and for passion fruit from Brazil of 0.2 mg/kg. In the country of origin, the MRLs for pineapples and passion fruits are set at the level of 0.5 mg/kg.

Furthermore, BASF SE submitted a second application to the German competent national authority to modify the existing MRLs for pyraclostrobin in citrus fruits, lettuce, spinach, flowering brassica, head cabbage, globe artichoke, leeks and maize and to set import tolerances for pyraclostrobin in sugar cane and persimmon to accommodate for the authorised uses in the USA.7 The evaluation report prepared by Germany was submitted to the European Commission and forwarded to EFSA on 17 July 2017. The EMS proposed the following MRLs for the crops under assessment:

citrus fruits (except oranges): 2 mg/kg (NB: for oranges no modification of the existing MRL was considered necessary since the existing MRL is set at 2 mg/kg);

flowering brassica: 0.5 mg/kg;

head cabbage: 0.4 mg/kg;

lettuces and salad plants (except lettuces and escarole): 10 mg/kg;

lettuces: 2 mg/kg;

escarole: 0.9 mg/kg;

spinach and chards: 0.5 mg/kg;

purslane: 0.2 mg/kg;

globe artichoke: 3 mg/kg;

leeks: 0.8 mg/kg.

No modifications were considered appropriate (or needed) by the EMS for oranges, spinach, chards, maize, American persimmons and sugar cane.

EFSA assessed the applications and the evaluation reports as required by Article 10 of the MRL regulation. EFSA identified data gaps and points which needed further clarification, which were requested from the EMS. On 8 February 2018, the EMS submitted revised evaluation reports (Germany, 2017a,b), which replaced the previously submitted evaluation reports.

EFSA based its assessment on the evaluation reports submitted by the EMS (Germany, 2017a,b), the DAR and its addenda (Germany, 2001, 2003) prepared under Council Directive 91/414/EEC, the Commission review report on pyraclostrobin (European Commission, 2004), the JMPR evaluation reports (FAO, 2006, 2011), the conclusions from previous EFSA reasoned opinions on pyraclostrobin under Article 10 (EFSA, 2011a, 2012, 2013, 2014a,b, 2016, 2017, 2018a,b,c) as well as the review of the existing MRLs for pyraclostrobin under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (EFSA, 2011b).

For this application, the data requirements established in Regulation (EU) No 544/20118 and the guidance documents applicable at the date of submission of the application to the EMS are applicable (European Commission, 1997a, b, c, d, e, f, g, 2000 2010a, b, 2017; OECD, 2011, 2013). The assessment is performed in accordance with the legal provisions of the Uniform Principles for the Evaluation and the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products adopted by Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/20119.

A selected list of end points of the studies assessed by EFSA in the framework of this MRL application, and including the end points of relevant studies assessed previously, submitted in support of the current MRL application, are presented in Appendix B.

The evaluation reports submitted by the EMS (Germany, 2017a,b) and the exposure calculations using the EFSA Pesticide Residues Intake Model (PRIMo) are considered as supporting documents to this reasoned opinion and, thus, are made publicly available as background documents to this reasoned opinion.

As for pyraclostrobin the renewal of the approval under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is currently ongoing, the conclusions reported in this reasoned opinion might need to be reconsidered in the light of the outcome of this process.

Residues in plants

Nature of residues and methods of analysis in plants

Nature of residues in primary crops

The metabolism of pyraclostrobin following foliar applications was investigated in fruit crops (grapes), root crops (potatoes) and in cereals (wheat and paddy rice) (EFSA, 2011b, 2018c). The metabolic pathway was found to be similar in all crop groups investigated where the predominant compound of the total residues in the crops investigated was the parent pyraclostrobin; the desmethoxy metabolite (500M07) was found in smaller amounts compared to the parent pyraclostrobin (Germany, 2001, 2003; EFSA, 2018c).

Nature of residues in rotational crops

Some of the intended EU uses of pyraclostrobin are on crops that can be grown in rotation with other crops (i.e. flowering brassica, head cabbages, lettuces, spinaches, leeks and maize). Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the nature of residues in succeeding crops resulting from the uses on primary crops. In the framework of the EU pesticides peer review, it was concluded that pyraclostrobin and the metabolites 500M06 and 500M07 are highly persistent in soil (DT90field pyraclostrobin: 83–230 days; DT90lab500M06: 428–552 days; DT90lab500M07: 372–529 days) (European Commission, 2004).

The available rotational crops metabolism studies showed no accumulation of pyraclostrobin or its metabolites (including 500M07) in the edible parts of the rotational crops. The metabolism of pyraclostrobin in rotational crops was considered to be similar to the metabolic pathway depicted in primary crops (EFSA, 2011b).

Nature of residues in processed commodities

The effect of processing on the nature of pyraclostrobin was investigated in the framework of the peer review. A study was conducted simulating pasteurisation (20 minutes at 90°C, pH 4), boiling/brewing/baking (60 min at 100°C, pH 5) and sterilisation (20 min at 120°C, pH 6) which demonstrated the stability of pyraclostrobin under these conditions (Germany, 2001, 2003).

Methods of analysis in plants

An analytical method and its independent laboratory validation (ILV), using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) were sufficiently validated at a limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 mg/kg for the determination of pyraclostrobin in high oil content, high water content, high acid content and dry/high starch content commodities (EFSA, 2011b).

In a previous EFSA reasoned opinion (EFSA, 2014a,b), the QuEChERS extraction procedure in combination with LC–MS/MS (CEN, 2008a) was proposed as the analytical method to determine pyraclostrobin residues in high water content, acidic and dry/high starch content commodities at a LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg.

Overall, it is concluded that sufficiently validated analytical methods for enforcement of pyraclostrobin residues in high oil‐, high water‐, high acid‐ and dry/high starch content commodities are available.

Stability of residues in plants

Storage stability under frozen conditions (below −10°C) of pyraclostrobin and compound 500M07 residues was demonstrated for at least 18 months in high water‐, high oil‐ and dry/high starch content commodities (Germany, 2001).

Proposed residue definitions

Based on the metabolism studies submitted in primary crops, rotational crops and the studies addressing the nature of residues in processed commodities, the residue definition for risk assessment and for enforcement in primary crops, rotational crops and processed commodities was set as parent ‘pyraclostrobin’ (EFSA, 2011b).

The current residue definition set in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 also comprises only the parent compound pyraclostrobin.

The previously derived residue definitions are appropriate for the crops under assessment.

If in the framework of the ongoing peer review residue definitions will be revised, the existing MRLs, including the MRLs proposed in this assessment, will have to be reconsidered.

Magnitude of residues in plants

Magnitude of residues in primary crops

In support of the MRL applications, the applicant submitted residue trials in citrus (oranges, mandarins), flowering brassica, head cabbages, lettuces and similar, spinaches and similar, artichokes, leeks, maize and the import tolerances on persimmons, sugar cane, pineapples and passion fruits/maracuja.

The samples were analysed for the parent compound and the main metabolite 500M07.

According to the EMS, the analytical methods used in the residue trials to analyse for pyraclostrobin and the metabolite 500M07 have been sufficiently validated and were proven to be fit for purpose. The samples of residue trials, except the samples of sugar cane (see Section 1.2.1.16), were stored for a period and temperature for which integrity of the samples was demonstrated (Germany, 2017a,b).

Citrus

Oranges

In total, 12 GAP‐compliant residue trials on oranges and sweet oranges were provided. Out of these, 10 trials (5 duplicate trials) were not fully independent; they were performed on different varieties but in the same location at the same time. From these duplicate trials, the highest residue concentration was used for calculating the MRL proposal. Therefore, overall, only seven independent trials were available. Since oranges are a major crop, one additional residue trial would be required to derive a MRL proposal. EFSA calculated an indicative MRL proposal from the seven trials which is identical with the current EU MRL (i.e. 2 mg/kg).

Additional four overdosed residue trials in sweet oranges were provided (4 applications of 1.1 kg a.i./ha instead of 0.225 kg a.i./ha). These trials with residues ranging from 0.94 to 2.7 mg/kg cannot be used to derive the MRL proposal since the calculated scaling factor exceeds the acceptable limit of 4, but they were used to derive peeling and processing factors (see Section B.1.2.3).

Mandarins

The applicant submitted 14 GAP‐compliant residue trials on mandarins, performed in southern Europe (SEU). Out of these 14 trials, 8 trials (4 duplicate trials) were not fully independent since they were performed in the same locations at the same time. From these duplicate trials, the highest residue concentration was used for calculating the MRL proposal. Therefore, overall, 10 independent trials were used to derive the MRL proposal.

In four of the residue trials, the distribution of the residue in pulp and peel was investigated to derive a peeling factor (see Section B.1.2.3).

Other citrus fruits (grapefruits, lemons, limes)

According to the information provided by the EMS, the GAP reported in Appendix A is intended for all citrus fruits. According to the EU guidance document for extrapolation (European Commission, 2017), at least eight trials on oranges and eight trials in mandarins would be required to derive a MRL proposal for all crops belonging to the group of citrus fruits. Thus, one additional trial in oranges would be required to fulfil these requirements. However, considering that a sufficient number of mandarin trials (10 trials) are available and usually mandarins are expected to be the crop in which higher residues are expected, EFSA considered the data sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the remaining citrus crops derived from the combined data set. The calculated MRL proposal for grapefruit, lemons and limes is similar to the MRL proposal for mandarins and the existing MRL for oranges.

Passion fruits

Four residue trials compliant with the existing GAP in Brazil were provided. The trials were sufficient to derive a MRL proposal of 0.2 mg/kg. The MRL set in Brazil for passion fruits is 0.5 mg/kg (Indice Monografico Piroclostrobina – P4610).

American persimmons

In support of the US import tolerance request, the applicant provided three US residue trials approximating the USA GAP. Since for persimmons at least four residue trials are required according to the EU data requirements, the data are considered insufficient and therefore no MRL proposal is derived for this crop.

Pineapples

Nine GAP‐compliant residue trials performed in Brazil were provided. The trials were sufficient to derive a MRL proposal of 0.3 mg/kg. The MRL set in Brazil for pineapples is 0.5 mg/kg (Indice Monografico Piroclostrobina – P4610).

Studies investigating the distribution between pulp and peel were used to derive peeling factors (see B.1.2.3).

Flowering brassica (broccoli, cauliflower)

In support of the southern Europe (SEU) outdoor use, eight GAP‐compliant residue trials (four trials on cauliflower and four trials on broccoli) were provided. Based on the combined data set, a MRL proposal of 0.5 mg/kg is derived.

Head cabbages

Eight GAP‐compliant residue trials were provided; the trials were conducted in south of France, Italy, Greece and Spain. A MRL proposal of 0.4 mg/kg was calculated.

Lettuces (code 0251020)

In support of the northern Europe (NEU) GAP, eight residue trials on lettuces (open leaf varieties) were submitted; the trials were conducted in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, northern France and the United Kingdom. The trials were sufficient to derive a MRL of 0.9 mg/kg.

In addition, the applicant provided 12 residue trials performed in different lettuce varieties that comply with the SEU GAP. The information available did not allow verifying whether the varieties used in the trials were head forming or open leaf varieties. In the absence of a confirmation that the trials were performed in open leaf varieties, EFSA considered the trials were in head forming varieties; thus, they can be used to derive an MRL proposal for lettuce (code 0251020). However, the trials were not used to derive MRL proposals for other crops by extrapolation for which trials in open leaf varieties would be required. Based on the SEU residue trials, a MRL proposal of 2 mg/kg was calculated with the OECD calculator. It is noted that this MRL proposal is identical with the current MRL in place for this crop.

Lamb's lettuces (code 0251010)

The applicant provided four GAP‐compliant residue trials on lamb's lettuce; the trials reflect the SEU GAP. Based on these trials, a MRL proposal of 15 mg/kg is derived using the OECD MRL calculator. However, based on expert judgement, taking into account the highest result found in lamb's lettuce trials (4.16 mg/kg) and the results in other open leaf lettuce varieties (up to 0.59 mg/kg), EFSA is of the opinion that a MRL of 10 m/kg would be sufficient. This MRL proposal is in line with the conclusions of the EMS. It is noted that the current MRL for lamb's lettuce is 10 mg/kg.

Escaroles (code 0251030)

No residue trials were provided on escaroles. In accordance with the extrapolation guidance (European Commission, 2017), trials on lettuce (open leaf varieties) can be used to derive an MRL proposal by extrapolation for escaroles/broad‐leaved endives. Thus, based on the NEU residue trials in lettuce, a MRL proposal of 0.9 mg/kg is derived for escaroles.

To support the SEU GAP in escaroles, no appropriate residue data on open leave lettuce varieties are available. Since the lettuce trials did not provide the information whether they were performed in open leaf varieties (see also comments on SEU residue trials in lettuce), EFSA does not recommend using the trials to derive the MRL proposal for escaroles.

Other lettuce crops (cresses, land cresses, Roman rocket, red mustards, baby leaf crops

No specific residue trials performed on one of the above‐mentioned crops were provided by the applicant. However, according to the guidance document (European Commission, 2017), an MRL can be derived by extrapolation from residue trials in open leaf varieties of lettuces (extrapolation to the whole group) or from lamb's lettuce to Roman rocket, red mustards and baby leaf crops (extrapolation to individual minor crops).

Thus, using these options, a MRL proposal for the three crops mentioned reflecting the NEU uses can be derived from the residue trials in leaf lettuce (i.e. 0.9 mg/kg); for the SEU GAP, the extrapolation from trials in lamb's lettuce data would suggest a MRL of 15 mg/kg; taking into account the results of residue trials in open leaf varieties, a MRL of 10 mg/kg seems to be sufficient.

It is noted that the current MRL for these three crops is set at the level of 10 mg/kg.

Spinaches and similar leaves

No SEU Residue trials on spinaches were provided by the applicant (only four German trials are reported). Since these trials were not representative for SEU, they were not used to derive the MRL proposal. According to the EU guidance document on extrapolation (European Commission, 2017), residue trials in lettuces (open leaf varieties) can be used to derive a MRL for spinaches and similar leaves. However, for the SEU GAP, no appropriate residue trials are available and therefore no MRL proposal could be derived (see Section 1.2.1.7, comments on the SEU lettuce trials).

Globe Artichokes

In support of the SEU GAP, five residue trials were provided conducted in south of France, Italy and Spain. As globe artichokes are a minor crop, these residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL of 3.0 mg/kg.

Leeks

In support of the SEU GAP, four GAP‐compliant residue trials performed on leeks in Greece, Italy and Spain were provided. As leek is a minor crop in the southern zone, these residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL of 0.8 mg/kg.

Maize

In support of the NEU and SEU GAPs on maize grain, four residue trials for the NEU GAP and four trials for the SEU GAP were provided. In all trials, the residues were below the LOQ (0.01 mg/kg). Maize is a major crop in NEU and SEU, and therefore at least eight residue trials for the NEU and SEU zone would be required. However, considering that in none of the trials quantifiable residues were observed, the available trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal at the LOQ. It is noted that the current MRL for maize is set at the LOQ of 0.02 mg/kg.

Maize forage

Sufficient residue trials on maize forage compliant with the NEU and SEU intended uses in maize are available to estimate the residues that are expected in this feed item.

Sugar canes

In support of the import tolerance request, eight USA trials in sugar cane were provided that were performed in three different locations in the USA in 2008 in compliance with the reported GAP. Two additional overdosed trials were provided that are not relevant for the application. Within the different sites, the trials only differed in the varieties tested while the date of the treatment was the same. In addition, the EMS noted deficiencies of the trials as regards the storage conditions (the samples were stored at −5°C, one of the trials for a period longer than investigated in storage stability studies).

EFSA agrees with the EMS that the number of independent, valid residue trials is insufficient to derive a MRL proposal for sugar cane.

Magnitude of residues in rotational crops

No rotational crop field studies have been submitted with this application.

During the peer review and the MRL review, experts concluded that based on two rotational crop metabolism studies covering three representative crop groups, all relevant label positions and the entire interval of major soil metabolite formation, no residues of toxicological and quantitative relevance are transferred from soil to crops at the representative GAP conditions (Germany, 2001, 2003; EFSA, 2012). These rotational crops metabolism studies that were conducted following bare soil application of pyraclostrobin at a dose rate of 900 g a.s./ha, the total radioactive residues in the edible parts of succeeding crops decreased along with the plant‐back intervals (PBIs) suggesting that accumulation of pyraclostrobin and its degradation products in crops grown in rotation is not expected (Germany, 2001, 2003). The highest total residues accounted for 0.04 mg/kg in radish root (30‐day PBI), 0.017 mg/kg in lettuce (365‐day PBI), 0.114 and 0.089 mg/kg in wheat straw (30‐day PBI) and grain (120‐day PBI), respectively.

Since the maximum annual application rates for the crops under consideration in this application are lower than the application rate tested in the rotational crop study, and the fact that in the confined rotational crop study pyraclostrobin was applied directly to bare soil whilst interception by crop foliage is expected in practice, it is concluded that the previously derived conclusion is still valid, provided that the active substance is applied according to the proposed GAP.

If in the framework of the ongoing peer review, residues in rotational crops will be re‐assessed. Depending on the outcome, this conclusion may have to be reconsidered.

Magnitude of residues in processed commodities

Processing studies in mandarins, oranges, spinaches, pineapple and maize were provided in this assessment, demonstrating that peeling, juicing and cooking leads to a reduction of the pyraclostrobin residues in the processed commodities (Germany, 2017a,b). The number and quality of the processing studies is sufficient to derive a number of robust processing factors which are recommended to be included in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

Proposed MRLs

EFSA concluded that the submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive MRL proposals of 2.0 mg/kg for mandarins, grapefruit, lemons and limes (SEU GAP), 0.5 mg/kg for flowering brassica (SEU GAP), 0.4 mg/kg for head cabbages (SEU GAP), 0.9 mg/kg for escaroles (NEU GAP), 3.0 mg/kg for globe artichokes (SEU GAP) and 0.8 mg/kg for leeks (SEU GAP). For lamb's lettuce, cresses, land cresses, Roman rocket, red mustards and baby leaf crops, EFSA derived two MRL proposals for further risk management consideration (10 or 15 mg/kg).

The data provided did not give evidence that the existing MRLs for lettuces (2 mg/kg) and for maize grain (current MRL set at the LOQ of 0.02 mg/kg) need to be changes.

For the crops where import tolerances were requested, an MRL of 0.2 mg/kg is proposed for passion fruits/maracujas and 0.3 mg/kg for pineapples; both MRL proposals are lower than the MRLs set in the country of origin (0.5 mg/kg for both crops).

For American persimmons, spinaches and similar leaves and sugar canes, the data were not sufficient to derive a MRL proposal. The same was true for oranges. For oranges, an indicative MRL was calculated based on seven trials (instead of eight trials) which is identical with the current MRL in place (i.e. 2 mg/kg).

In Section 3, EFSA describes the results of the risk assessment performed for the calculated MRL proposals derived from the supervised field trials.

Residues in livestock

Head cabbage, maize and dried citrus pulp may be used as feed items. Therefore, it was necessary to update the previous dietary burden calculations for livestock (EFSA, 2018c) to estimate whether the intended uses of pyraclostrobin on the crops under consideration in this reasoned opinion would have an impact on the residues expected in food of animal origin.

The updated dietary burden calculation was performed according to the currently used OECD methodology (OECD, 2013). The input values for the exposure calculation for livestock are presented in Appendix D.1. The results of the dietary burden calculation presented in Appendix B.2 show that the estimated exposure of cattle, swine and poultry to pyraclostrobin residues exceeded the trigger values.

Comparing the dietary burden calculation that was calculated in the framework of the previous assessment (EFSA, 2018c) with the calculation presented above, including the commodities assessed in this reasoned opinion demonstrated that the overall exposure to residues of pyraclostrobin to the total livestock, did not change significantly. Therefore, EFSA concluded that the previously derived MRL proposals for products of animal origin (EFSA, 2018a) do not have to be revised.

Consumer risk assessment

EFSA performed a dietary risk assessment using revision 2 of the EFSA PRIMo (EFSA, 2007). This exposure assessment model contains food consumption data for different sub‐groups of the EU population and allows the acute and chronic exposure assessment to be performed in accordance with the internationally agreed methodology for pesticide residues (FAO, 2016).

The toxicological reference values for pyraclostrobin used in the risk assessment (i.e. acceptable daily intake (ADI) and acute reference dose (ARfD) values) were derived in the framework of the EU pesticide peer review (European Commission, 2004).

The short‐term (acute) dietary exposure assessment was performed for the commodities assessed in this application. The complete list of input values can be found in Appendix D.2. For citrus fruits11 (mandarins, grapefruits, lemons and lime) and pineapples, peeling factors were used to perform a more realistic exposure assessment. For crops where no change of the MRL was proposed, the calculations were performed with the HR value derived from the trials derived in this assessment (lettuce) or with the more critical highest residue/supervised trials median residue (HR/STMR) value derived in a previous assessment (i.e. cresses, land cress, Roman rocket, red mustard baby leaf crops and maize). The crops for which the data were not sufficient to derive MRL proposals were not included in the acute risk assessment (i.e. oranges, American persimmons, spinaches and similar leaves and sugar canes).

The results of this calculation showed an exceedance of the ARfD for escaroles (172% of the ARfD) and for lettuce (144% of the ARfD); for the remaining crops, the estimated exposure was below the ARfD (96% for globe artichokes, 74% for Roman rocket, 57% for leeks and 42% for cauliflower). The short‐term exposure for the remaining crops was below 40% of the ARfD.

In scenario 2 of the acute risk assessment, the HR value for lettuce and escarole were replaced with the HR values derived in the framework of the MRL review, reflecting the current MRLs in place. In this scenario, for none of the crops an exceedance of the ARfD was noted.

In the framework of Article 12 MRL review, a comprehensive long‐term exposure assessment was performed taking into account the existing uses at the EU level and the acceptable CXLs (EFSA, 2011b). EFSA updated this risk assessment with the median residue levels (STMRs) derived from the residue trials submitted in support of this MRL application for mandarins, grapefruits, lemons, limes, passion fruits, pineapples, flowering brassica, globe artichokes and leeks (Table B.1.2.1 in Appendix B) and the STMRs reported in the previous EFSA reasoned opinions and the Article 12 MRL review (EFSA 2011a,b, 2012, 2013, 2014a,b, 2016, 2017, 2018a,b,c). For citrus fruit and pineapples, the peeling factors were considered. For the crops for which no need for an amendment of the existing MRL was identified or where the previously derived STMR values were higher, the STMR values derived in previous assessment were used. The food commodities, for which no uses were reported in the framework of the Article MRL 12 review or in subsequent EFSA opinions, were excluded from the exposure calculation, assuming that there is no use of pyraclostrobin on these crops. The complete list of input values can be found in Appendix D.2.

The estimated long‐term dietary intake was in the range of 2–17.5% of the ADI. The highest contribution of residues expected from the commodities assessed in this application is on leeks (0.6% of ADI). The contribution of the single commodities to the overall long‐term exposure is presented in the Appendix C.

In scenario 2, the chronic exposure was calculated where the STMR values for escaroles and lettuce were replaced with the STMR values derived for the MRL review (EFSA, 2011b). This modification did not have an impact on the result of the chronic risk assessment.

Overall, EFSA concluded that the long‐term intake of residues of pyraclostrobin resulting from the intended uses for the crops under consideration is unlikely to present a chronic risk to consumer health.

Conclusion and Recommendations

EFSA concludes that the submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive MRL proposals of 2.0 mg/kg for mandarins, grapefruit, lemons and limes (SEU GAP), 0.5 mg/kg for flowering brassica (SEU GAP), 0.4 mg/kg for head cabbages (SEU GAP), 3.0 mg/kg for globe artichokes (SEU GAP) and 0.8 mg/kg for leeks (SEU GAP). For passion fruits/maracujas and pineapples, the data were found to be sufficient to derive import tolerances which are comparable with the MRLs in place in the country of origin (i.e. 0.2 mg/kg for passion fruits and 0.3 mg/kg for pineapples). For none of the proposed MRLs, consumer intake concerns were identified.

For lamb's lettuce, cresses, land cresses, Roman rocket, red mustards and baby leaf crops, EFSA derived two MRL proposals for further risk management consideration (10 or 15 mg/kg).

The data provided does not give evidence that the existing MRLs for lettuces (2 mg/kg) and for maize grain (current MRL set at the LOQ of 0.02 mg/kg) need to be changed. Although for lettuce a modification of the existing MRL was not deemed necessary, the short‐term risk assessment performed with the highest residue found in supervised residue trials submitted in support of the MRL application revealed a potential intake concern. The short‐term exposure calculated with the HR derived from the data set submitted previously which reflected a less critical GAP (indoor use), but lead to the same MRL, did not exceed the ARfD. Thus, before granting a new authorisation in lettuce, Member States should verify that the acute risk assessment performed in the framework of the MRL review under Article 12 is still valid, even if the existing MRL does not have to be modified.

For American persimmons, spinaches and similar leaves and sugar canes, the data were not sufficient to derive a MRL proposal. The same was true for oranges. For oranges, an indicative MRL proposal of 2 mg/kg was calculated based on seven trials (instead of eight trials), which is identical with the current MRL in place.

EFSA identified a short‐term intake concern for the use in escaroles/broad‐leaved endives. Therefore no modification of the existing MRL was proposed by EFSA.

The MRL recommendations are summarised in Appendix B.4.

Abbreviations

active ingredient

active substance

acceptable daily intake

applied radioactivity

acute reference dose

growth stages of mono‐ and dicotyledonous plants

body weight

European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen de Normalisation)

critical GAP

Codex maximum residue limit

draft assessment report

days after treatment

dry matter

period required for 90% dissipation (define method of estimation)

emulsifiable concentrate

evaluating Member State

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Good Agricultural Practice

high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

high performance liquid chromatography with ultra‐violet detector

highest residue

international estimated daily intake

international estimated short‐term intake

International Chemical Identifier Key

independent laboratory validation

International Organisation for Standardisation

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues

liquid chromatography

limit of quantification

maximum residue level

Member States

tandem mass spectrometry detector

northern Europe

Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development

plant‐back interval

processing factor

preharvest interval

(EFSA) Pesticide Residues Intake Model

Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe (analytical method)

risk assessment

raw agricultural commodity

residue definition

rapporteur Member State

Directorate‐General for Health and Consumers

suspension concentrate

southern Europe

soluble concentrate

simplified molecular‐input line‐entry system

water‐soluble powder

supervised trials median residue

water‐dispersible granule

World Health Organization

Appendix B – List of end points

Residues in plants

Nature of residues and methods of analysis in plants

Metabolism studies, methods of analysis and residue definitions in plants

Stability of residues in plants

Magnitude of residues in plants

Summary of residues data from the supervised residue trials

Residues in rotational crops

Processing factors

Residues in livestock

Nature of residues and methods of analysis in livestock

Since the contribution of the residues of pyraclostrobin in the crops under consideration to the total livestock dietary intake is insignificant, the previous assessment of residues in livestock is still valid (EFSA, 2018c).

Consumer risk assessment

Recommended MRLs

Appendix D – Input values for the exposure calculations

Livestock dietary burden calculations

EFSA Question number	Date of submission of the evaluation reports to EFSA	Crops	EMS MRL proposals
Q‐2017‐00282	7 April 2017	Pineapples	0.3 mg/kg (import tolerance (IT) for Brazil)
		Passion fruits/maracujas	0.2 mg/kg (IT for Brazil)
Q‐2017‐00584	17 July 2017	Citrus fruits	2 mg/kg
		Flowering brassica	0.5 mg/kg
		Head cabbages	0.4 mg/kg
		Lettuces and salad plants (except lettuces and escarole)	10 mg/kg
		Lettuces	2 mg/kg
		Escarole	0.9 mg/kg
		Spinaches and chards	0.5 mg/kg
		Purslane	0.2 mg/kg
		Globe artichokes	3 mg/kg
		Leeks	0.8 mg/kg
		Maize	0.02* mg/kg
		Sugar canes	0.02 mg/kg (IT for USA)
		American persimmons	0.02 mg/kg (IT for USA)

– Mandarin, peel	3.02	– Orange pomace, wet	1.41
– Mandarin, pulp	0.13	– Orange pomace, dried	6.92
– Orange, peel	3.78	– Spinach, cooked	0.62
– Orange, pulp	0.10	– Maize, chopped fodder	1.10
– Orange juice	0.05	– Maize silage (from whole plant)	1.43
– Orange juice, pasteurised	0.08	– Maize refined oil, flour, meal, starch, gluten, bran, middling, germs, press cake	0.36
– Orange marmalade	0.19	– Pineapple pulp	0.27

Codea	Commodity	Existing EU MRL (mg/kg)	Proposed EU MRL (mg/kg)	Comment/justification
Enforcement residue definition: pyraclostrobinF
0110020	Oranges	2.0	No modification needed	The submitted data did not provide evidence that the existing MRL has to be modified
0110050	Mandarins	1.0	2.0	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the intended SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely (based on exposure assessment including a peeling factor)
0110010 0110030 0110040	Grapefruit, lemons, limes	1.0	2	Data are sufficient (combined data set in oranges and mandarins) to derive a MRL proposal for the remaining citrus crops. A risk for consumers is unlikely (based on exposure assessment including peeling factors)
0162030	Passion fruits/maracujas	0.02*	0.2	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive an import tolerance (Brazilian GAP). Risk for consumers unlikely. The proposed MRL is at lower than the existing MRL in Brazil (i.e. 0.5 mg/kg)
0162060	American persimmons	0.02*	No MRL proposal	The submitted residue trials are not sufficient to derive an import tolerance for the USA GAP
0163080	Pineapples	0.02*	0.3	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive an import tolerance (Brazilian GAP). Risk for consumers unlikely. The proposed MRL is lower than the existing MRL in Brazil (i.e. 0.5 mg/kg)
0241000	Flowering brassica	0.1	0.5	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the intended SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely
0242020	Head cabbages	0.2	0.4	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the intended SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely
0251010	Lamb's lettuces	10.0	10 or 15 Further risk management considerations needed	Taking into account the residue trials in lamb's lettuce reflecting the SEU GAP, a MRL proposal of 15 mg/kg is derived. Considering also data from lettuce (open leaf varieties) a lower MRL of 10 mg/kg is considered sufficient. Risk for consumers unlikely
0251020	Lettuces	2.0	No modification needed; further risk management considerations needed	The data set submitted in support of the NEU GAP lead to a MRL proposal of 0.9 mg/kg. From the SEU data set, a MRL proposal of 2 mg/kg was derived. Although this GAP would not require a modification of the existing MRL, it was noted that the highest residue (HR) measured in the supporting data set lead to an exceedance of the ARfD. No intake concern was identified for the HR reflecting the indoor GAP which is the basis for the existing MRL. Before granting a new authorisation in lettuce, Member States should verify that the acute risk assessment performed in the framework of the MRL review under Article 12 is still valid, even if the existing MRL does not have to be modified. Alternatively, the lowering of the existing MRL to the level of 0.9 mg/kg could be considered; this MRL proposal reflects the NEU GAP. For this GAP, a risk for consumers is unlikely
0251030	Escarole	0.4	No MRL proposal	Although sufficient data are available to derive a MRL proposal of 0.9 mg/kg for the intended NEU use, EFSA did not recommend a modification of the existing MRL since an acute consumer health risk could not be excluded
0251040	Cresses and other sprouts	10	10 or 15 Further risk management considerations needed	Taking into account the residue trials in lamb's lettuce reflecting the SEU GAP, a MRL proposal of 15 mg/kg is derived by extrapolation. Considering also data from lettuce (open leaf varieties), a lower MRL of 10 mg/kg is considered sufficient. Risk for consumers unlikely
0251050	Land cresses
0251060	Roman rocket/rucola
0251070	Red mustards
0251080	Baby leaf crops
0252000	Spinaches and similar leaves	0.6 spinaches 0.02* purslanes 1.5 chard	No MRL proposal	The submitted residue trials are not sufficient to derive an MRL proposal for the intended SEU uses
0270050	Globe artichokes	2.0	3.0	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely
0270060	Leeks	0.7	0.8	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely
0500030	Maize	0.02*	No modification needed	The submitted data did not provide evidence that the existing MRL has to be modified
0900020	Sugar canes	0.02*	No MRL proposal	The submitted residue trials are not sufficient to derived a MRL for import tolerance (USA GAP)

MRL: maximum residue level; SEU: southern Europe; GAP: Good Agricultural Practice; NEU: northern Europe; ARfD: acute reference dose.

* Indicates that the MRL is set at the limit of analytical quantification (LOQ).

Commodity code number according to Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

F Fat soluble.

Crop and/or situation	NEU, SEU, MS or country	F G or Ia	Pests or group of pests controlled	Preparation		Application				Application rate per treatment				PHI (days)d	Remarkse
				Typeb	Conc. a.s.	Method kind	Range of growth stages & seasonc	Number min–max	Interval between application (min) (days)	g a.s./hL min–max	Water L/ha min–max	Rate	Unit
Citrus –oranges and mandarinsf	SEU	F	Alternaria spp.	WG	200 g/kg	Foliar spray	BBCH 31‐85	4		7.5–15	1,500–3,000	225	g/ha	7	7‐day PHI cGAP for GR and FR. Less cGAP for ES, IT, PT (21‐day PHI)
American Persimmons	USA	F	Not available	WG	128 g/kg	Foliar with ground equipment, aerial equipment, or sprinkler irrigation	N/A	3	7–14	Not available	Not available	166–206	g/ha	0	Max. seasonal application rate 550 g ai/ha
Passion fruits/maracujas	Brazil	F	Colletotrichum	WG	50 g/kg	Spray	Preventively or when first symptoms occur	4	10	12.5–15	1,000	125–150	g/ha	7	–
Pineapples	Brazil	F	Ceratocystis paradoxa	WG	50 g/kg	Spray	Preventively or when first symptoms occur	4	8–10	42–50	200–300	125–150	g/ha	3	–
Flowering brassica (broccoli, cauliflower)	SEU	F	Peronospora parasitica, Alternaria brassicae	EC	40 g/kg	High volume spraying	BBCH 11‐49	1–3	Not specified	8–50	200–1,000	80–100	g/ha	7	Intended uses in IT, PT, ES, GR
Head cabbages	SEU	F	Peronospora parasitica, Alternaria brassicae	EC	40 g/kg	High volume spraying	BBCH 11‐49	1–3	Not specified	8–50	200–1,000	80–100	g/ha	3	Intended uses in IT, ES, GR, PT
Lettuces and similar	NEU SEU	F	Bremia lactucae	EC	40 g/kg	High volume spraying	BBCH 10‐49	1–3	Not specified	10–50	200–1,000	100	g/ha	7	Intended uses in FR, DK, EE, FI, LT, LV, NO, SE, PL, GR (only lettuce and escaroles), ES (only lettuce)
Spinaches & similar leaves (Spinach, purslane, chards)	SEU	F	Peronospora spp. (farinosa, etc.)	EC	40 g/kg	High volume spraying	BBCH 11‐49	1–3	Not specified	8–50	200–1,000	80–100	g/ha	7	Intended uses in ES, GR, IT, PT
Globe artichokes	SEU	F	Bremia lactucae	EC	40 g/kg	High volume spraying	BBCH 50‐85	1–3	Not specified	8–50	200–1,000	80–100	g/ha	3	Intended uses in ES, GR, PT, IT
Leeks	SEU	F	Phytophthora porri	EC	40 g/kg	High volume spraying	BBCH 11‐49	1–3	Not specified	8–50	200–1,000	80–100	g/ha	3	Intended uses in ES, PT, IT
Maize	NEU SEU	F	Exserohilum turcicum Puccinia sorghi	EC	200 g/kg	Spraying	BBCH 30–65 (Summer)	1		N/A	100–400	200	g/ha	N/A	PHI defined by growth stage at application Intended uses in BG, UK, ES, GR, IT, PT, DK, SE
Maize (forage and grain)	NEU SEU	F	Setosphaeria turcica, Puccinia sorghum, Kabatiella zeae	EC	200 g/kg	Spraying	30–65 (Summer)	1		N/A	200–400	200	g/ha	N/A	Including physiological effects PHI defined by growth stage at application Intended uses in BG, UK, ES, GR, IT, PT, DK, SE
Sugar canes	US	F	Puccinia kuehnii, Puccinia melanocephala	EC	250 g/kg	Spraying	Preventative/first symptoms	4	Not specified	N/A	–	225	g/ha	14	Max. two sequential applications. Maximum per season: 890 g F500/ha

GAP: Good Agricultural Practice; MRL: maximum residue level; NEU: northern European Union; SEU: southern European Union; MS; Member State; a.s.: active substance; WG: water‐dispersible granule; cGAP: critical GAP; EC: emulsifiable concentrate.

Outdoor or field use (F), greenhouse application (G) or indoor application (I).

CropLife International Technical Monograph no 2, 6th Edition. Revised May 2008. Catalogue of pesticide formulation types and international coding system.

Growth stage range from first to last treatment (BBCH Monograph, Growth Stages of Plants, 1997, Blackwell, ISBN 3‐8263‐3152‐4), including, where relevant, information on season at time of application.

PHI: minimum preharvest interval.

The intended uses were reported in the Appendix A of the Evaluation Report (Germany, 2017b); this information was used to retrieve the geographical zone reported in the second column of this table.

EMS provided a clarification on 12 July 2018 by email that the GAP is intended for all citrus fruit.

Primary crops (available studies)	Crop groups	Crop(s)	Application(s)	Sampling (DAT)	Comment/source
	Fruit	Grapes	Foliar: 6 × 130 to 480 g a.s./ha, from BBCH 53‐55 to 81	40 DAT6	Radiolabelled active substance: [tolyl‐U‐14C]‐pyraclostrobin and [chlorophenyl‐U‐14C]‐pyraclostrobin (EFSA, 2011b)
	Root	Potatoes	Foliar: 6 × 300 g a.s./ha, from BBCH 31 to maturity	7 DAT3 and 7 DAT6 (maturity)
	Cereals/grass	Wheat	Foliar: 2 × 300 g a.s./ha, from BBCH 32 to 61	0 DAT1, 31 DAT1, 41 DAT2 63/65 DAT (forage) 74/6 DAT (hay) 103/104 DAT (grain, straw)
		Paddy rice	Foliar: 3 × 130 g a.s./ha, from BBCH 39 to 69	‐1 DAT2 (forage), 57 DAT3 (straw, grain)	EFSA (2018c)

Plant products (available studies)	Category	Commodity	T (°C)	Stability period		Compounds covered	Comment/source
				Value	Unit
	High water content	Tomatoes	< −10	96%	18 months	Pyraclostrobin	Germany (2001)
			< −10	92%	18 months	500M07
		Sugar beet tops	< −10	98%	18 months	Pyraclostrobin
			< −10	99%	18 months	500M07
	High starch content	Sugar beet roots	< −10	91%	18 months	Pyraclostrobin
			< −10	91%	18 months	500M07
	High oil content	Peanut nutmeat	< −10	88%	18 months	Pyraclostrobin
			< −10	84%	18 months	500M07
		Peanut oil	< −10	106%	18 months	Pyraclostrobin
			< −10	120%	18 months	500M07
	Dry/high starch content	Wheat grain	< −10	88%	18 months	Pyraclostrobin
			< −10	89%	18 months	500M07
	High acid content	Grape juice	< −10	88%	18 months	Pyraclostrobin
			< −10	93%	18 months	500M07
	Others	Wheat straw	< −10	99%	18 months	Pyraclostrobin
			< −10	97%	18 months	500M07

Commodity	Region/indoora	Residue levels observed in the supervised residue trials (mg/kg)	Comments/source	Calculated MRL (mg/kg)	HRb (mg/kg)	STMRc (mg/kg)
Oranges	SEU	Oranges: 0.33, 0.34, 0.39, 0.60, 0.64, 0.69, 1.30	Residue trials on oranges compliant with GAP. Since the number of trials is not fully compliant with the data requirements, only an indicative MRL proposal was calculated (2 mg/kg). The indicative calculated MRL is identical with the current MRL	2 (indicative)	1.3 (indicative)	0.60 (indicative)
Mandarins	SEU	Mandarins: 0.25, 0.25, 0.37, 0.51, 0.52, 0.54, 0.70, 0.76, 0.87, 1.20	Residue trials on mandarins compliant with GAP	2	1.2	0.53
Citrus (grapefruits, lemons, limes)	SEU	Oranges and mandarins: See above	From the merged data set, an indicative MRL proposal for all citrus fruit is derived. Although the number of trials in oranges is not fully compliant with the data requirement for extrapolation, but considering that a sufficient number of mandarin trials are available and usually mandarins are expected to be the crop in which higher residues are expected, EFSA considered the data sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the remaining citrus crops from the combined data set in oranges and mandarins	2	1.3	0.54
Passion fruits/maracujas	Brazil	0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.10	Residue trials compliant with the GAP	0.2	0.10	0.05
American persimmons	USA	0.092, 0.44, 1.15	Residue trials compliant with the GAP. Number of trials not sufficient to derive a MRL	No MRL proposal	–	–
Pineapples	Brazil	2 × 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 2 × 0.07, 0.09, 0.19	Residue trials compliant with the GAP	0.3	0.19	0.05
Flowering brassica	SEU	Cauliflower: 2 × < 0.010, 0.020, 0.040 Broccoli: 0.060, 0.18, 2 × 0.19	Combined data set on cauliflower (4) and broccoli (4) compliant with GAP are used to derive MRL by extrapolation for the whole group of flowering brassica	0.5	0.19	0.05
Head cabbages	SEU	5 × < 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.22	Residue trials compliant with the GAP on head cabbage	0.4	0.22	0.01
Lettuces	NEU	Lettuces (open leaf varieties) 0.01, 0.07, 0.11, 2 × 0.12, 0.17, 0.22, 0.59	Residue trials on lettuce (open leaf varieties) compliant with the NEU GAP	0.9	0.59	0.12
	SEU	Lettuces: < 0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 2 × 0.21, 0.22, 0.24, 0.27, 0.28, 0.30, 0.59, 1.60	Residue trials on lettuce compliant with the SEU GAP. Not clear whether trials were performed in open leaf varieties or head forming varieties	2	1.6	0.23
Lamb's lettuce	NEU	Lettuces (open leaf varieties) 0.01, 0.07, 0.11, 2 × 0.12, 0.17, 0.22, 0.59	Residue trials on lettuce (open leaf varieties) compliant with the NEU GAP can be used to derive MRL proposal by extrapolation	0.9	0.59	0.12
	SEU	0.11, 0.73, 3.89, 4.16	Residue trials on lamb's lettuce compliant with the SEU GAP. The MRL proposal derived with the OECD calculator is 15 mg/kg; alternative MRL proposal 10 mg/kg (expert judgement, taking into account residue data in NEU open leaf varieties)	15 or 10	4.16	2.31
Escarole	NEU	Lettuces (open leaf varieties): 0.01, 0.07, 0.11, 2 × 0.12, 0.17, 0.22, 0.59	Residue trials on lettuce (open leaf varieties) compliant with the NEU GAP	0.9	0.59	0.12
	SEU	–	No appropriate residue trials are available	–	–	–
Other crops belonging to crop group of lettuces and salad plants (cresses, land cresses, Roman rocket, red mustards, baby leaf crops)	NEU	Lettuces (open leaf varieties): 0.01, 0.07, 0.11, 2 × 0.12, 0.17, 0.22, 0.59	MRL proposal derived from residue trials on lettuce (open leaf varieties) compliant with the NEU GAP by extrapolation	0.9	0.59	0.12
	SEU	Lamb's lettuce: 0.11, 0.73, 3.89, 4.16	Residue trials on lamb's lettuce compliant with the SEU GAP, extrapolation to other lettuces	15 or 10	4.16	2.31
Spinaches and similar leaves (spinach, purslane, chards)	SEU	–	No SEU residue trials on spinaches available Extrapolation from lettuces is also not possible since no SEU residue trials in open leaf varieties are available	–	–	–
Globe Artichokes	SEU	0.19, 0.22, 0.25, 0.34, 1.44	Residue trials on artichokes compliant with SEU GAP	3.0	1.44	0.25
Leeks	SEU	0.21, 0.25, 0.26, 0.29	Leek is a minor crop in the south EU. Residue trials (4) compliant with the GAP	0.8	0.29	0.26
Maize (grain)	SEU	4 × < 0.01	Residue trials on maize compliant with GAP. Reduced numbers of trials are sufficient as in none of the trials residues above the LOQ were measured	0.01*	0.01	0.01
	NEU	4 × < 0.01
Maize (forage)	NEU	0.22, 0.33, 0.36, 0.44, 0.47	The information was sufficient to derive input values for the dietary burden calculation. Since the NEU and SEU data are similar (Mann–Whitney U‐test), the data sets were merged to derive the HR and STMR	–	0.76	0.36
	SEU	0.20, 0.21, 0.22, 0.76
Sugar canes	USA	0.048, 0.059, 0.097	Residue trials compliant with the GAP but number of trials is not sufficient to derive a MRL; limited validity of residue trials due to storage conditions not covered by storage stability studies	–	–	–

MRL: maximum residue level; GAP: Good Agricultural Practice; OECD: Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development; LOQ: limit of quantification.

* Indicates that the MRL is proposed at the limit of quantification.

NEU: Outdoor trials conducted in northern Europe, SEU: Outdoor trials conducted in southern Europe, Indoor: indoor EU trials or Country code: if non‐EU trials.

Highest residue. The highest residue for risk assessment refers to the whole commodity and not to the edible portion.

Supervised trials median residue. The median residue for risk assessment refers to the whole commodity and not to the edible portion.

Processed commodity	Number of valid studiesa	Processing Factor (PF)		Comment/source
		Individual values	Median PF
Mandarin, peel	8	1.96, 1.96, 2.71, 2.97, 3.06, 3.57, 3.78, 5.14	3.02	Germany (2017b)
Mandarin, pulp	8	0.02, 0.06, 0.08, 0.11, 0.14, 0.14, 0.16, 0.27	0.13	Germany (2017b)
Orange, peel	12	1.74, 2.32, 2.52, 3.11, 3.6, 3.74, 3.82, 4.0, 4.0, 4.78, 5.21, 6.36	3.78	Germany (2017b)
Orange, pulp	12	0.03, 0.05, 0.05, 0.06, 0.06, 0.09, 0.11, 0.13, 0.14, 0.15, 0.22, 0.45	0.10	Germany (2017b)
Orange juice	4	0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.13	0.05	Germany (2017b)
Orange juice, pasteurised	4	0.04, 0.04, 0.11, 0.13	0.08	Germany (2017b)
Orange marmalade	4	0.06, 0.18, 0.19, 0.25	0.19	Germany (2017b)
Orange pomace, wet	4	1.07, 1.31, 1.5, 1.81	1.41	Germany (2017b)
Orange pomace, dried	4	5.44, 6.5, 7.34, 9.89	6.92	Germany (2017b)
Spinaches, cooked	4	0.39, 0.50, 0.74, 1.7	0.62	Germany (2017b)
Maize, chopped fodder	4	1.05, 1.10, 1.10, 1.12	1.10	Germany (2017b)
Maize silage (from whole plant)	4	0.94, 1.32, 1.53, 1.80	1.43	Germany (2017b)
Maize refined oil, flour, meal, starch, gluten, bran, middling, germs, press cake	4	< 0.01, < 0.02, < 0.023, < 0.027, < 0.045, < 0.05, < 0.05, < 0.05	< 0.36	Germany (2017b)
Pineapple pulp	4	< 0.15, < 0.21, < 0.33, < 0.48	0.27	Germany (2017a)

Studies with residues in the RAC at or close to the LOQ were disregarded (unless concentration may occur).

A tentative PF is derived based on a limited data set.

Relevant groups (subgroups)	Dietary burden expressed in				Most critical subgroupa	Most critical commodityb	Trigger exceeded (Y/N)
	mg/kg bw per day		mg/kg DM
	Median	Maximum	Median	Maximumc
Cattle (all)	0.084	0.133	2.53	3.85	Dairy cattle	Barley straw	Yes
Cattle (dairy only)	0.084	0.133	2.20	3.47	Dairy cattle	Barley straw	Yes
Sheep (all)	0.127	0.232	3.61	6.00	Lamb	Barley straw	Yes
Sheep (ewe only)	0.120	0.200	3.61	6.00	Ram/Ewe	Barley straw	Yes
Swine (all)	0.023	0.034	1.02	1.47	Swine (breeding)	Potato process waste	Yes
Poultry (all)	0.028	0.061	0.41	0.89	Poultry layer	Wheat straw	Yes
Poultry (layer only)	0.028	0.061	0.41	0.89	Poultry layer	Wheat straw	Yes
Fish	N/A

bw: body weight; DM: dry matter.

The highest dietary burden expressed in mg/kg DM result from sheep.

When one group of livestock includes several subgroups (e.g. poultry ‘all’ including broiler, layer and turkey), the result of the most critical subgroup is identified from the maximum dietary burdens expressed as ‘mg/kg bw per day’.

The most critical commodity is the major contributor identified from the maximum dietary burden expressed as ‘mg/kg bw per day’.

The highest dietary burden expressed in mg/kg DM result from sheep.

Codea	Commodity	Existing EU MRL (mg/kg)	Proposed EU MRL (mg/kg)	Comment/justification
Enforcement residue definition: pyraclostrobinF
0110020	Oranges	2.0	No modification needed	The submitted data did not provide evidence that the existing MRL has to be modified
0110050	Mandarins	1.0	2.0	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the intended SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely (based on exposure assessment including a peeling factor)
0110010 0110030 0110040	Grapefruit, lemons, limes	1.0	2	Data are sufficient (combined data set in oranges and mandarins) to derive a MRL proposal for the remaining citrus crops. A risk for consumers is unlikely (based on exposure assessment including peeling factors)
0162030	Passion fruits/maracujas	0.02*	0.2	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive an import tolerance (Brazilian GAP). Risk for consumers unlikely. The proposed MRL is at lower than the existing MRL in Brazil (i.e. 0.5 mg/kg)
0162060	American persimmons	0.02*	No MRL proposal	The submitted residue trials are not sufficient to derive an import tolerance for the USA GAP
0163080	Pineapples	0.02*	0.3	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive an import tolerance (Brazilian GAP). Risk for consumers unlikely. The proposed MRL is lower than the existing MRL in Brazil (i.e. 0.5 mg/kg)
0241000	Flowering brassica	0.1	0.5	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the intended SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely
0242020	Head cabbages	0.2	0.4	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the intended SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely
0251010	Lamb's lettuces	10.0	10 or 15 Further risk management considerations needed	Taking into account the residue trials in lamb's lettuce reflecting the SEU GAP, a MRL proposal of 15 mg/kg is derived. Considering also data from lettuce (open leaf varieties) a lower MRL of 10 mg/kg is considered sufficient. Risk for consumers unlikely
0251020	Lettuces	2.0	No modification needed; further risk management considerations needed	The data set submitted in support of the NEU GAP lead to a MRL proposal of 0.9 mg/kg. From the SEU data set, a MRL proposal of 2 mg/kg was derived. Although this GAP would not require a modification of the existing MRL, it was noted that the highest residue (HR) measured in the supporting data set lead to an exceedance of the ARfD. No intake concern was identified for the HR reflecting the indoor GAP which is the basis for the existing MRL. Before granting a new authorisation in lettuce, Member States should verify that the acute risk assessment performed in the framework of the MRL review under Article 12 is still valid, even if the existing MRL does not have to be modified. Alternatively, the lowering of the existing MRL to the level of 0.9 mg/kg could be considered; this MRL proposal reflects the NEU GAP. For this GAP, a risk for consumers is unlikely
0251030	Escarole	0.4	No MRL proposal	Although sufficient data are available to derive a MRL proposal of 0.9 mg/kg for the intended NEU use, EFSA did not recommend a modification of the existing MRL since an acute consumer health risk could not be excluded
0251040	Cresses and other sprouts	10	10 or 15 Further risk management considerations needed	Taking into account the residue trials in lamb's lettuce reflecting the SEU GAP, a MRL proposal of 15 mg/kg is derived by extrapolation. Considering also data from lettuce (open leaf varieties), a lower MRL of 10 mg/kg is considered sufficient. Risk for consumers unlikely
0251050	Land cresses
0251060	Roman rocket/rucola
0251070	Red mustards
0251080	Baby leaf crops
0252000	Spinaches and similar leaves	0.6 spinach 0.02* purslanes 1.5 chard	No MRL proposal	The submitted residue trials are not sufficient to derive an MRL proposal for the intended SEU uses
0270050	Globe artichokes	2.0	3.0	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely
0270060	Leeks	0.7	0.8	The submitted residue trials are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal for the SEU use. Risk for consumers unlikely
0500030	Maize	0.02*	No modification needed	The submitted data did not provide evidence that the existing MRL has to be modified
0900020	Sugar canes	0.02*	No MRL proposal	The submitted residue trials are not sufficient to derived a MRL for import tolerance (USA GAP)

MRL: maximum residue level; SEU: southern Europe; GAP: Good Agricultural Practice; NEU: northern Europe; ARfD: acute reference dose.

* Indicates that the MRL is set at the limit of analytical quantification (LOQ).

Commodity code number according to Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

F Fat soluble.

Feed commodity	Median dietary burden		Maximum dietary burden
	Input value (mg/kg)	Comment	Input value (mg/kg)	Comment
Risk assessment residue definition: Pyraclostrobin
Citrus dried pulp	3.73	STMR (0.54) × PF (6.9)	3.73	STMR (0.54) × PF (6.9)
Head cabbage	0.02	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	0.22	HR
Maize forage/silage	0.51	STMR × PF (1.43)	1.09	HR × PF (1.43)
Maize, field grain	0.02	STMR	0.02	STMR
Maize, pop grain	0.02	STMR	0.02	STMR
Other feed items	STMR, HR (EFSA 2012, 2014b, 2018a,c)

STMR: supervised trials median residue; HR: highest residue; PF: processing factor.

Commodity		Chronic risk assessment		Acute risk assessment
		Input value (mg/kg)	Comment	Input value (mg/kg)	Comment
Risk assessment residue definition: Pyraclostrobin Risk assessment residue definition for livestock: sum of pyraclostrobin and its metabolites containing the 1‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐1H‐pyrazole moiety or the 1‐(4‐chloro‐2‐hydroxyphenyl)‐1H‐pyrazole moiety, expressed as pyraclostrobin
Oranges		0.07	STMR (CXL) × PF (0.14) (EFSA, 2011a)	–	Not assessed since no MRL proposal was derived
Mandarins		0.069	STMR × PFpeeling (0.13)	0.16	HR × PFpeeling (0.13)
Grapefruit		0.052	STMR × PFpeeling (0.1)	0.13	HR × PFpeeling (0.1)
Lemons		0.053	STMR × PFpeeling (0.1)	0.13	HR × PFpeeling (0.1)
Limes		0.053	STMR × PFpeeling (0.1)	0.13	HR × PFpeeling (0.1)
Table grapes		0.44a	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	–	Not relevant for current application
Passion fruits/maracuja		0.05	STMR	0.10	HR
Pineapples		0.014	STMR × PFpeeling (0.27)	0.05	HR × PFpeeling (0.27)
Flowering brassica		0.05	STMR	0.19	HR
Head cabbage		0.02	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	0.22	HR
Lettuces	Scenario 1	0.26	STMR (indoor GAP, EFSA, 2011b)	1.6	HR (SEU GAP)
	Scenario 2	0.26	STMR (indoor GAP, EFSA, 2011b)	0.81	HR (indoor GAP, EFSA, 2011b)
Lamb's lettuce		2.5	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	4.16	HR
Escarole	Scenario 1	0.12	STMR	0.59	HR
	Scenario 2	0.04	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	0.28	HR (EFSA, 2011b)
Cresses		2.5	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	7.2	HR (EFSA, 2011b)
Land cress		2.5	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	7.2	HR (EFSA, 2011b)
Roman rocket		2.5	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	7.2	HR (EFSA, 2011b)
Red mustrard		2.5	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	7.2	HR (EFSA, 2011b)
Baby leaf crops		2.5	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	7.2	HR (EFSA, 2011b)
Spinaches and similar leaves		0.05	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	–	Not assessed since no MRL proposal was derived
Beet leaves		0.26	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	–
Globe artichokes		0.25	STMR	1.44	HR
Leeks		0.26	STMR	0.29	HR
Maize		0.02	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)	0.02	STMR (EFSA, 2011b)
Chronic risk assessment undertaken considering all authorised uses identified during the Article 12 MRL review (EFSA, 2011b) and the latest MRL applications under Art 10 of the EU regulation 396/2005 (EFSA, 2011a, 2012, 2013, 2014a,b, 2016, 2017, 2018a,b,c)				Acute risk assessment undertaken only with regard to the crop under consideration

STMR: supervised trials median residue; CXL: Codex maximum residue limit; MRL: maximum residue level; HR: highest residue; PF: processing factor; GAP: Good Agricultural Practice; SEU: southern Europe.

Pending the decision of the revision on the existing MRL for table grapes, the previously derived STMR (EFSA, 2011a,b) was still included in the calculation.

Code/trivial name(a)	IUPAC name/SMILES notation/InChiKey(b)	Structural formula(c)
Pyraclostrobin	methyl 2‐[1‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐1H‐pyrazol‐3‐yloxymethyl]‐N‐methoxycarbanilate O=C(OC)N(OC)c1ccccc1COc1ccn(n1)c1ccc(Cl)cc1 HZRSNVGNWUDEFX‐UHFFFAOYSA‐N
Desmethoxy metabolite (500M07, BF 500‐3)	methyl [2‐({[1‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐1H‐pyrazol‐3‐yl]oxy}methyl)phenyl]carbamate O=C(OC)Nc1ccccc1COc1ccn(n1)c1ccc(Cl)cc1 SEUOYURJKYLAPC‐UHFFFAOYSA‐N
500M04	1‐(4‐chlorophenyl) ‐1H‐pyrazol‐3‐ol Clc1ccc(cc1)n1ccc(O)n1 DRENHOMDLNJDOG‐UHFFFAOYSA‐N
500M49	methyl [2‐(hydroxymethyl)phenyl]carbamate O=C(OC)Nc1ccccc1CO QNCPWLXCDKFGEK‐UHFFFAOYSA‐N
500M06	1‐(4‐chlorophenyl)‐3‐({2‐[(methoxycarbonyl)amino]benzyl}oxy)‐1H‐pyrazol‐4‐yl β‐d‐glucopyranosiduronic acid O=C(OC)Nc1ccccc1COc1nn(cc1O[C@@H]1O[C@@H]([C@@H](O)[C@H](O)[C@H]1O)C(=O)O)c1ccc(Cl)cc1 AKGNRMSNGBEIHM‐BPDSMXLESA‐N
500M72 (l‐tryptophan)	l‐tryptophan O=C(O)[C@@H](N)Cc1c[NH]c2ccccc21 QIVBCDIJIAJPQS‐VIFPVBQESA‐N

IUPAC: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry; SMILES: simplified molecular‐input line‐entry system; InChiKey: International Chemical Identifier Key.