Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance zoxamide

Abstract

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Latvia, and co‐rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance zoxamide are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of zoxamide as a fungicide on wine and table grapes, and potatoes. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

Summary

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’) lays down the procedure for the renewal of the approval of active substances submitted under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The list of those substances is established in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 686/2012. Zoxamide is one of the active substances listed in Regulation (EU) No 686/2012.

In accordance with Article 1 of the Regulation, the rapporteur Member State (RMS), Latvia, and co‐rapporteur Member State (co‐RMS), France, received an application from Gowan Crop Protection Ltd for the renewal of approval of the active substance zoxamide. Complying with Article 8 of the Regulation, the RMS checked the completeness of the dossier and informed the applicant, the co‐RMS (France), the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) about the admissibility.

The RMS provided its initial evaluation of the dossier on zoxamide in the renewal assessment report (RAR), which was received by EFSA on 5 August 2016. In accordance with Article 12 of the Regulation, EFSA distributed the RAR to the Member States and the applicant, Gowan Crop Protection Ltd, for comments on 22 September 2016. EFSA also provided comments. In addition, EFSA conducted a public consultation on the RAR. EFSA collated and forwarded all comments received to the European Commission on 23 November 2016.

Following consideration of the comments received on the RAR, it was concluded that additional information should be requested from the applicant, and that EFSA should conduct an expert consultation in the areas of mammalian toxicology, residues and ecotoxicology.

In accordance with Article 13(1) of the Regulation, EFSA should adopt a conclusion on whether zoxamide can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

The conclusions laid down in this report were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of zoxamide as a fungicide on wine and table grapes and potatoes, as proposed by the applicant. Full details of the representative uses can be found in Appendix A of this report.

The use of zoxamide according to the representative uses proposed at the European Union (EU) level (southern and northern zone) results in a sufficient fungicidal efficacy against grape downy mildew and potato late blight.

In the section identity, physical chemical properties and analytical methods, data gaps were identified for a method of monitoring for zoxamide in body fluids and tissues and for interlaboratory validation for the monitoring method for the metabolites RH‐141452 and RH‐141455 in root crops.

A data gap was identified for a more detailed assessment of the review of the scientific peer‐reviewed open literature on the active substance and its relevant metabolites for mammalian toxicology, residues and ecotoxicology.

The human health and environmental risk assessments consequent to potential changes in the isomeric ratio could not be finalised.

Concerning the mammalian toxicology, a data gap has been set for providing further information to exclude the toxicological relevance of eight impurities. The batches used in the toxicity studies were concluded as not being representative neither of the old nor of the new technical specifications for the active substance (critical area of concern). Data gaps have been concluded for three metabolites, to submit further data on genotoxicity (RH‐141452 and RH‐150721) and to provide further repeated dose toxicity studies to set reference values (RH‐141452, RH‐141455 and RH‐150721). All exposure estimates related to the uses of the product by operators, workers, bystanders and residents are below the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL), without wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for operators and workers.

Several data gaps were identified in the residue section. Furthermore, the finalisation of the toxicological assessment of metabolites RH‐141455, RH‐141452 and RH‐150721, which are part of the residue definition for risk assessment and monitoring, is pending. Therefore, the consumer risk assessment cannot be finalised.

The data available on environmental fate and behaviour are sufficient to carry out the required environmental exposure assessments at EU level for the representative uses, with the notable exception that information is missing regarding possible change in isomer ratio with time of zoxamide and metabolites RH‐127450 and RH‐163353. The provision of further information on this was identified as a data gap. A data gap was also identified for information on the effect of water treatment processes on the nature of residues potentially present in surface water, when surface water is abstracted for drinking water. This gap leads to the consumer risk assessment from the consumption of drinking water being not finalised for all the representative uses. The soil metabolite RH‐141455 was predicted to have the potential to be present in groundwater above 0.75 μg/L under the geoclimatic conditions represented by 6/7 of the pertinent FOCUS groundwater scenarios for the representative uses on grape vines and 5/9 of the pertinent FOCUS groundwater scenarios for the representative use on potatoes. Overall from these uses, 8/9 FOCUS groundwater scenarios are predicted to have RH‐141455 above 0.75 μg/L. As the available toxicology data were insufficient to set reference values for RH‐141455, the consumer risk assessment from drinking water originating from groundwater could not be completed, resulting in it not being possible to finalise the necessary groundwater relevance assessment for RH‐141455, that is needed when uses would be expected to result in groundwater exposure above the parametric drinking water limit of 0.1 μg/L. This is the case here for all the representative uses assessed. Only for the use on potatoes under conditions represented by the Sevilla FOCUS groundwater scenario, were RH‐141455 annual average recharge concentrations moving below 1 m predicted to be below 0.1 μg/L.

Concerning the ecotoxicology, a data gap was set to provide further information to cover the risk to secondary poisoning for birds and mammals for two metabolites. Data gaps were identified for further information to address the risk to aquatic organisms for zoxamide and its metabolites. It is noted that measures to mitigate the risk to aquatic organisms were identified. Data gaps were identified for further information to address the risk to earthworms for zoxamide and its pertinent metabolites (issue that could not be finalised) and the risk to other soil organisms (i.e. collembolan and predatory mites and soil microorganisms). Additionally, a data gap was set to provide further information to cover the risk to bees. A data gap was as well set to provide EC₁₀ and EC₂₀ for various chronic studies. Finally, a critical area of concern was set as the batches used in the (eco)toxicity studies were not representative of both the old (existing) and the new applicants proposed technical specifications for the active substance.

Background

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/20121 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’) lays down the provisions for the procedure of the renewal of the approval of active substances, submitted under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/20092. This regulates for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) the procedure for organising the consultation of Member States, the applicant(s) and the public on the initial evaluation provided by the rapporteur Member State (RMS) and/or co‐rapporteur Member State (co‐RMS) in the renewal assessment report (RAR), and the organisation of an expert consultation where appropriate.

In accordance with Article 13 of the Regulation, unless formally informed by the European Commission that a conclusion is not necessary, EFSA is required to adopt a conclusion on whether the active substance can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 within 5 months from the end of the period provided for the submission of written comments, subject to an extension of an additional 3 months where additional information is required to be submitted by the applicant(s) in accordance with Article 13(3).

In accordance with Article 1 of the Regulation, the RMS Latvia and co‐RMS France received an application from Gowan Crop Protection Ltd for the renewal of approval of the active substance zoxamide. Complying with Article 8 of the Regulation, the RMS checked the completeness of the dossier and informed the applicant, the co‐RMS (France), the European Commission and EFSA about the admissibility.

The RMS provided its initial evaluation of the dossier on zoxamide in the RAR, which was received by EFSA on 5 August 2016 (Latvia, 2016).

In accordance with Article 12 of the Regulation, EFSA distributed the RAR to the Member States and the applicant, Gowan Crop Protection Ltd, for consultation and comments on 22 September 2016. EFSA also provided comments. In addition, EFSA conducted a public consultation on the RAR. EFSA collated and forwarded all comments received to the European Commission on 23 November 2016. At the same time, the collated comments were forwarded to the RMS for compilation and evaluation in the format of a reporting table. The applicant was invited to respond to the comments in column 3 of the reporting table. The comments and the applicant's response were evaluated by the RMS in column 3.

The need for expert consultation and the necessity for additional information to be submitted by the applicant in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Regulation were considered in a telephone conference between EFSA and the RMS on 9 February 2017. On the basis of the comments received, the applicant's response to the comments and the RMS's evaluation thereof, it was concluded that additional information should be requested from the applicant and that EFSA should conduct an expert consultation in the areas of mammalian toxicology, residues and ecotoxicology.

The outcome of the telephone conference, together with EFSA's further consideration of the comments, is reflected in the conclusions set out in column 4 of the reporting table. All points that were identified as unresolved at the end of the comment evaluation phase and which required further consideration, including those issues to be considered in an expert consultation, were compiled by EFSA in the format of an evaluation table.

The conclusions arising from the consideration by EFSA, and as appropriate by the RMS, of the points identified in the evaluation table, together with the outcome of the expert consultation and the written consultation on the assessment of additional information, where these took place, were reported in the final column of the evaluation table.

A final consultation on the conclusions arising from the peer review of the risk assessment took place with Member States via a written procedure in July–August 2017.

This conclusion report summarises the outcome of the peer review of the risk assessment of the active substance and the representative formulation, evaluated on the basis of the representative uses of zoxamide as a fungicide on wine and table grapes, and potatoes, as proposed by the applicant. A list of the relevant end points for the active substance and the formulation is provided in Appendix A.

In addition, a key supporting document to this conclusion is the peer review report (EFSA, 2017), which is a compilation of the documentation developed to evaluate and address all issues raised in the peer review, from the initial commenting phase to the conclusion. The peer review report comprises the following documents, in which all views expressed during the course of the peer review, including minority views, where applicable, can be found:

• the comments received on the RAR;

• the reporting table (9 February 2017);

• the evaluation table (17 August 2017);

• the reports of the scientific consultation with Member State experts (where relevant);

• the comments received on the assessment of the additional information (where relevant);

• the comments received on the draft EFSA conclusion.

Given the importance of the RAR, including its revisions (Latvia, 2017), and the peer review report, both documents are considered as background documents to this conclusion and thus are made publicly available.

It is recommended that this conclusion report and its background documents would not be accepted to support any registration outside the European Union (EU) for which the applicant has not demonstrated that it has regulatory access to the information on which this conclusion report is based.

The active substance and the formulated product

Zoxamide is the ISO common name for (RS)‐3,5‐dichloro‐N‐(3‐chloro‐1‐ethyl‐1‐methyl‐2‐oxopropyl)‐p‐toluamide (IUPAC).

The representative formulated product for the evaluation was ‘Zoxium 240 SC’, a suspension concentrate in high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) containers, containing 240 g/L of zoxamide pure active substance.

The representative uses evaluated were foliar spray applications for the control of grape downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola) in table and wine grapes, and potato late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in potatoes. Full details of the good agricultural practices (GAPs) can be found in the list of end points in Appendix A.

Data were submitted to conclude that the representative uses of zoxamide proposed at EU level result in a sufficient fungicidal efficacy against grape downy mildew and potato late blight, following the guidance document SANCO/2012/11251‐rev. 4 (European Commission, 2014).

A data gap has been identified for a more detailed assessment of the review of the scientific peer‐reviewed open literature on the active substance and its relevant metabolites, dealing with side effects on health and ecotoxicology and published within the 10 years before the date of submission of the dossier, to be conducted and reported in accordance with EFSA guidance on the submission of scientific peer‐reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (EFSA, 2011). Indeed, the data which are not new or that would not influence any of the endpoints also needed to have been included in the revised RAR, but this was not done.

1. Identity, physical/chemical/technical properties and methods of analysis

The following guidance documents were followed in the production of this conclusion: SANCO/3029/99‐rev. 4 (European Commission, 2000a), SANCO/3030/99‐rev. 4 (European Commission, 2000b), SANCO/10597/2003‐rev. 10.1 (European Commission, 2012), SANCO/825/00‐rev. 8.1 (European Commission, 2010).

In the initial reference specification proposed for the first approval, the minimum purity of the active substance as manufactured was 950 g/kg. A new reference specification has been proposed with minimum purity of the active substance as manufactured of 953 g/kg based on five batch data from industrial scale production. These batch data do not support the initial reference specification. A FAO specification is not available for zoxamide.

The assessment of the data package revealed no issues that need to be included as critical areas of concern with respect to the identity, physical, chemical and technical properties of zoxamide or the representative formulation. The main data regarding the identity of zoxamide and its physical and chemical properties are given in Appendix A.

The methods of analysis for zoxamide did not quantify the stereoisomers separately. For biological systems where the enantiomer ratio might change over time, information on the isomer ratio was not provided by the available methods (see Sections 3, 4 and 5). The methods for the generation of pre‐approval data required for the risk assessment were adequately addressed for residues determined as sum of isomers. Methods of analysis are available for the determination of zoxamide in the technical material and in the representative formulation and for the determination of the respective impurities in the technical material.

Parent zoxamide can be monitored in food and feed of plant origin by the quick, easy, cheap, effective and safe (QuEChERS) method using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) with limits of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg in potato (tuber, chips and flakes), grapes (berries, juice, wine and raisins), lettuce, dry bean and oilseed rape. The residue definition for monitoring for root crops is proposed as the sum of metabolites RH‐141455 and RH‐141452. A validated LC–MS/MS is available for these two metabolites; however, an independent laboratory validation is missing. The LOQ was determined to be 0.01 mg/kg in potato tubers and 0.05 mg/kg in potato chips and flakes for both metabolites. An analytical method for food of animal origin is not proposed due to the fact that the residue definition for animals is currently open (see Section 3).

An adequate LC–MS/MS method is available for monitoring of residues of zoxamide in soil with a LOQ of 0.05 mg/kg. Zoxamide residues can be determined in drinking water and surface water by LC–MS/MS with a LOQ of 0.1 μg/L. Monitoring of zoxamide in air can be done by LC–MS/MS with a LOQ of 90 μg/m³. It should be noted, however, that the residue definitions for the environmental matrices are open (see Appendix A) and additional monitoring methods might be required should new components be included in these residue definitions.

Data gaps were identified for a method for monitoring zoxamide in body fluids and tissues and a fully validated monitoring method for RH‐141455 and RH‐141452 in potatoes and other root crops.

2. Mammalian toxicity

The toxicological profile of the active substance zoxamide and its metabolites was discussed at the Pesticides Peer Review experts' meeting 159 (June 2017) and assessed based on the following guidance documents: SANCO/221/2000‐rev. 10‐final (European Commission, 2003), SANCO/10597/2003‐ rev. 10.1 (European Commission, 2012), Guidance on dermal absorption (EFSA PPR Panel, 2012) and Guidance on the application of the CLP criteria (ECHA, 2015).

To assess the toxicological profile of the active substance, the applicant submitted a complete set of valid toxicity studies. The batches used in the toxicity studies were concluded as not being representative of neither the old nor the new technical specifications for the active substance, leading to a critical area of concern (notably because of two impurities in the new technical specification not covered by toxicological batches). A data gap for providing data to exclude toxicological relevance of eight impurities has been identified. RMS disagrees that new specification is not covered by the toxicological batches.

In the toxicokinetic studies, oral absorption is estimated to be 60%. Zoxamide is widely distributed, without evidence of accumulation, extensively metabolised and rapidly and almost completely eliminated (predominantly via the bile). None of the metabolites observed in the comparative in vitro metabolism study is considered unique to the human material.

In the acute toxicity studies, zoxamide was of low toxicity (orally, dermally or by inhalation) and not a skin irritant. However, it is an eye irritant and a skin sensitiser classified Skin Sens 1.3 The experts did not agree on subcategorisation for skin sensitisation category 1. According to the phototoxicity study, zoxamide is not phototoxic and a photomutagenicity study is not required.

In short‐term toxicity studies, the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) of the 90‐day and 1‐year dog studies were confirmed during the experts' meeting at 50 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day based on liver effects (increased absolute and relative weight). The NOAELs defined in rat and mouse 90‐day studies are higher, 1,509 (highest dose) and 574 mg/kg bw per day based on a reduction in body weight gain and in overall body weight in female mice, respectively.

The majority of the experts agreed that zoxamide is genotoxic in vitro (i.e. aneugenic) and not in vivo.

In the long‐term toxicity studies, the relevant NOAELs are 50 mg/kg bw per day in the 2‐year rat study based on increased liver weight, and 1,021 mg/kg bw per day in the 18‐month mouse study (highest dose tested). The carcinogenic potential of zoxamide was discussed during the experts' meeting: the majority of experts considered thyroid C‐cell adenomas in male rat incidental and the NOAEL for carcinogenicity is thus the highest dose tested. No effects were observed in the 18‐month mouse study. Consequently, zoxamide is considered not carcinogenic in rat and in mouse.

In the two‐generation rat study, the offspring's NOAEL is set at 360 mg/kg bw per day based on reduced weight gain. The parental NOAEL is set at 360 mg/kg bw per day based on reduced bodyweight and liver toxicity effects and the reproductive NOAEL is determined at 1,474 mg/kg bw per day (highest dose tested). There is no evidence of toxicity in the rat or rabbit developmental studies. Therefore, the maternal and developmental NOAELs are 1,000 mg/kg bw per day for rat and rabbit (highest dose tested).

An acute and a repeated neurotoxicity study have been submitted and the NOAELs are 2,000 mg/kg bw and 1,509 mg/kg bw per day, respectively. The substance does not show any immunotoxic potential based on the available data; consequently, further data have not been identified as being needed.

Zoxamide is not classified or proposed to be classified as toxic for reproduction category 2 or carcinogenic category 2, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, and therefore the conditions of the interim provisions of Annex II, Point 3.6.5 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning human health for the consideration of endocrine disrupting properties are not met. With regard to the scientific risk assessment, considering the high dose at which the thyroid effects were seen in the dog studies and the low magnitude of the effect together with the negative outcome in ToxCast/Tox21, the experts agreed that zoxamide is unlikely to have endocrine disrupting potential.

The acceptable daily intake (ADI) is the same as the one set during the first review (European Commission, 2004), i.e. 0.5 mg/kg bw per day based on the 1‐year study in dog and considering an uncertainty factor (UF) of 100. The acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL) is also the same as the one set during the first peer review, i.e. 0.3 mg/kg bw per day based on the 90‐day study in dog and considering a UF of 100 and oral absorption of 60%. The setting of an acute reference dose (ARfD) and an acute AOEL (AAOEL) were considered not needed by the experts.

Based on an in vitro human study with Zoxium 240 SC, the dermal absorption values were determined at 4% for the concentrate formulation and 10% in the spray dilution. All exposure estimates related to the uses of the product by operators, workers, bystanders and residents are below AOEL, without wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for operators and workers.

The toxicity studies were performed with the racemic mixture and no experimental data on the toxicity of the individual isomers is available nor is information on the behaviour of individual isomers in mammals or the environment available (see also Section 3). The human health risk assessment to potential changes in the isomer composition could not be finalised (data gap).

Concerning the metabolites, a data gap is set to complete the genotoxicity package and to provide repeated‐dose toxicity study to determine the consumer risk for RH‐141452 and RH‐150721 (that has enantiomer constituents). The metabolite RH‐141455 was considered unlikely to be genotoxic. However, since the levels in groundwater exceed 0.75 μg/L (see Section 4), a consumer risk assessment is needed and thus further toxicological data such as repeated dose toxicity study is needed to set reference values for the metabolite leading to an issue that could not be finalised (data gap).

3. Residues

The assessment in the residue section is based on the OECD guidance document on overview of residue chemistry studies (OECD, 2009), the OECD publication on MRL calculations (OECD, 2011), the European Commission guideline document on MRL setting (European Commission, 2011), the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) recommendations on livestock burden calculations (JMPR, 2004, 2007) and Food and Agriculture Organization manual on Submission and evaluation of pesticide residue data for the estimation of maximum residue levels in food and feed (FAO, 2009).

As zoxamide is a racemate, all metabolites containing the chiral carbon atom may feature two enantiomers. Chiral analysis of residues was not conducted, and therefore, all residue levels reported are for the sum of enantiomers of the respective compounds while the actual isomer composition of residues of parent and metabolites containing the chiral carbon atom is unknown.

The metabolism in primary crops was investigated after foliar spray application in the categories fruit (grape, tomato, cucumber), pulses and oilseeds (pea) and root crops (potato) using zoxamide ¹⁴C‐labelled in the phenyl ring. In fruits, zoxamide was the main component of the total radioactive residue (TRR) with 48% in tomato and 98% in both cucumber and grape. The remaining TRR was extensively metabolised to a range of metabolites representing less than 10% TRR in these commodities, except for RH‐141452 which was observed only in tomato and constituted with 15% TRR (0.044 mg/kg) and 11% (0.056 mg/kg) a major metabolite in green and red tomatoes, respectively. Zoxamide was also the main component in peas. While zoxamide remained with more than 90% the predominant compound in straw and pods, in fresh and dried peas, the residue of zoxamide decreased to 18% and 12%, respectively, and lead to incorporation of radioactivity in the natural compounds. In contrast to this, in potatoes two major metabolites RH‐141452 and RH‐141455 were observed at 21% and 39%, respectively. Parent zoxamide was not found in potato tubers.

The metabolic pathways in the four primary crop groups were adequately elucidated but a comparable pathway could not be confirmed yet. Because of outstanding toxicological issues on the metabolites RH‐141452 and RH‐141455 (see Section 2), an overall residue definition (RD) for plants cannot be set. For risk assessment (RA), it is therefore proposed to set provisional residue definitions for fruit crops as sum of zoxamide and RH‐141452, for pulses and oilseeds zoxamide only, and for root crops, the sum of metabolites RH‐141455 and RH‐141452. The residue definition for monitoring is proposed for fruit crops and pulses and oilseed as zoxamide given that zoxamide is a good marker for these crop groups. For the root crops, the sum of metabolites RH‐141455 and RH‐141452 is proposed.

In a rotational crop study, ¹⁴C‐labelled zoxamide was applied directly to bare soil at a rate of 4 × 0.50 kg/ha equivalent to 2.2 N rate for potatoes. Zoxamide was not detected in any of the analysed plant parts, instead several metabolites were observed amongst which RH‐141452 was identified mainly in the immature parts of the crops (12% TRR in immature mustard leaves, 15% TRR in immature radish tops, 23.5% TRR in immature soybean forage) and to a lower extent in mature crops (3% TRR in mustard leaf, 7% TRR in radish tops, not detected in soybean seeds). However, it remains unclear whether degradation of zoxamide occurred in soil with the preferential plant uptake of metabolites or whether the degradation of zoxamide is part of the metabolism in plants. In view of the representative uses, it can be concluded that significant individual residue compounds are unlikely to be present in rotational crops while for a more critical use pattern in terms of application rate the issue may have to be reconsidered for future uses.

A radiolabelled vinification study was provided as a surrogate analysing for zoxamide, RH‐150721 (sum of isomers) being the major one in the processed commodity, and RH‐139432. Data from this study give an indication that a significant degradation will occur to RH‐150721 (sum of isomers) for which toxicological data are needed (see Section 2). However, the nature of residue under the standard hydrolysis conditions at processing is not addressed with this study for the whole range of full processes and a new hydrolysis study performed in accordance with the current recommendations is requested (data gap).

Storage stability was sufficiently demonstrated for zoxamide and its metabolites in grapes (berries, juice, wine, raisins) and potato tubers.

The available residue trials on potato were only partly supported by sufficient storage stability data. In order to judge the validity of the remaining trials, a consistent reporting of the application timing according to growth stages of mono‐ and dicotyledonous plants (BBCH) scale for the potato plant in accordance with the requested GAPs (BBCH 20–80) is necessary (data gap). Furthermore, sufficient field trials in potatoes in northern Europe (NEU) and southern Europe (SEU) supporting the critical GAP for the full RD for RA are required (data gap). Field trials for grapes with mixed GAPs for NEU and SEU were presented. The merging of two different GAPs is not acceptable. Moreover, the trials were under dosed and the proportionality concept cannot be applied since the number of applications deviates from the critical GAP. For the SEU GAP on grapes, there are only two GAP‐compliant residue trials. It is also noted that provisional RD for RA contains also the metabolite RH‐141452 and results for this metabolite in grapes was not available. A sufficient number of residue trials for grapes conforming to the GAP analysing for the full RD were not available (data gap). Currently, the number of residue trials in potato and grapes is insufficient to propose MRLs for these crops.

Calculation of the livestock dietary burden considering residues in potato triggered poultry and ruminants metabolism studies. This calculation should be considered as provisional based on the outstanding data on the toxicity of these compounds (RH‐141452 and RH‐141455) and the nature of residues in processed commodities. However, a poultry metabolism study was not presented (data gap) but triggered consequent to a provisional dietary intake calculation. Only a goat metabolism study with ¹⁴C–labelled zoxamide is available. Zoxamide was not detected in the goat study and the metabolites RH‐141452 and RH‐141455 were observed as terminal compounds of a minor metabolic pathway. It should be noted that from the potato metabolism study it is evident that animals will be mainly exposed to RH‐141452 and RH‐141455, and therefore, the metabolic picture depicted with zoxamide cannot be quantitatively representative for the fate of RH‐141452 and RH‐141455 in ruminants. The metabolites RH‐141288 (sum of isomers) and RH‐127450 (sum of isomers) were found in higher concentrations in fat than in muscle leading to the assumption that zoxamide residues can be considered as fat soluble. In order to finally conclude on the fat‐solubility of zoxamide residues, log P_o/w for RH‐141288 and RH‐127450, and an assessment regarding their potential fat‐solubility according to FAO (2009) should be provided (data gap). For ruminants, metabolism is addressed and can be considered consistent with rat. For the time being and considering the outstanding toxicological data on the metabolites RH‐141452 and RH‐141455 and the open question on the fat solubility of the residues, the derivation of the RD for ruminant matrices is not possible.

Information on residue levels in pollen and in bee products for human consumption was not presented (data gap).

In the light of several data gaps identified and considering that the residue definition is pending upon information on the toxicity profile of metabolites RH‐141452, RH‐141455 and RH‐150721, a dietary consumer exposure and subsequent risk assessment could not be completed. Also, the consumer risk assessment from potential changes in the isomer composition could not be finalised (data gap). Further, for metabolite RH‐141455 it is not possible to complete a consumer risk assessment from the consumption of potentially contaminated groundwater, when used as drinking water, which is needed to conclude on the relevance, or not, of this metabolite for groundwater (see Sections 2 and 4).

4. Environmental fate and behaviour

Readers are referred to Sections 1, 2 and 3 for the discussion that the methods of analysis employed did not enable the separate quantification of the enantiomers of compounds that retained a chiral centre. This was also the case in the available environmental fate and behaviour investigations. The rates of dissipation and degradation in the environmental matrices investigated were estimated using FOCUS (2006) kinetics guidance. In soil laboratory incubations under aerobic conditions in the dark, zoxamide (sum of isomers) exhibited low to moderate persistence, forming the major (> 10% applied radioactivity (AR)) metabolites RH‐127450, RH‐163353 (both sum of isomers and max. 15% AR, they exhibited low to moderate persistence), RH‐24549 (max. 34% AR, which exhibited low persistence) and the minor (> 5% AR triggering further assessment) metabolite RH‐141455 (max. 8% AR, which exhibited moderate to medium persistence). Mineralisation of the phenyl ring ¹⁴C radiolabel to carbon dioxide accounted for 34–58% AR after 120–122 days. The formation of unextractable residues (not extracted by acidified acetonitrile followed by dichloromethane) for this radiolabel accounted for 24–38% AR after 120–122 days. In anaerobic soil incubations, zoxamide (sum of isomers) exhibited low persistence forming the major metabolites RH‐127450 (sum of isomers, max. 30% AR), RH‐24549 (max. 24% AR) and the novel metabolites compared to aerobic conditions RH‐141288 (sum of isomers, max. 5.5% AR) and unidentified M25 (max. 6.3% AR and M15 (Max. 6.6% AR). Anaerobic soil conditions would not be expected in relation to the representative uses being assessed. Zoxamide exhibited low mobility in soil. RH‐127450 exhibited medium to low mobility, RH‐24549 exhibited high to medium mobility with this property being pH dependent, RH‐163353 exhibited high mobility and RH‐141455 exhibited very high soil mobility.

In laboratory incubations in dark aerobic natural sediment water systems, zoxamide (sum of isomers) exhibited low persistence, forming the major metabolites RH‐127450 (sum of isomers, max. 13% AR in water and 22% AR in sediment, exhibiting high persistence) and RH‐163353 (sum of isomers, max. 16% AR in water and 7.4% in sediment). The unextractable sediment fraction (not extracted by acidified acetonitrile) was a sink for the phenyl ring ¹⁴C radiolabel, accounting for 37–40% AR at study end (106 days). Mineralisation of this radiolabel accounted for 20–22% AR at the end of the study. The rate of decline of zoxamide in a laboratory sterile aqueous photolysis experiment was comparable to that which occurred in the aerobic sediment water incubations, but was faster than in the dark sterile control. The major photolysis transformation product was RH‐139432 (which accounted for 42% AR at study end, 30 days). The necessary surface water and sediment exposure assessments (predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) calculations) were carried out for the metabolites RH‐127450, RH‐24549, RH‐163353, RH‐141455 and RH‐139432, using the FOCUS (2001) step 1 and step 2 approach (version 2.1 of the Steps 1‐2 in FOCUS calculator), although the formation fractions from the water sediment system used in calculations were higher than needed. FOCUS step 3 or 4 calculations were not provided for these metabolites but would have utility in refining the aquatic risk assessment for the metabolites, which have been identified as data gaps (see Section 5). For the active substance zoxamide, appropriate step 3 (FOCUS, 2001) and step 4 calculations were available.4 The step 4 calculations appropriately followed the FOCUS (2007) guidance, with no‐spray drift buffer zones of up to 20 m being implemented for the drainage scenarios (representing a 68–93% spray drift reduction), and combined no‐spray buffer zones with vegetative buffer strips of up to 20 m (reducing solute flux in run‐off by 80% and erosion runoff of mass adsorbed to soil by 95%) being implemented for the run‐off scenarios. The SWAN tool (version 3.0.0) was appropriately used to implement these mitigation measures in the simulations. However, risk managers and others may wish to note that whilst run‐off mitigation is included in the step 4 calculations available, the FOCUS (2007) report acknowledges that for substances with K_Foc < 2,000 mL/g (i.e. zoxamide), the general applicability and effectiveness of run‐off mitigation measures had been less clearly demonstrated in the available scientific literature, than for more strongly adsorbed compounds.

The necessary groundwater exposure assessments were appropriately carried out using FOCUS (2009) scenarios and the models PEARL 4.4.4 and PELMO 5.5.3.4 The potential for groundwater exposure from the representative uses by zoxamide, RH‐127450, RH‐24549 and RH‐163353, above the parametric drinking water limit of 0.1 μg/L was concluded to be low in geoclimatic situations that are represented by all nine FOCUS groundwater scenarios. For the metabolite RH‐141455, the limit of 0.1 μg/L was predicted to be exceeded in annual average recharge concentrations moving below 1 m in geoclimatic situations represented by eight out of nine FOCUS groundwater scenarios (0.142–8.369 μg/L) from the use on potatoes (no exceedance at Sevilla) and all seven FOCUS groundwater scenarios (0.659–5.493 μg/L) from the use on grape vines. The available data on mammalian toxicology of RH‐141455 are insufficient to set reference values (i.e. an ADI, see Section 2). So as RH‐141455 has the potential to be in groundwater at > 0.75 μg/L (indicated to occur for eight out of the nine pertinent FOCUS groundwater scenarios when considering both representative uses), the groundwater non relevance assessment cannot be finalised as it is not possible to complete the necessary consumer risk assessment from the consumption of potentially contaminated groundwater, when used as drinking water.

The applicant did not provide appropriate information to address the effect of water treatments processes on the nature of the residues that might be present in surface water and groundwater, when surface water or groundwater are abstracted for drinking water. This has led to the identification of a data gap (see Section 7) and results in the consumer risk assessment not being finalised (see Section 9).

The PEC in soil, surface water, sediment and groundwater covering the representative uses assessed can be found in Appendix A of this conclusion. As the available risk assessments to soil dwelling and aquatic organisms did not account for the uncertainty in the isomer ratios of zoxamide, RH‐127450 and RH‐163353 (see Section 5) the fact that this was outstanding was identified as a data gap (see Section 7).

5. Ecotoxicology

The risk assessment was based on the following documents: European Commission (2002a,b), SETAC (2001), EFSA (2009), EFSA PPR Panel (2013) and EFSA (2013). According to Regulation (EU) No 283/2013, data should be provided regarding the acute and chronic toxicity to honeybees and data to address the development of honeybee brood and larvae. As the European Commission (2002a) does not provide a risk assessment scheme which is able to use the chronic toxicity data for adult honeybees and the honeybee brood, when performing the risk assessment according to European Commission (2002a), the risk to adult honeybees from chronic toxicity and the risk to bee brood could not be finalised due to the lack of a risk assessment scheme. Therefore, the EFSA (2013) was used for risk assessment in order to reach a conclusion for the representative uses.

Some aspects of the risk assessment of zoxamide were discussed at the Pesticides Peer Review Meeting 160 (June 2017).

The batches used in the ecotoxicity studies were concluded as not being representative of neither the old nor the new technical specifications for the active substance, leading to a critical area of concern. The RMS disagrees that new specification is not covered by the (eco)toxicological batches (see also Section 2).

It is noted that the available risk assessments to aquatic and soil organisms did not account for the uncertainty in the isomer ratios of zoxamide, RH‐127450 and RH‐163353 (see Section 5); the fact that this was outstanding was identified as a data gap (see Section 7).

A low acute and long‐term risk to birds and low acute risk to wild mammals was concluded for zoxamide and its pertinent metabolites for all the routes of exposures and representative uses with the exception of metabolites RH‐24549 for which a high risk could not be excluded for earthworms eating birds for the use on potatoes only and RH‐127450 for which a high risk could not be excluded for earthworms eating mammals for the use on potatoes only (data gap). The endpoint to be used in the long‐term risk assessment for wild mammals was discussed at the Pesticides Peer Review Meeting 160. By using the agreed endpoint in the risk assessment, a low risk to wild mammals was concluded for zoxamide and its pertinent metabolites for all the routes of exposures and representative uses.

Concerning the aquatic organisms, a low acute risk to fish for zoxamide was concluded for all the representative uses (provided that mitigation measures are implemented, see Section 8). During the Pesticides Peer Review Meeting 160, the experts did not agree on the proposed refinements for the chronic risk assessment to fish (use of geomean). Thus, a high risk was identified for zoxamide (data gap) for several FOCUS step 4 scenarios, i.e. for the representative use on potato (2/6) and in grapevines (2/5), provided that mitigation measures are applied for the remaining scenarios (see Section 8). A low acute risk to fish was concluded for the metabolite RH‐24549. When fish studies for the metabolites were not provided, the risk assessment was performed by assuming the metabolite as ten times more toxic than the substance. On the basis of this approach, a high acute risk to fish could not be excluded for RH‐127450; RH‐163353 and RH‐141455 for all FOCUS step 2 scenarios and for all uses (data gaps). A low risk to fish was concluded for metabolite RH‐139432.

A low acute risk on aquatic invertebrates was concluded for zoxamide for all the representative uses using a geomean EC₅₀, provided that mitigation measures are implemented (FOCUS step 4) (see Section 8). During the Pesticides Peer Review Meeting 160, the experts did not agree on the geometric mean of the endpoints for the chronic risk assessment to aquatic invertebrates. On the basis of the standard endpoint, a high chronic risk was identified (data gap) for FOCUS step 4 scenarios for the representative use on potato for FOCUS scenario D6 (1/5) providing that mitigation measures are applied for the remaining scenarios (see Section 8). The representative uses on grapevines showed low risk for all FOCUS step 4 scenarios. The risk assessment to aquatic invertebrates was conducted for the relevant metabolites assuming them as ten times more toxic than the active substance for the most sensitive species. A high risk could not be excluded for all the relevant aquatic metabolites (data gap).

The majority of the ecotoxicological studies on algae with zoxamide and several of its pertinent metabolites were not considered as valid since a detailed assessment of the validity criteria was not provided. Thus, a conclusion on the risk to algae of zoxamide and metabolites RH‐163353; RH‐ 139432 and RH‐127450 could not be drawn (data gap). However, based on studies which were considered as valid, a low risk was concluded for the metabolites RH‐24549 and RH‐141455.

Suitable acute (oral and contact) studies on honeybees were available for the active substance and the representative formulations. A chronic study performed with the representative formulation was available. A risk assessment was provided by the RMS by using this data, according to EFSA (2013). A low risk was concluded for all the representative uses and exposure routes. A standard laboratory study on larvae was not available (data gap). A brood feeding study in line with Oomen et al. (1992) was provided, however, this study was not considered as sufficient to address the risk to honeybees' larvae since it presents shortcomings according to EFSA (2013). A risk assessment via exposure to contaminated surface water was not performed by the RMS (data gap). A suitable assessment for accumulative effects was not available. Information regarding metabolites occurring in pollen and nectar was not available (data gap). No data were available for bumblebees and solitary bees. No information was available regarding potential sublethal effects, e.g. on the hypopharyngeal gland (HPG) (data gap).

A low risk to non‐target arthropods was concluded for all the representative uses.

Valid earthworm chronic toxicity studies were not available for zoxamide and its pertinent metabolites (data gap) with the exception of RH‐141455. For this metabolite, a low risk was concluded. Toxicity data on soil macro‐organisms other than earthworms were not available; however, since a low risk to non‐target arthropods was concluded, data on soil macro‐organisms other than earthworms are not needed for zoxamide. However, no data were provided for collembolan and predatory mites for the metabolites RH‐163353 and RH‐141455 despite their persistence in soil (DT₉₀ > 100 days) (data gap).

A low risk to soil microorganisms was also concluded for zoxamide and metabolite RH‐141455. No data were provided for the remaining metabolites (RH‐24549, RH‐127450 and RH‐163353) (data gap).

A low risk was also concluded for non‐target terrestrial plants and biological methods of sewage treatment.

With regard to the endocrine disruption potential, as discussed in Section 2, it is unlikely that zoxamide has endocrine disrupting properties in mammals. No firm conclusion could be drawn regarding fish and birds.

6. Overview of the risk assessment of compounds listed in residue definitions triggering assessment of effects data for the environmental compartments (Tables 1, 2, 3–4)

Table 1.

Soil

Compound (name and/or code)	Persistence	Ecotoxicology
Zoxamide (as sum of isomers)	Low to moderate persistence Single first‐order or biphasic kinetics DT50 2–13.6 days (DT90 6.6–115 days, 20°C 50% MWHC or 25°C 75% FC 2 soil moisture)	Data gap
RH‐127450 (as sum of isomers)	Low to moderate persistence Single first‐order DT50 2–14.9 days (20°C 50% MWHC)	Data gap
RH‐24549	Low persistence Single first‐order DT50 3.1–8.5 days (20°C 50% MWHC)	Data gap
RH‐163353 (as sum of isomers)	Low to moderate persistence Single first‐order DT50 5.6–49.7 days (20°C 50% MWHC)	Data gap
RH‐141455	Moderate to medium persistence Single first‐order DT50 11.1–88.5 days (20°C 50% MWHC)	Low risk

DT₉₀: period required for 90% dissipation; DT₅₀: period required for 50% dissipation; MWHC: maximum water‐holding capacity.

Table 2.

Groundwater

Compound (name and/or code)	Mobility in soil	> 0.1 μg/L at 1 m depth for the representative usesa	Pesticidal activity	Toxicological relevance
Zoxamide	Low mobility KFoc 815–1,431 mL/g	No	Yes	Yes
RH‐127450	Medium to low mobility KFoc 404–1,156 mL/g	No	Assessment not triggered	No
RH‐24549	High to medium mobility KFoc 91–307 mL/g pH dependent	No	Assessment not triggered	No
RH‐163353	High mobility KFoc 50–79 mL/g	No	Assessment not triggered	No
RH‐141455	Very high mobility Kdoc 2–3 mL/g	Yes, at all 9 FOCUS groundwater scenarios 0.142–8.369 μg/L Concentrations indicated to be > 0.75 μg/L at 8/9 FOCUS scenarios	No	No genotoxic potential Reference values for consumer risk assessment could not be derived

K_Foc: Freundlich organic carbon adsorption coefficient.

^aFOCUS scenarios or a relevant lysimeter.

Table 3.

Surface water and sediment

Compound (name and/or code)	Ecotoxicology
Zoxamide (sum of isomers)	Potatoes: high risk for 2/6 scenarios Grapevines (late application): high risk for 2/5 scenarios
RH‐127450 (sum of isomers)	Data gap
RH‐24549	Data gap
RH‐163353 (sum of isomers)	Data gap
RH‐141455	Data gap
RH‐139432	Data gap

Table 4.

Air

Compound (name and/or code)	Toxicology
Zoxamide	Rat LC50 inhalation > 5.3 mg/L air per 4 h (nose only)

LC₅₀: lethal concentration, median.

7. Data gaps

This is a list of data gaps identified during the peer review process, including those areas in which a study may have been made available during the peer review process but not considered for procedural reasons (without prejudice to the provisions of Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning information on potentially harmful effects).

• A data gap has been identified for a more detailed assessment of the review of the scientific peer‐reviewed open literature on the active substance and its relevant metabolites, dealing with side effects on health and ecotoxicology and published within the 10 years before the date of submission of the dossier, to be conducted and reported in accordance with EFSA guidance on the submission of scientific peer‐reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Indeed, the data which are not new or that would not influence any of the endpoints also needed to have been included in the revised RAR, this was not done. (EFSA, 2011; relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Sections 2, 3 and 5).

• An analytical method for monitoring zoxamide in body fluids and tissues (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 1).

• A fully validated monitoring method for RH‐141455 and RH‐141452 in potatoes (relevant for the representative uses in potato; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 1).

• The batches used in the toxicity studies were concluded as not being representative of neither the old nor the new technical specifications for the active substance. Data to exclude toxicological relevance of eight impurities should be provided (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 2).

• Further genotoxic data are needed for metabolites RH‐141452 and RH‐150721, and further repeated dose toxicity studies in order to set reference values for RH‐141452, RH‐141455 and RH‐150721 were not available (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 2).

• Further data would be needed to address the issue whether or not the isomers have different toxicity and whether there is an impact of changes of the isomer composition on the non‐dietary risk assessment (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 2).

• The nature of residues for zoxamide including the nature of RH‐141455 and RH‐141452 under standard hydrolysis conditions representative of pasteurisation, baking/brewing/cooking, sterilisation is required (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 3).

• A consistent reporting of the growth stage at application time according to BBCH scale for the potato plant in accordance with requested GAP (BBCH 20–80) shall be provided to allow the assessment of the field trials (relevant for representative uses in potato; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 3).

• Sufficient field trials in potatoes in NEU and SEU supporting the critical GAP for the full residue definition for RA are required (relevant for representative uses in potato; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 3).

• Sufficient number of GAP conform residue trials for grapes for all zones in line for the RD for RA and monitoring (relevant for representative uses in grapes; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 3).

• A poultry metabolism study is required (relevant for representative uses in potato; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 3).

• Log P_o/w for RH‐141288 and RH‐127450 and an assessment regarding their potential fat‐solubility according to FAO (2009) should be provided (relevant for representative uses in potato; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 3).

• Data or information against the data requirement on residue levels in pollen and in bee products for human consumption resulting from residues taken up by honeybees from crops at blossom (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 3).

• Finalisation of the residue definitions and a dietary exposure assessments should be performed that need to account for potential changes in the isomer ratio of zoxamide and its metabolites that contain a chiral centre (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 3).

• Information was not available regarding the impact of potential changing stereoisomer ratios on the available environmental risk assessments for the zoxamide (racemate) and its metabolites RH‐127450 and RH‐163353 that retain the chiral carbon (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; the applicant indicated a study was ongoing and was expected to be completed in June 2017; see Sections 4 and 5).

• Information to address the effect of water treatment processes on the nature of residues present in surface water and groundwater, when surface water or groundwater are abstracted for drinking water was not available. Probably in the first instance, a consideration of the processes of ozonation and chlorination would appear appropriate. If an argumentation is made that concentration at the point of abstraction for drinking water purposes will be low, this argumentation should cover metabolites predicted to be in groundwater and surface water, as well as the active substance. Should this consideration indicate that novel compounds might be expected to be formed from water treatment, the risk to human or animal health through the consumption of drinking water containing them should be addressed (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 4).

• Further data are needed to address the risk to earthworms eating birds for the metabolite RH‐24549 and the risk to earthworms eating mammals for metabolite RH‐127450 (relevant for the representative uses on potatoes; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further data or refinements (exposure and/or effects) are needed to cover the chronic risk of zoxamide to fish for FOCUS scenarios R1 and D6 for the use on potatoes and R3 and R4 for the use on grapes (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Sections 4 and 5).

• Further data or refinement (exposure and/or effects) for the acute risk assessment of fish for the metabolites RH‐127450, RH‐163353 and RH‐141455 (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Sections 4 and 5).

• Further data or refinement (exposure and/or effects) is needed to cover the chronic risk of zoxamide to aquatic invertebrates for FOCUS scenario D6 (relevant for the application on potatoes; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Sections 4 and 5).

• Further data or refinement on aquatic invertebrates (Mysidopsis bahia) are needed to cover the risk for the metabolites RH‐127450, RH‐24549, RH‐163353, RH‐141455 and RH‐139432 (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further algae studies following the latest OECD 201 guideline are needed or further detailed information on all validity criteria requested by the latest OECD 201 guideline from the studies provided in the RAR for zoxamide, RH‐127450 and RH‐163353 (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further data are needed to cover the risk assessment for exposure via contaminated surface water to bees (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further data are needed to cover the risk from metabolites occurring in pollen and nectar (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further information to address the risk to bee larvae (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further data are needed to cover the risk to sublethal effects e.g. on the HPG (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further data are needed for the chronic risk assessment to earthworm of the active substance and the metabolites RH‐127450, RH‐24549, RH‐163353 (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further data are needed to address the risk to soil macro‐organisms other than earthworms for the metabolites RH‐163353 and RH‐141455 (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further data to address the risk to soil microorganisms for metabolites RH‐127450, RH‐24549, RH‐163353 (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

• Further data (EC₁₀ and EC₂₀) are needed for the soil organism studies as required and to better assess the toxicity of zoxamide and metabolite RH‐141455 in ecotoxicity tests (relevant for all representative uses evaluated; submission date proposed by the applicant: unknown; see Section 5).

8. Particular conditions proposed to be taken into account to manage the risks identified

• For the use on potatoes, in order to mitigate the acute and chronic risk to aquatic organisms (except algae) for FOCUS scenarios step 4 (D3, D4 and R2), mitigation measures such as 10 m non‐spray buffer zone are needed. Additionally FOCUS scenario R3, 10 m non‐spray buffer zone and 10 m vegetated buffer strip is needed (see Section 5). Additional mitigation measures might be needed pending on the data gaps identified for algae and the possible changes in isomer ratio in the environment (see Section 4).

• For the use on grapevine (late application) in order to mitigate the acute and chronic risk to aquatic organisms (except algae) for FOCUS scenarios step 4 (D6, R1 and R2) mitigation measures such 20 m non‐spray buffer zone and 20 m vegetated buffer strip is needed (see Section 5). Additional mitigation measures might be needed pending on the data gaps identified for algae and the possible changes in isomer ratio in the environment (see Section 4).

9. Concerns

9.1. Issues that could not be finalised

An issue is listed as ‘could not be finalised’ if there is not enough information available to perform an assessment, even at the lowest tier level, for the representative uses in line with the uniform principles in accordance with Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and as set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/20115 and if the issue is of such importance that it could, when finalised, become a concern (which would also be listed as a critical area of concern if it is of relevance to all representative uses).

An issue is also listed as ‘could not be finalised’ if the available information is considered insufficient to conclude on whether the active substance can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

• 1The groundwater relevance assessment for groundwater metabolite RH‐141455 predicted to be in annual average recharge leaving the top 1 m soil layer at > 0.75 μg/L could not be finalised, while the consumer risk assessment from drinking water originating from groundwater cannot be completed, as the available data are insufficient to set a reference value to complete the consumer risk assessment (see Sections 2 and 4).
• 2The human health and environmental risk assessment consequent to potential changes in the isomer composition for zoxamide and metabolites RH‐127450, RH‐163353, (RH‐150721 human health only)] could not be finalised (see Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5).
• 3The consumer risk assessment could not be finalised due to a number of data gaps that likely have an impact on the assessment of residue levels and due to the pending toxicological evaluation of metabolites which are included in the residue definition for risk assessment and monitoring (see Section 3).
• 4The consumer risk assessment from the consumption of drinking water could not be finalised, while satisfactory information was not available to address the effect of water treatment processes on the nature of the residues that might be present in surface water and groundwater, when surface water or groundwater are abstracted for drinking water (see Section 4).
• 5The chronic risk to earthworms could not be finalised for the active substance and all relevant soil metabolites except RH‐141455 (Section 5).

9.2. Critical areas of concern

An issue is listed as a critical area of concern if there is enough information available to perform an assessment for the representative uses in line with the uniform principles in accordance with Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and as set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/2011, and if this assessment does not permit the conclusion that, for at least one of the representative uses, it may be expected that a plant protection product containing the active substance will not have any harmful effect on human or animal health or on groundwater, or any unacceptable influence on the environment.

An issue is also listed as a critical area of concern if the assessment at a higher tier level could not be finalised due to lack of information, and if the assessment performed at a lower tier level does not permit the conclusion that, for at least one of the representative uses, it may be expected that a plant protection product containing the active substance will not have any harmful effect on human or animal health or on groundwater, or any unacceptable influence on the environment.

An issue is also listed as a critical area of concern if, in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge using guidance documents available at the time of application, the active substance is not expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

• 6The batches used in the (eco)toxicity studies were concluded as not being representative of both the old (existing) and the new applicants proposed technical specifications for the active substance (see Sections 2 and 5).

9.3. Overview of the concerns identified for each representative use considered

(If a particular condition proposed to be taken into account to manage an identified risk, as listed in Section 8, has been evaluated as being effective, then ‘risk identified’ is not indicated in Table 5.)

Table 5.

Overview of concerns

Representative use		Table and wine grapes	Potatoes
Operator risk	Risk identified
	Assessment not finalised	X2	X2
Worker risk	Risk identified
	Assessment not finalised	X2	X2
Resident/bystander risk	Risk identified
	Assessment not finalised	X2	X2
Consumer risk	Risk identified
	Assessment not finalised	X2,3,4	X2,3,4
Risk to wild non‐target terrestrial vertebrates	Risk identified
	Assessment not finalised
Risk to wild non‐target terrestrial organisms other than vertebrates	Risk identified
	Assessment not finalised	X2,5	X2,5
Risk to aquatic organisms	Risk identified	2/5 FOCUS scenarios	2/6 FOCUS scenarios
	Assessment not finalised	X2	X2
Groundwater exposure to active substance	Legal parametric value breached
	Assessment not finalised
Groundwater exposure to metabolites	Legal parametric value breached
	Parametric value of 10 µg/La breached
	Assessment not finalised	X1	8/9 FOCUS scenarios1

Columns are grey if no safe use can be identified. The superscript numbers relate to the numbered points indicated in Section .9.1 Where there is no superscript number, see Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for further information.

^aValue for non‐relevant metabolites prescribed in SANCO/221/2000‐rev. 10 final, European Commission, 2003.

All columns are grey, as the batches used in the (eco)toxicity studies were concluded as not being representative of neither the old nor the new technical specifications for the active substance, leading to a critical area of concern (notably because of two impurities in the new technical specification not covered by toxicological batches).

Abbreviations

a.s.

active substance

AAOEL

acute acceptable operator exposure level

ADI

acceptable daily intake

AOEL

acceptable operator exposure level

AR

applied radioactivity

ARfD

acute reference dose

BBCH

growth stages of mono‐ and dicotyledonous plants

bw

body weight

DAR

draft assessment report

DT₅₀

period required for 50% dissipation (define method of estimation)

DT₉₀

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

EC₅₀

effective concentration

ECHA

European Chemicals Agency

EEC

European Economic Community

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FOCUS

Forum for the Co‐ordination of Pesticide Fate Models and their Use

GAP

Good Agricultural Practice

GC‐FID

gas chromatography with flame ionisation detector

HDPE

high‐density polyethylene

HPG

hypopharyngeal glands

HPLC

high‐pressure liquid chromatography or high‐performance liquid chromatography

ILV

independent laboratory validation

ISO

International Organization for Standardization

IUPAC

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

JMPR

Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues (Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues)

K_doc

organic carbon linear adsorption coefficient

K_Foc

Freundlich organic carbon adsorption coefficient

LC₅₀

lethal concentration, median

LC–MS/MS

liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOQ

limit of quantification

MRL

maximum residue level

MWHC

maximum water‐holding capacity

NEU

northern Europe

NOAEL

no observed adverse effect level

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development

PEC

predicted environmental concentration

PPE

personal protective equipment

QuEChERS

quick, easy, cheap, effective and safe method

RA

risk assessment

RAR

Renewal Assessment Report

RD

residue definition

RMS

rapporteur Member State

SC

suspension concentrate

SEU

southern Europe

SMILES

simplified molecular‐input line‐entry system

TRR

total radioactive residue

UF

uncertainty factor

WHO

World Health Organization

Appendix A – List of end points for the active substance and the representative formulation

Appendix A can be found in the online version of this output (‘Supporting information’ section): https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4980

Appendix B – Used compound codes

Code/trivial namea	IUPAC name/SMILES notation	Structural formula
RH‐24549	3,5‐dichloro‐4‐methylbenzoic acid Clc1cc(cc(Cl)c1C)C(=O)O
RH‐127450	(RS)‐3,5‐dichloro‐4‐methyl‐N‐(3‐methyl‐2‐oxopentan‐3‐yl)benzamide Clc1cc(cc(Cl)c1C)C(=O)NC(C)(CC)C(C)=O
RH‐139432	3,5‐dichloro‐4‐methylbenzamide Clc1cc(cc(Cl)c1C)C(N)=O
RH‐141452	3,5‐dichloro‐4‐(hydroxymethyl)benzoic acid OCc1c(Cl)cc(cc1Cl)C(=O)O
RH‐141455	2,6‐dichloroterephthalic acid OC(=O)c1c(Cl)cc(cc1Cl)C(=O)O
RH‐141288	(RS)‐3,5‐dichloro‐N‐(1‐hydroxy‐3‐methyl‐2‐oxopentan‐3‐yl)‐4‐methylbenzamide Clc1cc(cc(Cl)c1C)C(=O)NC(C)(CC)C(=O)CO
RH‐150721	(3RS)‐3‐amino‐3‐methyl‐2‐oxopentyl 3,5‐dichloro‐4‐methylbenzoate Clc1cc(cc(Cl)c1C)C(=O)OCC(=O)C(C)(N)CC
RH‐163353	(3RS)‐3‐(3,5‐Dichloro‐4‐methylbenzamido)‐3‐methyl‐2‐oxopentanoic acid Clc1cc(cc(Cl)c1C)C(=O)NC(C)(CC)C(=O)C(=O)O

SMILES: simplified molecular‐input line‐entry system.

^aThe compound name in bold is the name used in the conclusion.

Supporting information

List of end points for the active substance and the representative formulation

Suggested citation: EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , Arena M, Auteri D, Barmaz S, Bellisai G, Brancato A, Brocca D, Bura L, Byers H, Chiusolo A, Court Marques D, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Maglie M, Egsmose M, Erdos Z, Fait G, Ferreira L, Goumenou M, Greco L, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Leuschner R, Lythgo C, Magrans JO, Medina P, Miron I, Molnar T, Nougadere A, Padovani L, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Sacchi A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Stanek A, Streissl F, Sturma J, Szentes C, Tarazona J, Terron A, Theobald A, Vagenende B, Verani A and Villamar‐Bouza L, 2017. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance zoxamide. EFSA Journal 2017;15(9):4980 25 pp. 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4980