Table A.1.

CAG‐TCF and CAG‐TCP: Assessment of individual sources of uncertainty affecting the input data with respect to EKE Q1A and EKE Q1B

Assessment input	Type of uncertainty	Description of the uncertainty	Range of multiplicative factor of MOET at 99.9th percentile of tier IIa	Multiplicative factor identical for all populationsb	Informative notes
Consumption data	Excluded data	Animal commodities and plant commodities not in the list of the 30 selected commodities and their processed derivatives were excluded	−/●	No	Note 1 Note 2 Note 3
	Ambiguity	The consumption data do not always discriminate between different commodities of a same group (e.g. tomatoes and cherry tomatoes are considered as tomatoes)	●	Yes	Note 4
	Accuracy	The accuracy of the reported amount of food consumed in surveys may be affected by methodological limitations or psychological factors	●	Yes	Note 5 Note 6
	Sampling variability	Small population size (number of consumers in the 10 populations) may affect the reliability of risk estimates at 99.9th percentiles	See confidence intervals of MOET estimates at 99.9th percentile of exposure distribution (Tables 1A and 2A)		Note 7
	Sampling bias	Representativeness of the consumption data	−/+	Yes	Note 8
	Use of fixed values	One invariable recipe and conversion factor are used to convert the amount of food consumed into the respective amount of RPC	●	Yes	Note 9
Occurrence data	Missing data	Active substance/commodity combinations, for which occurrence data are missing and extrapolation from another commodity is not possible, were excluded	●	Yes	Note 10
	Excluded data	The contribution of metabolites and degradation products has not been considered	−/●	Yes	Note 11
	Ambiguity	The occurrence data do not always discriminate between different commodities of a same group (e.g. tomatoes and cherry tomatoes are considered as tomatoes)	●	Yes	Note 4
	Accuracy	Laboratory analytical uncertainty	●	Yes	Note 12
	Sampling variability	A small number of occurrence data may affect the reliability of risk estimates at 99.9th percentile. This number varies from one pesticide/commodity combination to the other	See confidence intervals of MOET estimates at 99.9th percentile of exposure distribution (Tables 1A and 2A)		Note 7
	Sampling bias	Representativeness of the monitoring data	●/+	Yes	Note 13
	Extrapolation uncertainty	Extrapolation of occurrence data between crops	●	Yes	Note 14
	Extrapolation uncertainty	Extrapolation of occurrence data between countries	●	Yes	Note 15
	Assumption	Assumption of the active substance present on the commodity in case of unspecific residue definition for monitoring	−/+ (CAG‐TCF) −−/++ (CAG‐TCP)	Yes	Note 16
	Assumption	Assumption of the authorisation status of all pesticide/commodity combinations	−/●	Yes	Note 17
	Assumption	Assumption of the use frequency for authorised pesticide/commodity combinations	−/+	Yes	Note 18
	Assumption	Assumption on the residue level (½ LOQ) when an active substance is used, and its residues are below the LOQ	●	Yes	Note 31
	Assumption	Occurrence of residues in drinking water	●	Yes	Note 19
Processing factors	Assumption	Pesticide residues are transferred without any loss to processed commodities when processing factors are not available	+/++	Yes	Note 20
	Ambiguity	Application of processing factors, derived from a limited number of standardised studies, to the EFSA food classification and description system (FoodEx)	●	Yes	Note 21
	Accuracy	Laboratory analytical uncertainty	●	Yes
	Accuracy	Calculation of processing factors is affected by residue levels below the LOQ	●	Yes	Note 22
	Accuracy	The value of processing factors used in the calculations is the median value of a limited number of independent trials	●	Yes	Note 23
	Excluded data	Some processing factors are not considered (e.g. peeling and washing of commodities with edible peel)	●/+	Yes	Note 24
NOAELs	Adequacy of the CAG	Uncertainty on whether the CAG contains all the active substances causing the effect	−/●	Yes	Note 25
	Adequacy of the CAG	Uncertainty on whether the CAG contains only the active substances causing the effect	● (CAG‐TCF) ●/+ (CAG‐TCP)	Yes	Note 26
	Accuracy	Uncertainties affecting the characterisation of active substances included in the CAG (quality of data and NOAEL setting process)	−/● (CAG‐TCF) −/+ (CAG‐TCP)	Yes	Note 27

^aThe range shown is the same for CAG‐TCF and CAG‐TCP unless otherwise indicated.

^bThe experts considered that only the first source of uncertainty was expected, on its own, to have an impact varying between populations, as indicated in this column, but noted that more differences might be expected if multiple uncertainties were considered together.