Processed commodity	Number of valid studiesa	Processing Factor (PF)		Comment/Source
		Individual values	Median PF
RD Mo 1: thiophanate‐methyl RD RA 1: thiophanate‐methyl
Mangoes, peeled	4	0.17; 0.29; 0.5; 0.6	0.40	Processing factors based on the sum of thiophanate‐methyl and carbendazim (EFSA, 2009, 2014).
Citrus fruits, peeled	10	Not available	0.11	EFSA (2009, 2014)
Orange, juice	4	4 × 0.03	0.03	1 balance study and 3 follow up studies (EFSA, 2014)
Citrus fruits, dry pomace	4	0.75; 1.49; 1.53; 1.66	1.51	1 balance study and 3 follow up studies (EFSA, 2014)
Orange, marmalade	4	0.23; 0.26; 0.74; 0.93	0.50	1 balance study and 3 follow up studies (EFSA, 2014)
Citrus fruits, wet pomace	1	1.23	1.23	Tentativeb 1 balance study (EFSA, 2014)
RD Mo 2: carbendazim RD RA 2: carbendazim
Mangoes, peeled	4	0.17; 0.29; 0.5; 0.6	0.40	Processing factors based on the sum of thiophanate‐methyl and carbendazim, expressed as thiophanate‐methyl (EFSA, 2009, 2014)
Citrus fruits, peeled	16	0.53; 0.50; 0.35; 0.43; 0.50; 0.30; 2 × 0.40; 0.80; 0.33; 0.63; 0.60; 0.45; 0.46; 0.47; 0.63	0.47	EFSA (2009, 2014)
Orange, juice	4	3 × < 0.04; < 0.05	< 0.04	1 balance study and 3 follow up studies (EFSA, 2014)
Citrus fruits, dry pomace	4	24.6; 25.2; 26.3; 43.3	25.7	1 balance study and 3 follow up studies (EFSA, 2014)
Orange, marmalade	4	0.4; 0.41; 0.62; 0.63	0.51	1 balance study and 3 follow up studies (EFSA, 2014)
Citrus fruits, wet pomace	1	1.28	1.28	Tentativeb 1 balance study (EFSA, 2014)

PF: Processing factor (=Residue level in processed commodity expressed according to RD‐Mo/Residue level in raw commodity expressed according to RD‐Mo);

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

^bA tentative PF is derived based on a limited dataset.