• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>EFSA Journal >Tier‐1 and Tier‐2A Scenario Parameterisation and Example Calculations ‐ In Support of the Revision of the Guidance Document on Persistence in Soil under Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 (SANCO/9188/VI/97 rev. 8, 12.07.2000)
【24h】

Tier‐1 and Tier‐2A Scenario Parameterisation and Example Calculations ‐ In Support of the Revision of the Guidance Document on Persistence in Soil under Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 (SANCO/9188/VI/97 rev. 8, 12.07.2000)

机译：第1层和第2A层方案的参数化和示例计算‐支持根据理事会第91/414 / EEC号指令以及议会和理事会法规（EC）1107/2009（SANCO / 9188 /）修订土壤持久性指导文件VI / 97修订版8，2000年7月12日）

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

European scenarios for exposure of soil organisms to Plant Protection Products are currently not available (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), 2010). In this document, the parameterisation of realistic worst‐case scenarios for Tier‐1 and Tier‐2A simulations is described which are part of a tiered approach. The aim of this scheme is to assess such Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PEC), chosen to be the 90th spatial percentile, resulting from the use of the plant protection product. In order to account for the uncertainty in substance and soil properties, the Tier‐2A scenarios are combinations of soil and climatic properties within a zone, for which the predicted concentration is equal to the 95th percentile of all concentrations within the area of annual crops. The selected soil profiles are based on digitised information from topsoil (organic matter and texture) combined with calculated average soil profiles available in the SPADE‐1 database. The daily weather information for the scenarios is taken from the MARS database using the period 1990‐2009. In order to have a sufficient overview on the differences between simulations performed with the analytical Tier‐1 model and the numerical Tier‐2A models, PEARL and PELMO test runs are performed covering all relevant substance properties and all evaluation depths. For each of the total‐soil scenarios, both models simulate nearly the same concentration. Small differences between PEARL and PELMO can be found for the pore‐water scenarios due to differences in the calculation of soil moisture contents. The comparison with the analytical model shows that Tier‐1 concentrations are usually above the respective Tier‐2A concentrations in accordance with the philosophy of the tiered assessment scheme. However, due to the different handling of soil moisture, Tier‐1 simulations may occasionally give concentrations below those of Tier 2A, which occurrence necessitates additional calibration using special model‐adjustment factors.
机译：目前尚无关于土壤生物暴露于植物保护产品的欧洲情景（欧洲食品安全局植物保护产品及其残留物专家小组，2010）。在本文档中，描述了Tier-1和Tier-2A仿真的实际最坏情况的参数化，这是分层方法的一部分。该计划的目的是评估由于使用植物保护产品而导致的此类预测环境浓度（PEC），该浓度被选为空间百分比的90％。为了考虑物质和土壤特性的不确定性，方法2A方案是一个区域内土壤和气候特性的组合，其预测浓度等于一年作物面积内所有浓度的95％。选择的土壤剖面基于表层土壤（有机物和质地）的数字化信息，并结合SPADE-1数据库中可用的计算出的平均土壤剖面。这些情景的每日天气信息是从1990-2009年的MARS数据库中获取的。为了充分了解使用分析Tier-1模型和数值Tier-2A模型进行的模拟之间的差异，进行了PEARL和PELMO测试运行，涵盖了所有相关的物质特性和所有评估深度。对于每种总土壤方案，两个模型都模拟了几乎相同的浓度。由于土壤水分含量的计算差异，在孔隙水情况下，PEARL和PELMO之间的差异很小。与分析模型的比较表明，根据分层评估方案的原理，Tier-1浓度通常高于各自的Tier-2A浓度。但是，由于对土壤水分的处理方式不同，第1层模拟有时可能会得出低于2A层的浓度，这需要使用特殊的模型调整因子进行额外的校准。

著录项

  • 来源
    《EFSA Journal》 |2012年第1期|共64页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类 食品工业;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号