메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 8, Issue 8, 2010, Pages

Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dicloran
[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

Dicloran; fungicide; peer review; pesticide; risk assessment

Indexed keywords


EID: 85077505532     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18314732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1698     Document Type: Note
Times cited : (103)

References (11)
  • 1
    • 84882502938 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Health, Plant Protection Products and their Residues on a request of EFSA related to FOCUS groundwater models comparability and the consistency of this risk assessment of groundwater contamination
    • EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2004. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Health, Plant Protection Products and their Residues on a request of EFSA related to FOCUS groundwater models comparability and the consistency of this risk assessment of groundwater contamination. The EFSA Journal (2004) 93, 1–20.
    • (2004) The EFSA Journal (2004) , vol.93 , pp. 1-20
  • 2
    • 79953755669 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues on a request from EFSA related to the default Q10 value used to describe the temperature effect on transformation rates of pesticides in soil
    • EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues on a request from EFSA related to the default Q10 value used to describe the temperature effect on transformation rates of pesticides in soil. The EFSA Journal (2007) 622, 1–32.
    • (2007) The EFSA Journal (2007) , vol.622 , pp. 1-32
  • 5
    • 0003612765 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Report of the FOCUS Groundwater Scenarios Workgroup, EC Document Reference SANCO/321/2000-rev.2., pp, as updated by the Generic Guidance for FOCUS groundwater scenarios, version 1.1 dated April 2002
    • FOCUS, 2000. “FOCUS Groundwater Scenarios in the EU review of active substances”. Report of the FOCUS Groundwater Scenarios Workgroup, EC Document Reference SANCO/321/2000-rev.2. 202 pp, as updated by the Generic Guidance for FOCUS groundwater scenarios, version 1.1 dated April 2002.
    • (2000) “FOCUS Groundwater Scenarios in the EU review of active substances” , pp. 202
  • 6
    • 3042767718 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Report of the FOCUS Working Group on Surface Water Scenarios, EC Document Reference SANCO/4802/2001-rev.2
    • FOCUS, 2001. “FOCUS Surface Water Scenarios in the EU Evaluation Process under 91/414/EEC”. Report of the FOCUS Working Group on Surface Water Scenarios, EC Document Reference SANCO/4802/2001-rev.2. 245 pp.
    • (2001) “FOCUS Surface Water Scenarios in the EU Evaluation Process under 91/414/EEC” , pp. 245
  • 7
    • 85041484927 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Report of the FOCUS Working Group on Landscape and Mitigation Factors in Ecological Risk Assessment, EC Document Reference SANCO/10422/2005 v2.0
    • FOCUS, 2007. “Landscape And Mitigation Factors In Aquatic Risk Assessment. Volume 1. Extended Summary and Recommendations”. Report of the FOCUS Working Group on Landscape and Mitigation Factors in Ecological Risk Assessment, EC Document Reference SANCO/10422/2005 v2.0. 169 pp.
    • (2007) “Landscape And Mitigation Factors In Aquatic Risk Assessment. Volume 1. Extended Summary and Recommendations” , pp. 169


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.