Report from the Sub-comittee on the environment and health

triallate llh -55 I 0.98
prosulfocarb llh -81 I 1
mancozeb llh -162 I 1
pencycuron llh -84 I 1
tolclofos-methyl llh -96 I 1
malathion llh -289 I 0.94
dichlorprop-P llh -13 M 0.97
linuron lll -11 M 0.85
propiconazole lll -11 M 0.49
phenmedipham lll -18 M 0.76
propaquizafop lll -26 M 0.47
triflusulfuron-methyl lll -21 M 0.65
chlorfenvinphos lll -26 I 0.88
esfenvalerate lll -19 I 0.44
fluazinam lll -32 I 0.53
propyzamide lll -74 I 0.65
ioxynil lll -167 I 0.7
fuberidazole lll -163 I 0.11
prochloraz lll -44 I 0.46
fenpropidin lll -44 I 0.6
chlorothalonil lll -98 I 0.84
propamocarb lll -171 I 0.76
mepiquat-chloride lll -209 I 0.57
bromoxynil lll -199 I 0.64
imazalil lll -60 I 0.07
fenpiclonil lll -12 I 0.22
maneb lll -300 I 1
napropamide lll -119 I 0.46
e<strong>the</strong>phon lll -300 I 0.43
furathiocarb lll -300 I 0.33
fenpropimorph lll -300 I 0.57
cypermethrin lll -165 I 0.14
aclonifen lll -190 I 0.79
fluazifop-P-butyl lll -300 I 0.33
desmedipham lll -256 I 0.2
fenoxaprop-P-ethyl lll -300 I 0.17
pendimethalin lll -234 I 0.55
permethrin lll -300 I 0.2
trinexapac-ethyl lll -300 I 0.53
tefluthrin lll -300 I 0.18
glyphosate lll -300 I 0.53
alpha-cypermethrin lll -300 I 0.09
fludioxonil lll -82 I 0.09
tau-fluvalinate lll -300 I 0.06
lambda-cyhalothrin lll -300 I 0.06
a = AF index: log(AF): high = greater than or equal to -10; low = less than -10
b = GUS index: high = S; low = M or I
c = Hasse diagram: high = greater than or equal to 0.9; low = less than 0.9
The cut-off values in table 8.2 are critical for <strong>the</strong> analysis and are open to
discussion. Since <strong>the</strong> list is regarded as a relative comparison between
substances, <strong>the</strong> cut-off values have been chosen such that each index
identifies 25-30% of <strong>the</strong> pesticides as more leachable than o<strong>the</strong>rs. The
analyses accord well with each o<strong>the</strong>r, although <strong>the</strong> GUS index is more
closely related to <strong>the</strong> AF index than <strong>the</strong> Hasse diagram is to <strong>the</strong> Gus and
AF indices. That is because <strong>the</strong> dosage is only included in <strong>the</strong> Hasse
diagram and because <strong>the</strong> Hasse diagram does not include <strong>the</strong>
degradation, which is included in <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two indices.
The substances on this gross list should be subjected to a more detailed
risk assessment in line with that used in <strong>the</strong> authorisation scheme. In
151