Proportionality principle revisited – relationship between application rates and pesticide residue concentrations in food commodities

Abstract

AbstractBACKGROUNDThe proportionality principle has been broadly used for over 10 years in regulatory assessments of pesticide residues. It allows extrapolation of supervised field trial data conducted at lower or higher application rates compared to the use pattern under evaluation by adjustment of measured concentrations, assuming direct proportionality between the rates applied and the resulting residues. This work revisits the principle idea by using supervised residue trials sets conducted under identical conditions but with deviating application rates. Four different statistical methods were used to investigate the relationship between application rates and residue concentrations and to draw conclusions on the statistical significance of the direct proportionality assumed.RESULTSBased on over 5000 individual trial results, the assumption of direct proportionality was not confirmed to be statistically significant (P > 0.05) using three models: direct comparison of application rates and residue concentrations ratios and two linear log‐log regression models correlating application rate and residue concentration or only residue concentrations per se. In addition, a fourth model analysed deviations between expected concentrations following direct proportional adjustment and measured residue values from corresponding field trials. In 56% of all cases, the deviation was larger than ±25%, which represents the tolerance usually accepted for the selection of supervised field trials in regulatory assessments.CONCLUSIONOverall, the assumption of direct proportionality between application rates and resulting residue concentrations of pesticides was not statistically significant. Although the proportionality approach is highly pragmatic in regulatory practice, its use should be considered carefully on a case‐by‐case basis. © 2023 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.