ReviewEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019
Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substance terbuthylazine in light of confirmatory data submitted.
Review in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterizing chlorotriazine effects in cancer-relevant high-throughput screening assays.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Article
- Comparative Effect of UV, UV/HMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Sorption Properties of Specific Polymeric Microspheres towards Desethyl-Terbuthylazine and 2-Hydroxy-Terbuthylazine: Batch and Column Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substance terbuthylazine in light of confirmatory data submitted.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Review
- Occurrence and potential risk of currently used pesticides in sediments of the Alqueva reservoir (Guadiana Basin).Environmental science and pollution research international · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
49 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessment carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide active substance terbuthylazine are reported. The context of the peer review was that requested by the European Commission following the submission and evaluation of confirmatory data on groundwater metabolites. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of terbuthylazine as a herbicide on maize and sorghum and taking into account the scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) on the setting of health-based reference values for metabolites of the active substance terbuthylazine. The reliable endpoints concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, derived from the available studies and literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Concerns are identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.