Search

The European Metrology Research Programme participating countries and the European Union jointly fund a three year project to address the need of the automotive industry for a metrological sound base for exhaust measurements. The collaborative work on particle emissions involves five European National Metrology Institutes, the Tampere University of Technology, the Joint Research Centre for Energy and Transport and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research. On one hand, a particle number and size standard for soot particles is aimed for. Eventually this will allow the partners to provide accurate and comparable calibrations of measurement instruments for the type approval of Euro 5b and Euro 6 vehicles. Calibration aerosols of combustion particles, silver and graphite proof partially suitable. Yet, a consensus choice together with instrument manufactures is pending as the aerosol choice considerably affects the number concentration measurement. Furthermore, the consortium issued consistent requirements for novel measuring instruments foreseen to replace today’s opacimeters in regulatory periodic emission controls of soot and compared them with European legislative requirements. Four partners are conducting a metrological validation of prototype measurement instruments. The novel instruments base on light scattering, electrical, ionisation chamber and diffusion charging sensors and will be tested at low and high particle concentrations. Results shall allow manufacturers to further improve their instruments to comply with legal requirements.

Abstract Background Depression assessment in population studies is usually based on depressive symptoms scales. However, the use of scales could lead to the choice of an arbitrary cut-off point depending on the sample characteristics and on the patient diagnosis. Thus, the use of a medical diagnosis of depression could be a more appropriate approach. Objective To validate a self-reported physician diagnosis of depression using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I) as Gold Standard and to assess the factors associated to a valid self-reported diagnosis. Methods The SUN Project is a cohort study based on university graduates followed-up through postal questionnaires. The response to the question included in the questionnaire: Have you ever been diagnosed of depression by a physician? was compared to that obtained through the SCID-I applied by a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist. The percentages of confirmed depression and non-depression were assessed for the overall sample and according to several characteristics. Logistic regression models were fitted to ascertain the association between different factors and a correct classification regarding depression status. Results The percentage of confirmed depression was 74.2%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 63.3–85.1. Out of 42 participants who did not report a depression diagnosis in the questionnaire, 34 were free of the disease (%confirmed non-depression = 81.1%; 95% CI = 69.1–92.9). The probability of being a true positive was higher among ex-smokers and non-smokers and among those overweight or obese but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion The validity of a self-reported diagnosis of depression in the SUN cohort is adequate. Thus, this question about depression diagnosis could be used in further investigations regarding this disease in this graduate cohort study.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the fresh flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for dogs and ornamental fish. For the other target species, the calculated safe concentrations were 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 23 mg/kg for sows, 39 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 35 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 22 mg/kg for dairy cows, 14 mg/kg for rabbits and 7 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 7 mg/kg complete feed. The use of lavender oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of lavender oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the flowering tops of L. angustifolia is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the flowering tops of Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. (Spanish type origanum oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for poultry species, 30 mg/kg for pigs and horses, 20 mg/kg for ruminants, 25 mg/kg for rabbits, dogs, cats and ornamental fish, and 125 mg/kg for salmonids. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 15 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use level in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since T. capitata and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tea tree oil obtained from leaves and terminal branchlets of Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that tea tree oil was very unlikely to be of safety concern for long-living and reproductive animals and is of no concern for target species for fattening at the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 1.5 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 1.7 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.0 mg/kg for piglets, 2.4 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 3.1 mg/kg for sows, 5.0 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer) and salmonids, 4.4 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep/goats and horses, 2.9 mg/kg for dairy cows, 1.8 mg/kg for rabbits, 0.9 mg/kg for cats, 5.3 mg/kg for dogs, 6.6 for crustaceans and 15 mg/kg for ornamental fish. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is very unlikely to be of safety concern at 1.1 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. Regarding user safety, tea tree oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. It is classified as a reprotoxic substance (category 1B) following CLP criteria and should be handled accordingly. Since M. alternifolia and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Spanish sage oil from the leaves of Salvia officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams (Spanish sage oil) when used as a sensory additive in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive under assessment is considered safe up to the maximum use level of 14 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of Spanish sage oil in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. The use of Spanish sage oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the oil of the leaves of S. officinalis ssp. lavandulifolia (Vahl) Gams is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of authorisation of a preparation containing a smoke flavouring extract for cats and dogs. The applicant provided data demonstrating that the additive currently on the market does not fully comply with the conditions of authorisation, but with newly proposed specifications based on different analytical methods. Considering that the additive under assessment contains benzofuran and styrene, for which a potential concern for genotoxicity has been identified, and that the whole mixture raises a potential concern for genotoxicity, additional data would be needed to complete the assessment. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for cats and dogs. The additive is authorised for use in feed for cats and dogs, and therefore, there is no need to perform an assessment of the safety for the consumer and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. When handling the additive, exposure of unprotected users to potential genotoxic substances may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a Camellia oleifera C.Abel seed extract (Cosap®) as technological feed additive for all animal species except fin fish. In the absence of adequate tolerance studies in the target species or toxicological studies with the additive under assessment, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) could not conclude on the safety of C. oleifera extract for the target species. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is not expected to cause concern for consumer safety. The additive is considered as irritant to the eyes and mucous membranes. No conclusions can be reached on the potential of the additive to be irritant to the skin or to be a dermal sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use is considered safe for the terrestrial compartment. However, no conclusion can be reached on the safety of the additive for the environment when used in feed of aquatic animals other than fin fish. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an emulsifier when used according to proposed conditions of use., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present opinion is the follow-up of the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive relevant to the safety assessment for all age groups. In addition, the risk assessment of silicon dioxide (E 551) for its use in food for infants below 16 weeks of age is performed. Based on the newly available information on the characterisation of the SAS used as E 551 and following the principles of the 2021 EFSA Guidance on Particle-TR, the conventional safety assessment has been complemented with nano-specific considerations. Given the uncertainties resulting from the limitations of the database and in the absence of genotoxicity concern, the Panel considered that it is not appropriate to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) but applied the margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the MOE should be at least 36 for not raising a safety concern. The calculated MOEs considering the dietary exposure estimates for all population groups using the refined non-brand loyal scenario, estimated at the time of the 2018 re-evaluation, were all above 36. The Panel concluded that E 551 does not raise a safety concern in all population groups at the reported uses and use levels. The use of E 551 in food for infants below 16 weeks of age in FC 13.1.1 and FC 13.1.5.1 does not raise a safety concern at the current exposure levels. The Panel also concluded that the technical data provided support an amendment of the specifications for E 551 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The paucity of toxicological studies with proper dispersion protocol (with the exception of the genotoxicity studies) creates uncertainty in the present assessment of the potential toxicological effects related to the exposure to E 551 nanosize aggregates., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Measuring the healing status of a bone fracture is important to determine the clinical care a patient receives. Implantable devices can directly and continuously assess the healing status of fracture fixation constructs, while subject-specific virtual biomechanical tests can noninvasively determine callus structural integrity at single time points. Despite their potential for objectification, both methods are not yet integrated into clinical practice with further evidence of their benefits required. This study correlated continuous data from an implantable sensor assessing healing status through implant load monitoring with computer tomography (CT) based longitudinal finite element (FE) simulations in a large animal model. Eight sheep were part of a previous preclinical study utilizing a tibial osteotomy model and equipped with such a sensor. Sensor signal was collected over several months, and CT scans were acquired at six interim time points. For each scan, two FE analyses were performed: a virtual torsional rigidity test of the bone and a model of the bone-implant construct with the sensor. The longitudinal simulation results were compared to the sensor data at corresponding time points and a cohort-specific empirical healing rule was employed. Healing status predicted by both in silico simulations correlated significantly with the sensor data at corresponding time points and correctly identified a delayed and a nonunion in the cohort. The methodology is readily translatable with the potential to be applied to further preclinical or clinical cohorts to find generalizable healing criteria. Virtual mechanical tests can objectively measure fracture healing progressing using longitudinal CT scans., (© 2024 Orthopaedic Research Society.)

Cytobacteriological urine examinations (CBEU) are frequently ordered for the older adults, sometimes without straightforward indication and with the risk of prescribing empirical antibiotics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relevance of the CBEU prescription and empiric antibiotic therapy in our geriatric hospital. Among 129 patients (mean age 84 years, sex ratio 0.69), 229 CBEU were collected with 20.9% of inappropriate indication. Cultures were sterile in 43% (n = 99) of cases and positive in 57% (n = 130) cases. Gram-negative bacilli dominated the isolated bacteria (76.9%) followed by gram-positive cocci (17.6%). In 113 patients, probabilistic antibiotic therapy was prescribed of which 68 treatments were initiated before the CBEU. Ceftriaxone and amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid were the main therapeutic option used representing 70.8% of cases. Antibiotic therapy was re-evaluated after 3 days in 74.3% of patients. Efforts to reduce the number of useless ECBUs by training doctors to follow official guidelines are a priority., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Carum carvi L. (caraway oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel concluded that the use of caraway oil is of no concern up to the following concentrations in complete feed: 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 24 mg/kg for sows, 35 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 11 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, 10 mg/kg for dairy cows, sheep, goats, horses and rabbits, 25 mg/kg for salmonids and dogs. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For cats, ornamental fish and other species, no conclusion can be drawn. The use of caraway oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a respiratory and skin sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to perillaldehyde may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since C. carvi and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Apium graveolens L. (celery seed oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel concluded that the use of celery seed oil is of no concern up to the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.6 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 2.3 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.1 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 2.8 mg/kg for piglets, 3.3 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 4.1 mg/kg for sows, 6.5 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 6.2 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 4.0 mg/kg for dairy cows, 2.5 mg/kg for rabbits, 6.8 mg/kg for salmonids and 7.2 mg/kg for dogs. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For cats, ornamental fish and other species, no conclusion can be drawn. The use of celery seed oil in animals feed is not expected to pose concern for the consumers and for the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a respiratory and skin sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to perillaldehyde and bergapten may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since A. graveolens and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Scientific Committee has updated its 2010 Guidance on risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. The update addresses methodological developments and regulatory needs. While it retains the stepwise RBA approach, it provides additional methods for complex assessments, such as multiple chemical hazards and all relevant health effects impacting different population subgroups. The updated guidance includes approaches for systematic identification, prioritisation and selection of hazardous and beneficial food components. It also offers updates relevant to characterising adverse and beneficial effects, such as measures of effect size and dose-response modelling. The guidance expands options for characterising risks and benefits, incorporating variability, uncertainty, severity categorisation and ranking of different (beneficial or adverse) effects. The impact of different types of health effects is assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the problem formulation, scope of the RBA question and data availability. The integration of risks and benefits often involves value-based judgements and should ideally be performed with the risk-benefit manager. Metrics such as Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) can be used. Additional approaches are presented, such as probability of all relevant effects and/or effects of given severities and their integration using severity weight functions. The update includes practical guidance on reporting results, interpreting outcomes and communicating the outcome of an RBA, considering consumer perspectives and responses to advice., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)