One place to collect, retrieve and compare method validation results, compound stability experiments and residue definitions — so that work done in one laboratory is not repeated in thirty others.
Contributing institutions across the reference network
Whether you want to look up a residue definition in thirty seconds, or run a full measurement uncertainty estimation against your own validation data, the DataPool is organised around those two very different visits.
Freely accessible reference data for anyone working on pesticide residues — no account required, and no barrier between a question and an answer.
For laboratories in the official EU network: your own validation records, your proficiency test history, and the tools that read from both.
Validation and stability experiments are performed by laboratories all over the world. Traditionally there has been little coordination in bringing that work together. The cost of that shows up in four ways.
The same experiment, thirty times over
A validation run completed in one laboratory is rarely visible to the next, so the same compound–commodity combination is validated again and again at full cost to each institution.
Same compound, different scope
Residue definitions differ between the EU and Codex, and shift over time. Comparing results across laboratories means first agreeing on what exactly was being measured.
Spreadsheets, inboxes, archives
Validation data, proficiency test outcomes and stability results tend to live in separate files owned by separate people, which makes any overall assessment a manual reconciliation job.
Limits and scopes keep changing
Maximum residue levels and control programme scopes are revised regularly. Staying current across every market a laboratory reports into is a continuous research burden.
Four things the DataPool is built to make quick, each backed by data the network contributed itself.
Search the pesticide compound database for identifiers, chemical grouping, pKa values and physicochemical data, then move straight from the compound to the residue definitions and methods that reference it.
Browse compounds →Filter validation experiments by compound, commodity group and technique to see what has already been demonstrated, at which spiking levels, and with what recovery — before committing bench time of your own.
See the method data →Consult pooled stability experiments to judge how long standards and extracts remain usable under given storage conditions, alongside the physicochemical data that explains the behaviour.
Review stability results →The online tool combines your EUPT outcomes with your method validation data to produce a defensible measurement uncertainty estimate, without rebuilding the calculation in a spreadsheet each year. Available to NRL members.
About the tool →Compounds catalogued
Contributing laboratories
Validation records
Of pooled history
The DataPool is only as good as what goes into it, which is why access is shaped around the role a visitor plays in the official control system.
NRLs maintain their laboratory profile and pesticide scope, submit validation records on behalf of their network, and reach the member-only estimation tools.
Control laboratories consult residue definitions and validation coverage when planning analytical scope against a national control programme.
Researchers and laboratories outside the official network use the open databases as a reference, and are welcome to contribute results back.
Placeholder quotation. Replace with a short statement from a participating laboratory about what pooling validation data changed in their day-to-day work.
Numerous validation and pesticide stability experiments are performed by laboratories around the world. This project exists to bring that data together so it can be processed and assessed as a whole.
Placeholder answer. The open databases are intended to be readable without an account; member tools such as the Lab Network DB and the measurement uncertainty estimation require sign-in.
Placeholder answer describing eligibility for members of the official EU laboratory network, and how a registration request is reviewed.
Placeholder answer pointing at the submission templates and describing the minimum fields required for a record to be accepted.
Placeholder answer on update cadence for residue definitions, MRLs and newly submitted validation records.
Placeholder answer covering citation and reuse expectations for data retrieved from the public databases.
Placeholder answer explaining what is published in aggregate versus what stays visible only to the submitting laboratory.