I am course responsible and teach the following courses: 

Risk Assessment and Regulation of Chemicals 

Introduction to Assessment and Management of Chemicals (web-based MOOC course)

I also contribute to the following courses/program:

Introduction to Sustainable Chemistry

Världens Eko

Masters in Chemicals Risk Management (University of Cape Town)

A selection from Stockholm University publication database

• Opportunities to tackle antibiotic resistance development in the aquatic environment through the Water Framework Directive

  2023. Marlene Ågerstrand (et al.). Ambio 52 (5), 941-951

  Article

  Antibiotics are critical components of modern health care. Protecting their efficacy through managing the rise in antibiotic resistance is therefore a global concern. It is not known to what extent environmental pollution from antibiotics contributes to the development of resistance, but encountered concentrations are frequently above concentrations predicted to select for resistance. Hence, measures are needed to manage risks. Here, we analyse if the indirect health risks from antibiotics in the aquatic environment can be considered in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive and the setting of environmental quality standards (EQS). By scrutinising current legislation, we conclude that it is possible to take the indirect health risks from antimicrobial resistance into account when deriving EQS for substances with antibiotic activity. We base this on the following conclusions: (1) human health concerns can be the main driver when setting an EQS, (2) an EQS can be based on data not specified in the guidance document, and (3) there are no restrictions against establishing EQS using data on antimicrobial resistance properties. In addition, since antimicrobial resistance travel across borders, we see strong reasons to prioritise setting these EQS on the EU level over the national level. Even though there is no agreed-upon method for how to develop EQS protective against resistance selection, there are several suggestions available in the literature and a couple of examples of regulatory initiatives. Also, addressing antimicrobial resistance through the Water Framework Directive can act as a driving force for other applicable legislation where such risks are not considered. We end by providing a set of recommendations for the European Commission and the Members States' future work on addressing aquatic pollution and antimicrobial resistance. 

  Read more about Opportunities to tackle antibiotic resistance development in the aquatic environment through the Water Framework Directive

• The essential-use concept: a valuable tool to guide decision-making on applications for authorisation under REACH?

  2023. Romain Figuière (et al.). Environmental Sciences Europe 35

  Article

  Background In 2020, the European Commission published the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) in which it aims to increase the level of protection for human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals. Part of the implementation of the CSS will involve a reform of the REACH authorisation and restriction processes. One option for the reform of the authorisation process is to implement the essential-use concept as a tool to guide decision-making on applications for authorisation to make the process more efficient and to align it with societal needs. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether changes in the legal text that defines the authorisation process, and of the amount and type of information that applicants should provide in an application for authorisation, are needed to enable an implementation of the essential-use concept.

  Results The results suggest that no fundamental changes in the regulatory requirements are needed and that applicants should already provide sufficient and relevant information to the authorities to determine if the use(s) applied for is (are) essential.

  Conclusions Although the REACH authorisation already provides a legal and practical basis for an implementation of the essential-use concept, the feasibility of the essentiality assessment and its potential to make the decision-making on applications more efficient are highly dependent on the quality of the information provided and the clearness of decision criteria. However, if an applicant successfully demonstrates that the risk related to the use(s) applied for is adequately controlled, it could not be legally justified for the European Commission to refuse an authorisation by arguing that the use(s) applied for is (are) non-essential.

  Read more about The essential-use concept

• Broaden chemicals scope in biodiversity targets

  2022. Gabriel Sigmund (et al.). Science 376 (6599), 1279-1280

  Article

  Read more about Broaden chemicals scope in biodiversity targets

• Characterisation and analysis of key studies used to restrict substances under REACH

  2022. Flora Borchert, Anna Beronius, Marlene Ågerstrand. Environmental Sciences Europe 34 (1)

  Article

  Background: Understanding how scientifc studies are used in regulatory risk assessments is important since it infuences the outcome of an assessment, and thus the level of protection of human health and the environment. Withinthe REACH legislation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, EC Nr. 1907/2006) hazardinformation on clearly defned (eco-)toxicological endpoints are submitted for the registration of substances, and thisinformation is intended for concluding on potential hazards and risk as well as subsequent risk management measures such as restrictions. The present study aimed to (1) characterise key studies used by the European ChemicalsAgency’s Committee for Risk Assessment to restrict hazardous substances; (2) analyse if the REACH registration database provided the key studies used in these restrictions, and (3) investigate potential expert disagreements related tothe use of non-standard studies in the restrictions.

  Results: Our analysis showed that 58% of the 53 scrutinised key studies were non-standard studies, all available bypaying a fee or through open access. Sixteen (30%) of the key studies were consulted from external sources outsidethe REACH registration database by the Committee for Risk Assessment. Only one study of the 16 external key studieswas a standard study. Further, 9% (5/53) of the key studies used by the Committee for Risk Assessment were inaccessible to third parties, all were standard studies. The uses of non-standard studies were (unsuccessfully) challenged forfve substances during the public consultation.

  Conclusions: These results suggest that non-standard studies contributed to the identifcation and management ofsubstances of concern, that the REACH registration database may not be sufcient for the identifcation and management of uncontrolled hazards and risks, and that the transparency of the decisions made by the Committee for RiskAssessment was partially hampered due to the use of standard studies inaccessible to third parties.

  Read more about Characterisation and analysis of key studies used to restrict substances under REACH

• Stricter regulation applies to antimicrobial substances when used as biocides compared to cosmetics under current EU legislation

  2022. Diana Kättström (et al.). Emerging Contaminants 8, 229-242

  Article

  Antimicrobial substances are substances that have the ability to kill or slow down the growth of microorganisms such as bacteria, algae and fungi. Exposure of microorganisms to low concentrations of antimicrobial substances may lead to the development of antimicrobial resistance. To protect human health and the environment and to limit resistance, the risks for the release of these substances into the environment should be minimized from all sources. Under the current EU legal framework, some specific uses of antimicrobial substances are strictly regulated whereas others are not. When antimicrobial substances are used as active substances in biocidal products, such as disinfectants, they are regulated by Biocidal Products Regulation. When the same substances are used as preservatives in cosmetic products they fall under Cosmetic Products Regulation. In this paper, we investigated how the regulation of antimicrobial substances differ when used in biocidal products compared to cosmetic products. This was achieved by performing a systematic comparison using document analysis with focus on aims, scope, information requirements, and risk assessment procedures for biocidal active substances and cosmetic preservatives. One of the main differences identified is that no environmental data or environmental risk assessment are required for approval of cosmetic preservatives. In contrast, environmental data and risk assessment for both the active substances and one representative product would be required for the approval of the same substance if used as a biocidal active substance. This means first that a substance not approved for use in biocidal products due to its hazardous environmental properties can still be approved as a cosmetic preservative. And second, the environmental release of antimicrobial substances from cosmetic products remains unassessed and uncontrolled, despite the obvious risks of cosmetic ingredients being emitted into the environment via wastewater. From this, we recommend that an environmental risk assessment is added to the requirements for market approval of cosmetic preservatives to achieve the aim of a high level of protection for the environment as set by several EU regulations. This would be in line with the “one substance – one assessment” approach proposed by the European Commission. While the details of “one substance – one assessment” approach are not decided, it is believed to contribute to more coordinated and transparent chemical safety assessments and enhance interlinking between the regulations.

  Read more about Stricter regulation applies to antimicrobial substances when used as biocides compared to cosmetics under current EU legislation

• The potential of the EU Water Framework Directive for reducing emissions of pollutants is limited: a case study on river basin specific pollutants in Swedish environmental permitting processes

  2022. Emma Undeman (et al.). Environmental Sciences Europe 34 (1)

  Article

  River basin specific pollutants (RBSPs) are supposedly a key tool to fulfil the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) goal of good ecological status in all European waterbodies. The RBSPs provide a tool to manage chemical pollution identified as a national priority. An important question is if the costly management related to RBSPs leads to reduced emissions, an issue we investigated here using Sweden as a case. Swedish measures implemented under the WFD mainly rely on environmental permitting and supervision. We, therefore, specifically assessed how RBSPs have influenced permit proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of Appeal, where precedents for judgements in lower courts and authorities is established, during the 2010s. Despite permit-review being an important measure highlighted in the WFD and in Swedish programs of measures, all cases appealed to higher court were initiated by the operators/permit holders. The permissibility of environmentally hazardous activities was not impacted by RBSPs in any instance. Permit conditions addressing RBSPs were discussed in ⁓1% of all environmental cases, mainly resulting in conditions demanding further inquiries regarding emissions and concentrations of a limited number of RBSPs (i.e., metals and nitrogen in the forms of nitrate and ammonia). Open-ended conditions and delegation allowing for updating permit conditions if additional RBSPs are identified were suggested but rejected by court as these conflict with fundamental principles of precision and predictability of permit conditions stated in Swedish and European law. We conclude that RBSPs as management tool has little impact on emissions from activities requiring environmental permits and thereby water quality.

  Read more about The potential of the EU Water Framework Directive for reducing emissions of pollutants is limited

• The Role of Behavioral Ecotoxicology in Environmental Protection

  2021. Alex T. Ford (et al.). Environmental Science and Technology 55 (9), 5620-5628

  Article

  For decades, we have known that chemicals affect human and wildlife behavior. Moreover, due to recent technological and computational advances, scientists are now increasingly aware that a wide variety of contaminants and other environmental stressors adversely affect organismal behavior and subsequent ecological outcomes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. There is also a groundswell of concern that regulatory ecotoxicology does not adequately consider behavior, primarily due to a lack of standardized toxicity methods. This has, in turn, led to the exclusion of many behavioral ecotoxicology studies from chemical risk assessments. To improve understanding of the challenges and opportunities for behavioral ecotoxicology within regulatory toxicology/risk assessment, a unique workshop with international representatives from the fields of behavioral ecology, ecotoxicology, regulatory (eco)toxicology, neurotoxicology, test standardization, and risk assessment resulted in the formation of consensus perspectives and recommendations, which promise to serve as a roadmap to advance interfaces among the basic and translational sciences, and regulatory practices.

  Read more about The Role of Behavioral Ecotoxicology in Environmental Protection

• Pharmaceuticals and Environment: a web-based decision support for considering environmental aspects of medicines in use

  2020. Helena Ramström (et al.). European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 76 (8), 1151-1160

  Article

  Purpose: The database Pharmaceuticals and Environment is a non-commercial, freely available web-based decision support presenting compiled environmental information for pharmaceutical substances. It was developed by Region Stockholm and launched in 2016 at janusinfo.se. The purpose of this paper is to present the database, report on its current use, and reflect on lessons learned from developing and managing the database.

  Methods: A standard operating procedure describes the work and content of the database, e.g., how information is retrieved, processed, and presented. Google Analytics was used for metrics. Issues related to the database have been discussed and handled by a reference group. The experiences from this work are presented.

  Results: The database contains environmental hazard and risk information, primarily gathered from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. There are also assessments comparing substances within some groups of pharmaceuticals. The database is used by the Swedish Drug and Therapeutics Committees to include environmental aspects when recommending pharmaceuticals for health care providers. Page views show that users primarily look for information on commonly used substances, e.g., diclofenac and paracetamol/acetaminophen. Major problems for the development of the database are lack of data, lack of transparency, and discrepancies in the available environmental information.

  Conclusion: In the absence of an adequate decision support produced by the regulatory authorities, we find the database Pharmaceuticals and Environment to be useful for Swedish Drug and Therapeutics Committees and health care providers, and it is our belief that the information can be valuable also in other settings.

  Read more about Pharmaceuticals and Environment

• Emerging investigator series: use of behavioural endpoints in the regulation of chemicals

  2020. Marlene Ågerstrand (et al.). Environmental Science 22 (1), 49-65

  Article

  Interest in behavioural ecotoxicology is growing, partly due to technological and computational advances in recording behaviours but also because of improvements of detection capacity facilitating reporting effects at environmentally relevant concentrations. The peer-reviewed literature now contains studies investigating the effects of chemicals, including pesticides and pharmaceuticals, on migration, dispersal, aggression, sociability, reproduction, feeding and anti-predator behaviours in vertebrates and invertebrates. To understand how behavioural studies could be used in regulatory decision-making we: (1) assessed the legal obstacles to using behavioural endpoints in EU chemicals regulation; (2) analysed the known cases of use of behavioural endpoints in EU chemicals regulation; and (3) provided examples of behavioural endpoints of relevance for population level effects. We conclude that the only legal obstacle to the use of behavioural endpoints in EU chemicals regulation is whether an endpoint is considered to be relevant at the population level or not. We also conclude that ecotoxicity studies investigating behavioural endpoints are occasionally used in the EU chemicals regulation, and underscore that behavioural endpoints can be relevant at the population level. To improve the current use of behavioural studies in regulatory decision-making contribution from all relevant stakeholders is required. We have the following recommendations: (1) researchers should conduct robust, well-designed and transparent studies that emphasize the relevance of the study for regulation of chemicals; (2) editors and scientific journals should promote detailed, reliable and clearly reported studies; (3) regulatory agencies and the chemical industry need to embrace new behavioural endpoints of relevance at the population level.

  Read more about Emerging investigator series

• Improving structure and transparency in reliability evaluations of data under REACH: suggestions for a systematic method

  2020. Ellen Ingre-Khans (et al.). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 26 (1), 212-241

  Article

  The goal of identifying hazardous chemicals registered under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) Regulation and taking appropriate risk management measures relies on robust data registrations. However, the current procedures for European chemical manufacturers and importers to evaluate data under REACH neither support systematic evaluations of data nor transparently communicate these assessments. The aim of this study was to explore how using a data evaluation method with predefined criteria for reliability and establishing principles for assigning reliability categories could contribute to more structured and transparent evaluations under REACH. In total, 20 peer-reviewed studies for 15 substances registered under REACH were selected for an in-depth evaluation of reliability with the SciRAP tool. The results show that using a method for study evaluation, with clear criteria for assessing reliability and assigning studies to reliability categories, contributes to more structured and transparent reliability evaluations. Consequently, it is recommended to implement a method for evaluating data under REACH with predefined criteria and fields for documenting and justifying the assessments to increase consistency of data evaluations and transparency.

  Read more about Improving structure and transparency in reliability evaluations of data under REACH

• The NORMAN Association and the European Partnership for Chemicals Risk Assessment (PARC): let's cooperate!

  2020. Valeria Dulio (et al.). Environmental Sciences Europe 32 (1)

  Article

  The Partnership for Chemicals Risk Assessment (PARC) is currently under development as a joint research and innovation programme to strengthen the scientific basis for chemical risk assessment in the EU. The plan is to bring chemical risk assessors and managers together with scientists to accelerate method development and the production of necessary data and knowledge, and to facilitate the transition to next-generation evidence-based risk assessment, a non-toxic environment and the European Green Deal. The NORMAN Network is an independent, well-established and competent network of more than 80 organisations in the field of emerging substances and has enormous potential to contribute to the implementation of the PARC partnership. NORMAN stands ready to provide expert advice to PARC, drawing on its long experience in the development, harmonisation and testing of advanced tools in relation to chemicals of emerging concern and in support of a European Early Warning System to unravel the risks of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and close the gap between research and innovation and regulatory processes. In this commentary we highlight the tools developed by NORMAN that we consider most relevant to supporting the PARC initiative: (i) joint data space and cutting-edge research tools for risk assessment of contaminants of emerging concern; (ii) collaborative European framework to improve data quality and comparability; (iii) advanced data analysis tools for a European early warning system and (iv) support to national and European chemical risk assessment thanks to harnessing, combining and sharing evidence and expertise on CECs. By combining the extensive knowledge and experience of the NORMAN network with the financial and policy-related strengths of the PARC initiative, a large step towards the goal of a non-toxic environment can be taken.

  Read more about The NORMAN Association and the European Partnership for Chemicals Risk Assessment (PARC)

• Improving environmental risk assessments of chemicals: Steps towards evidence-based ecotoxicology

  2019. Olwenn Martin (et al.). Environment International 128, 210-217

  Article

  Read more about Improving environmental risk assessments of chemicals

• Reliability and relevance evaluations of REACH data

  2019. Ellen Ingre-Khans (et al.). Toxicology Research 8 (1), 46-56

  Article

  Regulatory authorities rely on hazard and risk assessments performed under REACH for identifying chemicals of concern and to take action. Therefore, these assessments must be systematic and transparent. This study investigates how registrants evaluate and report data evaluations under REACH and the procedures established by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to support these data evaluations. Data on the endpoint repeated dose toxicity were retrieved from the REACH registration database for 60 substances. An analysis of these data shows that the system for registrants to evaluate data and report these evaluations is neither systematic nor transparent. First, the current framework focuses on reliability, but overlooks the equally important aspect of relevance, as well as how reliability and relevance are combined for determining the adequacy of individual studies. Reliability and relevance aspects are also confused in the ECHA guidance for read-across. Second, justifications for reliability evaluations were mainly based on studies complying with GLP and test guidelines, following the Klimisch method. This may result in GLP and guideline studies being considered reliable by default and discounting non-GLP and non-test guideline data. Third, the reported rationales for reliability were frequently vague, confusing and lacking information necessary for transparency. Fourth, insufficient documentation of a study was sometimes used as a reason for judging data unreliable. Poor reporting merely affects the possibility to evaluate reliability and should be distinguished from methodological deficiencies. Consequently, ECHA is urged to improve the procedures and guidance for registrants to evaluate data under REACH to achieve systematic and transparent risk assessments.

  Read more about Reliability and relevance evaluations of REACH data

• Toxicity studies used in registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH): How accurately are they reported?

  2019. Ellen Ingre-Khans (et al.). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15 (3), 458-469

  Article

  Toxicity studies on chemicals registered under the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation are provided as summaries instead of as a full study report. Because the registration data are used by regulatory agencies to identify chemicals of concern, the study summaries must accurately reflect the information in studies. A “study summary” should include sufficient information on the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions in the full study report in order for the relevance of the study to be determined. Sometimes a “robust study summary” is required, which should contain more detailed information to enable an independent assessment of the study. The aim of the present investigation is to examine how well published toxicity papers were reflected in study summaries submitted by registrants under REACH. Summaries of 20 published studies (peer‐reviewed studies, including 1 abstract) were examined and broad categories of various types of observed differences were derived. The extent to which information in the published studies was reported, as well as how accurately the information was reflected, varied. How accurately the information was reflected also varied. Differences between the published studies and the summaries included simple typing errors, unclear and incomplete reporting, as well as the omission of information on, for example, study design, results, or interpretation of the results, which in some cases could be considered relevant for the risk assessment. This raises concerns regarding the accuracy of study summaries and their use for decision making. Moreover, the possibility for third parties to independently assess and scrutinize the summaries is limited. Considering that we rely on REACH registration data for chemical safety, all data used for risk assessment should be accessible for thorough examination and fully independent assessment.

  Read more about Toxicity studies used in registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH)

• A call for action: Improve reporting of research studies to increase the scientific basis for regulatory decision-making

  2018. Marlene Ågerstrand (et al.). Journal of Applied Toxicology 38 (5), 783-785

  Article

  This is a call for action to scientific journals to introduce reporting requirements for toxicity and ecotoxicity studies. Such reporting requirements will support the use of peer-reviewed research studies in regulatory decision-making. Moreover, this could improve the reliability and reproducibility of published studies in general and make better use of the resources spent in research.

  Read more about A call for action

• The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies

  2018. Vicki Stone (et al.). Risk Analysis 38 (7), 1321-1331

  Article

  Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk-based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano-specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology.

  Read more about The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies

• An academic researcher's guide to increased impact on regulatory assessment of chemicals

  2017. Marlene Ågerstrand (et al.). Environmental Science 19 (5), 644-655

  Article

  The interactions between academic research and regulatory assessment of chemicals may in theory seem straightforward: researchers perform studies, and these studies are used by regulators for decision-making. However, in practice the situation is more complex, and many factors decide a research study's regulatory use. According to several EU chemical legislations, all available and relevant studies can be used in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. However, in practice, standard tests conducted under GLP and sponsored and provided by industry are predominantly used. Peer-reviewed studies from independent sources are often disregarded or disputed since they often do not comply with regulatory data requirements and quality criteria. To help bridge such a gap, the aim of this paper is to give an overview of the general workings of legislation of chemicals and propose a set of actions to increase the usability of research data. In the end, this may increase the use of academic research for decision-making and ultimately result in more science-based policies. From a policy perspective, useful scientific evidence comprises those studies that are sufficiently reliable and relevant. This is not in contradiction to the aims of research and generally accepted scientific standards.

  Read more about An academic researcher's guide to increased impact on regulatory assessment of chemicals

• Assessing the relevance of ecotoxicological studies for regulatory decision making

  2017. Christina Rudén (et al.). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 13 (4), 652-663

  Article

  Regulatory policies in many parts of the world recognize either the utility of or the mandate that all available studies be considered in environmental or ecological hazard and risk assessment (ERA) of chemicals, including studies from the peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, a vast array of different studies and data types need to be considered. The first steps in the evaluation process involve determining whether the study is relevant to the ERA and sufficiently reliable. Relevance evaluation is typically performed using existing guidance but involves application of expert judgment by risk assessors. In the present paper, we review published guidance for relevance evaluation and, on the basis of the practical experience within the group of authors, we identify additional aspects and further develop already proposed aspects that should be considered when conducting a relevance assessment for ecotoxicological studies. From a regulatory point of view, the overarching key aspect of relevance concerns the ability to directly or indirectly use the study in ERA with the purpose of addressing specific protection goals and ultimately regulatory decision making. Because ERA schemes are based on the appropriate linking of exposure and effect estimates, important features of ecotoxicological studies relate to exposure relevance and biological relevance. Exposure relevance addresses the representativeness of the test substance, environmental exposure media, and exposure regime. Biological relevance deals with the environmental significance of the test organism and the endpoints selected, the ecological realism of the test conditions simulated in the study, as well as a mechanistic link of treatment-related effects for endpoints to the protection goal identified in the ERA. In addition, uncertainties associated with relevance should be considered in the assessment. A systematic and transparent assessment of relevance is needed for regulatory decision making. The relevance aspects also need to be considered by scientists when designing, performing, and reporting ecotoxicological studies to facilitate their use in ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:652-663.

  Read more about Assessing the relevance of ecotoxicological studies for regulatory decision making

• Combining web-based tools for transparent evaluation of data for risk assessment: developmental effects of bisphenol A on the mammary gland as a case study

  2017. Linda Molander (et al.). Journal of Applied Toxicology 37 (3), 319-330

  Article

  Different tools have been developed that facilitate systematic and transparent evaluation and handling of toxicity data in the risk assessment process. The present paper sets out to explore the combined use of two web-based tools for study evaluation and identification of reliable data relevant to health risk assessment. For this purpose, a case study was performed using in vivo toxicity studies investigating low-dose effects of bisphenol A on mammary gland development. The reliability of the mammary gland studies was evaluated using the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) criteria for toxicity studies. The Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative (HAWC) was used for characterizing and visualizing the mammary gland data in terms of type of effects investigated and reported, and the distribution of these effects within the dose interval. It was then investigated whether there was any relationship between study reliability and the type of effects reported and/or their distribution in the dose interval. The combination of the SciRAP and HAWC tools allowed for transparent evaluation and visualization of the studies investigating developmental effects of BPA on the mammary gland. The use of these tools showed that there were no apparent differences in the type of effects and their distribution in the dose interval between the five studies assessed as most reliable and the whole data set. Combining the SciRAP and HAWC tools was found to be a useful approach for evaluating in vivo toxicity studies and identifying reliable and sensitive information relevant to regulatory risk assessment of chemicals. Copyright (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The present paper explores the combined use of the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy toxicity study evaluation method and the Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative tools for identification of reliable data relevant to health risk assessment. Combining the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy and Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative tools was found to be a useful and transparent approach for evaluating in vivo toxicity studies and identifying reliable and sensitive information relevant to regulatory risk assessment of chemicals.

  Read more about Combining web-based tools for transparent evaluation of data for risk assessment

• How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection

  2017. M. L. Hanson (et al.). Science of the Total Environment 578, 228-235

  Article

  There is increasing awareness that the value of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent, resulting in a growing desire to improve the practice and reporting of studies. This is especially important in the field of ecotoxicology, where regulatory decisions can be partly based on data from the peer-reviewed literature, with wide-reaching implications for environmental protection. Our objective is to improve the reporting of ecotoxicology studies so that they can be appropriately utilized in a fair and transparent fashion, based on their reliability and relevance. We propose a series of nine reporting requirements, followed by a set of recommendations for adoption by the ecotoxicology community. These reporting requirements will provide clarity on the the test chemical, experimental design and conditions, chemical identification, test organisms, exposure confirmation, measurable endpoints, how data are presented, data availability and statistical analysis. Providing these specific details will allow for a fuller assessment of the reliability and relevance of the studies, including limitations. Recommendations for the implementation of these reporting requirements are provided herein for practitioners, journals, reviewers, regulators, stakeholders, funders, and professional societies. If applied, our recommendations will improve the quality of ecotoxicology studies and their value to environmental protection.

  Read more about How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection

• Making the most of expert judgment in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals

  2017. A. Beronius, Marlene Ågerstrand. Toxicology Research 6 (5), 571-577

  Article

  Evaluation of the reliability and relevance of toxicity and ecotoxicity studies is an integral step in the assessment of the hazards and risks of chemicals. This evaluation is inherently reliant on expert judgment, which often leads to differences between experts' conclusions regarding how individual studies can contribute to the body of evidence. The conclusions of regulatory assessment, such as establishing safe exposure levels for humans and the environment and calculations of margins of exposure, may have large consequences for which chemicals are permitted on the market and their allowed uses. It is therefore important that such assessments are based on all reliable and relevant scientific data, and that assessment principles and assumptions, such as expert judgment, are transparently applied. It is not possible nor desirable to completely eliminate expert judgment from the evaluation of (eco) toxicity studies. However, it is desirable to introduce measures that increase structure and transparency in the evaluation process so as to provide scientifically robust risk assessments that can be used for regulatory decision making. In this article we present results from workshop exercises with Nordic experts to illustrate how experts' evaluations regarding the reliability and relevance of (eco) toxicity studies for risk assessment may vary and discuss methods intended to promote structure and transparency in the evaluation process.

  Read more about Making the most of expert judgment in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals

• NanoCRED: A transparent framework to assess the regulatory adequacy of ecotoxicity data for nanomaterials - Relevance and reliability revisited

  2017. Nanna B. Hartmann (et al.). NanoImpact 6, 81-89

  Article

  Environmental hazard and risk assessment serve as the basis for regulatory decisions to protect the environment from unintentional adverse effects of chemical substances including nanomaterials. This process requires reliable and relevant environmental hazard data upon which classification and labelling can be based and Predicted No-Effect Concentration (PNEC) values can be estimated. In a regulatory context ecotoxicological data is often recommended to be generated according to accepted and validated test guidelines, preferably also following Good Laboratory Practice. However, engineered nanomaterials are known to behave very differently in ecotoxicity tests compared to the conventional soluble chemicals, for which most guidelines were developed. Therefore non-guideline tests, or tests following modified test guidelines, can provide valuable information and should not per se be considered less adequate for regulatory use. Here we propose a framework for reliability and relevance evaluation of ecotoxicity data for nanomaterials that take into account the challenges and characterisation requirements associated with testing of these substances. The nanoCRED evaluation criteria, and accompanying guidance, were developed to be used in combination with those developed through the ‘Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED)’ project. This approach can accommodate all types of nanomaterials, all types of aquatic ecotoxicity studies, and qualitative as well as quantitative data evaluation requirements. Furthermore, it is practically feasible to implement and directly applicable in European as well as international regulatory frameworks.

  Read more about NanoCRED

• Refining tools to bridge the gap between academia and chemical regulation: perspectives for WikiREACH

  2017. Marlene Ågerstrand (et al.). Environmental Science 19 (12), 1466-1473

  Article

  Regulatory hazard and risk assessments of chemical substances have to include all reliable and relevant data to be credible and complete. However, screening the literature for appropriate studies and extracting data is burdensome. Therefore, reducing impediments by making data easily and readily accessible to risk assessors could result in more comprehensive hazard and risk assessments. In this paper, we study WikiPharma, a database that aggregates ecotoxicity data for pharmaceuticals, extracted from peerreviewed studies. The use of the WikiPharma database is explored to develop strategies on how similar tools can bridge between science and policy by providing risk assessors with easily accessible summary data. Specifically, adapting the concept of WikiPharma to industrial chemicals regulated under the REACH regulation is discussed. Experiences with WikiPharma show that there is interest in using peerreviewed studies in regulatory decision-making. However, tools like WikiPharma require constant updates. Hence, as for WikiREACH, effective incentives are needed to motivate researchers to feed in relevant data for regulatory assessments. Besides, support by automated processes can aid in the labourintensive activity of gathering data. To ensure that such a tool is continuously maintained and compatible with the regulatory system, and thereby useful for hazard and risk assessments of chemicals, it would benefit from being developed in collaboration with the major stakeholders in the field, i.e. regulatory agencies, academia, industry, scientific journals, and providers of research network platforms.

  Read more about Refining tools to bridge the gap between academia and chemical regulation

• Towards the review of the European Union Water Framework Directive: Recommendations for more efficient assessment and management of chemical contamination in European surface water resources

  2017. Werner Brack (et al.). Science of the Total Environment 576, 720-737

  Article

  Water is a vital resource for natural ecosystems and human life, and assuring a high quality of water and protecting it from chemical contamination is a major societal goal in the European Union. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and its daughter directives are the major body of legislation for the protection and sustainable use of European freshwater resources. The practical implementation of the WFD with regard to chemical pollution has faced some challenges. In support of the upcoming WFD review in 2019 the research project SOLUTIONS and the European monitoring network NORMAN has analyzed these challenges, evaluated the state-of-the-art of the science and suggested possible solutions. We give 10 recommendations to improve monitoring and to strengthen comprehensive prioritization, to foster consistent assessment and to support solution-oriented management of surface waters. The integration of effect-based tools, the application of passive sampling for bioaccumulative chemicals and an integrated strategy for prioritization of contaminants, accounting for knowledge gaps, are seen as important approaches to advance monitoring. Including all relevant chemical contaminants in more holistic chemical status assessment, using effect-based trigger values to address priority mixtures of chemicals, to better consider historical burdens accumulated in sediments and to use models to fill data gaps are recommended for a consistent assessment of contamination. Solution-oriented management should apply a tiered approach in investigative monitoring, to identify toxicity drivers, strengthen consistent legislative frameworks and apply solutions-oriented approaches that explore risk reduction scenarios before and along with risk assessment.

  Read more about Towards the review of the European Union Water Framework Directive

• A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

  2016. Laura N. Vandenberg (et al.). Environmental Health 15

  Article

  Background: The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs.

  Methods: We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity.

  Results: Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs.

  Conclusions: When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.

  Read more about A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

• CRED: CRITERIA FOR REPORTING AND EVALUATING ECOTOXICITY DATA

  2016. Caroline T. A. Moermond (et al.). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35 (5), 1297-1309

  Article

  Predicted-no-effect concentrations (PNECs) and environmental quality standards (EQSs) are derived in a large number of legal frameworks worldwide. When deriving these safe concentrations, it is necessary to evaluate the reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies. Such evaluation is often subject to expert judgment, which may introduce bias and decrease consistency when risk assessors evaluate the same study. The Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED) project attempts to address this problem. It aims to improve the reproducibility, transparency, and consistency of reliability and relevance evaluations of aquatic ecotoxicity studies among regulatory frameworks, countries, institutes, and individual assessors. In the present study, the CRED evaluation method is presented. It includes a set of 20 reliability and 13 relevance criteria, accompanied by extensive guidance. Risk assessors who participated in the CRED ring test evaluated the CRED evaluation method to be more accurate, applicable, consistent, and transparent than the often-used Klimisch method. The CRED evaluation method is accompanied by reporting recommendations for aquatic ecotoxicity studies, with 50 specific criteria divided into 6 categories: general information, test design, test substance, test organism, exposure conditions, and statistical design and biological response. An ecotoxicity study in which all important information is reported is more likely to be considered for regulatory use, and proper reporting may also help in the peer-review process.

  Read more about CRED

• Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED): comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies

  2016. Robert Kase (et al.). Environmental Sciences Europe 28

  Article

  BACKGROUND: The regulatory evaluation of ecotoxicity studies for environmental risk and/or hazard assessment of chemicals is often performed using the method established by Klimisch and colleagues in 1997. The method was, at that time, an important step toward improved evaluation of study reliability, but lately it has been criticized for lack of detail and guidance, and for not ensuring sufficient consistency among risk assessors.

  RESULTS: A new evaluation method was thus developed: Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED). The CRED evaluation method aims at strengthening consistency and transparency of hazard and risk assessment of chemicals by providing criteria and guidance for reliability and relevance evaluation of aquatic ecotoxicity studies. A two-phased ring test was conducted to compare and characterize the differences between the CRED and Klimisch evaluation methods. A total of 75 risk assessors from 12 countries participated. Results show that the CRED evaluation method provides a more detailed and transparent evaluation of reliability and relevance than the Klimisch method. Ring test participants perceived it to be less dependent on expert judgement, more accurate and consistent, and practical regarding the use of criteria and time needed for performing an evaluation.

  CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the CRED evaluation method is a suitable replacement for the Klimisch method, and that its use may contribute to an improved harmonization of hazard and risk assessments of chemicals across different regulatory frameworks.

  Read more about Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED)

• Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations

  2016. Paul Whaley (et al.). Environment International 92-93, 556-564

  Article

  Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a step change in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA.

  Read more about Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment

• In Response: Reporting recommendations to ensure reliability and reproducibility of ecotoxicity studies—A tripartite initiative

  2016. Marlene Ågerstrand. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35 (5), 1072-1073

  Article

  Read more about In Response: Reporting recommendations to ensure reliability and reproducibility of ecotoxicity studies—A tripartite initiative

• Study sensitivity: Evaluating the ability to detect effects in systematic reviews of chemical exposures

  2016. Glinda S. Cooper (et al.). Environment International 92-93, 605-610

  Article

  A critical step in systematic reviews of potential health hazards is the structured evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the included studies; risk of bias is a term often used to represent this process, specifically with respect to the evaluation of systematic errors that can lead to inaccurate (biased) results (i.e. focusing on internal validity). Systematic review methods developed in the clinical medicine arena have been adapted for use in evaluating environmental health hazards; this expansion raises questions about the scope of risk of bias tools and the extent to which they capture the elements that can affect the interpretation of results from environmental and occupational epidemiology studies and in vivo animal toxicology studies, (the studies typically available for assessment of risk of chemicals). One such element, described here as sensitivity, is a measure of the ability of a study to detect a true effect or hazard. This concept is similar to the concept of the sensitivity of an assay; an insensitive study may fail to show a difference that truly exists, leading to a false conclusion of no effect Factors relating to study sensitivity should be evaluated in a systematic manner with the same rigor as the evaluation of other elements within a risk of bias framework. We discuss the importance of this component for the interpretation of individual studies, examine approaches proposed or in use to address it, and describe how it relates to other evaluation components. The evaluation domains contained within a risk of bias tool can include, or can be modified to include, some features relating to study sensitivity; the explicit inclusion of these sensitivity criteria with the same rigor and at the same stage of study evaluation as other bias-related criteria can improve the evaluation process. In some cases, these and other features may be better addressed through a separate sensitivity domain. The combined evaluation of risk of bias and sensitivity can be used to identify the most informative studies, to evaluate the confidence of the findings from individual studies and to identify those study elements that may help to explain heterogeneity across the body of literature.

  Read more about Study sensitivity

• Transparency of chemical risk assessment data under REACH

  2016. Ellen Ingre-Khans (et al.). Environmental Science: Pocesses & Impacts 18 (12), 1508-1518

  Article

  The REACH regulation requires EU manufacturers and importers of substances to register information on the hazard and risk of their substances with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Risk management of the substances is based on the provided information. It is known that conclusions on hazard and risk are influenced by expert judgements as well as potential conflict of interests. Thus, it is important that hazard and risk assessments are transparent and can be evaluated by a third party. The aim of this study is to scrutinize the transparency, i.e. the accessibility and comprehensibility, of information on substances registered under REACH. Data on repeated dose toxicity and hazard assessment conclusions were extracted for 60 substances from the REACH registration database available on the ECHA website. The data were compiled in a database for systematically evaluating the transparency of information related to the conclusions on hazard or risk. In addition, chemical safety reports (CSR) were requested from ECHA for five substances. The transparency of information on the hazard and risk of substances was found to be limited for several reasons. First, certain information was removed due to confidentiality and certain fields were not published because they could contain confidential information although the information had not been claimed confidential. Also, the extent to which registrants reported information varied, and the presentation of some data and certain terminology required further clarification. In addition, the data source for the majority of the key and supporting studies could not be identified due to confidentiality. Since registrants are only required to summarise studies, it cannot be verified whether all relevant information from non-public industry reports have been reported. Lastly, certain information related to the hazard and risk assessment were only reported in the CSR which is only available upon request; a time-consuming and work-intensive process. As information on registered chemicals is currently provided to the public, it is difficult to follow steps that are undertaken in the hazard and risk assessment. This limits the possibility for a third party to evaluate the assessment.

  Read more about Transparency of chemical risk assessment data under REACH

• Uppsala Consensus Statement on Environmental Contaminants and the Global Obesity Epidemic

  2016. Lars Lind (et al.). Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives 124 (5), A81-A83

  Article

  From the lectures presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Obesity and Environmental Contaminants, which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, on 8-9 October 2015, it became evident that the findings from numerous animal and epidemiological studies are consistent with the hypothesis that environmental contaminants could contribute to the global obesity epidemic. To increase awareness of this important issue among scientists, regulatory agencies, politicians, chemical industry management, and the general public, the authors summarize compelling scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis and discuss actions that could restrict the possible harmful effects of environmental contaminants on obesity.

  Read more about Uppsala Consensus Statement on Environmental Contaminants and the Global Obesity Epidemic

• Weight of evidence evaluation and systematic review in EU chemical risk assessment: Foundation is laid but guidance is needed

  2016. Marlene Ågerstrand, Anna Beronius. Environment International 92-93, 590-596

  Article

  The aim of this review was to investigate if and how the application of weight of evidence (WoE) evaluation or systematic review (SR) in chemical risk assessment is promoted within different regulatory frameworks in the European Union. Legislative and relevant guidance documents within nine regulatory frameworks were scrutinized and compared. WoE evaluation or SR is promoted in seven of the investigated frameworks but sufficient guidance for how to perform these processes is generally lacking. None of the investigated frameworks give enough guidance for generating robust and reproducible WoE evaluations or SRs. In conclusion, the foundation for use of WoE evaluation and SR is laid-in the majority of the investigated frameworks, but there is a need to provide more structured and detailed guidance. In order to make the process of developing guidance as efficient as possible, and to ensure smooth transfer of risk assessment's between frameworks if a chemical is risk assessed both as, for example, a biocide and an industrial chemical, it is recommended that guidance is developed jointly by the European regulatory agencies.

  Read more about Weight of evidence evaluation and systematic review in EU chemical risk assessment

• Improving Environmental Risk Assessment of Human Pharmaceuticals

  2015. Marlene Ågerstrand (et al.). Environmental Science and Technology 49 (9), 5336-5345

  Article

  This paper presents 10 recommendations for improving the European Medicines Agency's guidance for environmental risk assessment of human pharmaceutical products. The recommendations are based on up-to-date, available science in combination with experiences from other chemical frameworks such as the REACH-legislation for industrial chemicals. The recommendations concern: expanding the scope of the current guideline; requirements to assess the risk for development of antibiotic resistance; jointly performed assessments; refinement of the test proposal; mixture toxicity assessments on active pharmaceutical ingredients with similar modes of action; use of all available ecotoxicity studies; mandatory reviews; increased transparency; inclusion of emission data from production; and a risk management option. We believe that implementation of our recommendations would strengthen the protection of the environment and be beneficial to society. Legislation and guidance documents need to be updated at regular intervals in order to incorporate new knowledge from the scientific community. This is particularly important for regulatory documents concerning pharmaceuticals in the environment since this is a research field that has been growing substantially in the last decades.

  Read more about Improving Environmental Risk Assessment of Human Pharmaceuticals

• Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP): An Online Resource for Evaluating and Reporting In Vivo (Eco)Toxicity Studies

  2015. Linda Molander (et al.). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 21 (3), 753-762

  Article

  (Eco)toxicity studies conducted according to internationally standardized test guidelines are often considered reliable by default and preferred as key evidence in regulatory risk assessment. At the same time regulatory agencies emphasize the use of all relevant (eco)toxicity data in the risk assessment process, including non-standard studies. However, there is a need to facilitate the use of such studies in regulatory risk assessment. Therefore, we propose a framework that facilitates a systematic and transparent evaluation of the reliability and relevance of (eco)toxicity in vivo studies for health and environmental risk assessment. The framework includes specific criteria to guide study evaluation, as well as a color-coding tool developed to aid the application of these criteria. In addition we provide guidance intended for researchers on how to report non-standard studies to ensure that they meet regulatory requirements. The intention of the evaluating and reporting criteria is to increase the usability of all relevant data that may fill information gaps in chemical risk assessments. The framework is publically available online, free of charge, at the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) website: [GRAPHICS] . The aim of this article is to present the framework and resources available at the SciRAP website.

  Read more about Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP)

• Bad Reporting or Bad Science?: Systematic Data Evaluation as a Means to Improve the Use of Peer-Reviewed Studies in Risk Assessments of Chemicals

  2014. Marlene Ågerstrand, Linnea Edvardsson, Christina Rudén. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 20 (6), 1427-1445

  Article

  In this study we assess the applicability of a set of reliability criteria proposed by angstrom gerstrand etal. This was done by evaluating the reliability of 12 non-standard peer-reviewed ecotoxicity and toxicity studies for Bisphenol A. There was an overall agreement between the evaluator and the authors of the papers regarding the result of the evaluations. This suggests that the criteria offer enough guidance to be a useful and consistent evaluation tool. It provides a transparent and structured approach, and ensures that a minimum and similar set of criteria is used. The evaluation of the peer-reviewed ecotoxicity and toxicity studies concludes that important information is sometimes missing, and therefore the studies do not always meet common regulatory requirements regarding reporting. Whether this is due to insufficient reporting or due to poorly performed studies is not known. To improve the reporting, and thereby promote reliability and reproducibility, researchers, reviewers, and editors are recommended to use the suggested criteria as a guideline. In conclusion, in order to improve the reliability of peer-reviewed studies, and to increase their use in regulatory risk assessments of chemicals, the dialog between regulators, researchers, and editors regarding how to evaluate and report studies needs to be strengthened.

  Read more about Bad Reporting or Bad Science?

• Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data: a case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical substances

  2011. Marlene Ågerstrand, Magnus Breitholtz, Christina Rudén. Environmental Sciences Europe 23 (17)

  Article

  Background

  Standard test data are still preferred and recommended for regulatory environmental risk assessments of pharmaceuticals even though data generated by non-standard tests could improve the scientific basis of risk assessments by providing relevant and more sensitive endpoints.

  The aim of this study was to investigate if non-standard ecotoxicity data can be evaluated systematically in risk assessments of pharmaceuticals. This has been done by evaluating the usefulness of four reliability evaluation methods, and by investigating whether recently published non-standard ecotoxicity studies from the open scientific literature fulfill the criteria that these methods propose.

  Results

  The same test data were evaluated differently by the four methods in seven out of nine cases. The selected non-standard test data were considered reliable/acceptable in only 14 out of 36 cases.

  Conclusions

  The four evaluation methods differ in scope, user friendliness, and how criteria are weighted and summarized. This affected the outcome of the data evaluation.

  The results suggest that there is room for improvements in how data are reported in the open scientific literature. Reliability evaluation criteria could be used as a checklist to ensure that all important aspects are reported and thereby increasing the possibility that the data could be used for regulatory risk assessment.

  Read more about Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data

• Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals

  2011. M. Ågerstrand (et al.). Environmental Pollution 159 (10), 2487-2492

  Article

  Ecotoxicity data with high reliability and relevance are needed to guarantee the scientific quality of environmental risk assessments of pharmaceuticals. The main advantages of a more structured approach to data evaluation include increased transparency and predictability of the risk assessment process, and the possibility to use non-standard data. In this collaboration, between the research project MistraPharma and the German Federal Environment Agency, a new set of reporting and evaluation criteria is presented and discussed. The new criteria are based on the approaches in the literature and the OECD reporting requirements, and have been further developed to include both reliability and relevance of test data. Intended users are risk assessors and researchers performing ecotoxicological experiments, but the criteria can also be used for education purposes and in the peer-review process for scientific papers. This approach intends to bridge the gap between the regulator and the scientist's needs and way of work.

  Read more about Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals

Show all publications by Marlene Ågerstrand at Stockholm University