Search

The Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) web-based platform was developed to promote and facilitate structure and transparency in the evaluation of ecotoxicity and toxicity studies for hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. The platform includes sets of criteria and a colour-coding tool for evaluating the reliability and relevance of individual studies. The SciRAP method for evaluating in vivo toxicity studies was first published in 2014 and the aim of the work presented here was to evaluate and develop that method further. Toxicologists and risk assessors from different sectors and geographical areas were invited to test the SciRAP criteria and tool on a specific set of in vivo toxicity studies and to provide feedback concerning the scientific soundness and user-friendliness of the SciRAP approach. The results of this expert assessment were used to refine and improve both the evaluation criteria and the colour-coding tool. It is expected that the SciRAP web-based platform will continue to be developed and enhanced to keep up to date with the needs of end-users., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Toxicology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

To improve data availability in health risk assessment of chemicals and fill information gaps there is a need to facilitate the use of non-standard toxicity studies, i.e. studies not conducted according to any standardized toxicity test guidelines. The purpose of this work was to propose criteria and guidance for the evaluation of reliability and relevance of non-standard in vivo studies, which could be used to facilitate systematic and transparent evaluation of such studies for health risk assessment. Another aim was to propose user friendly guidance for reporting of non-standard studies intended to promote an improvement in reporting of studies that could be of use in risk assessment. Requirements and recommendations for the design and execution of in vivo toxicity studies were identified from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines, and served as basis for the data evaluation criteria and reporting guidelines. Feedback was also collected from experts within the field of toxicity testing and risk assessment and used to construct a two-tiered framework for study evaluation, as well as refine the reporting guidelines. The proposed framework emphasizes the importance of study relevance and an important aspect is to not completely dismiss studies from health risk assessment based on very strict criteria for reliability. The suggested reporting guidelines provide researchers with a tool to fulfill reporting requirements as stated by regulatory agencies. Together, these resources provide an approach to include all relevant data that may fill information gaps and reduce scientific uncertainty in health risk assessment conclusions, and subsequently also in chemical policy decisions., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The occupational exposure limits (OELs) established by seven different national regulatory agencies of EU member states are compared with those of the European Commission (EC). The comparison concerned: (1) what chemicals have been selected, (2) the average level of exposure limits for all chemicals, and (3) the similarity between the OELs of different EU member states and the OELs recommended by the European Commission. The average level of the exposure limits has declined during the past 10 years in four of the five countries in our study for which historical data were available to us. Poland has not changed its level noticeably and Germany has increased it. Since the first list of indicative OELs was established by the EC, a few of the EU exposure limits have been lowered. The similarity index indicates that the exposure limits of EU member states are converging towards the European Commission's recommended OELs. Still, the average level of OELs differs between organizations--the Estonian OELs are on average 35% higher than the Polish OELs.