Search

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 C 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.

The essential use concept aims to better protect consumers, vulnerable groups, and the environment from the most harmful chemicals by phasing out uses considered non-essential for society. Given the lack of empirical research evaluating this novel approach for chemical management in real-world settings, the aims of the present analysis were to 1) investigate if the information provided in applications for authorisation under REACH allowed for the identification of non-essential uses of substances of very high concern (SVHCs), and 2) identify data gaps, challenges and potential needs for revising the assessment criteria to effectively implement the essential use concept in the REACH authorisation. In total, 100 uses covering 11 SVHCs were analysed. 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (OPnEO) and chromium trioxide were among the most frequently used substances, covering 42% and 35% of the analysed uses. Using the current essential use criteria, 55% of all analysed uses were categorised as essential, while 10% were categorised as non-essential. Potentially, authorisations would not have been granted for the identified non-essential uses under REACH if the concept had been implemented at the time. However, for 35% of the uses it was not possible to assess their essentiality and these uses were therefore categorised as "complex." These challenges were due to the multiple purposes of the technical function, lack of detailed information on the spectrum of end-uses, and difficulties in interpreting the essential use criteria. Consequently, for a successful implementation of the essential use concept, we recommend the European Commission to develop guidance for applicants and refine the essential use criteria to ensure a transparent and resource-efficient authorisation procedure under REACH., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Borchert, Figuière, Cousins, Rudén and Ågerstrand.)

Behavioural analysis has been attracting significant attention as a broad indicator of sub-lethal toxicity and has secured a place as an important subdiscipline in ecotoxicology. Among the most notable characteristics of behavioural research, compared to other established approaches in sub-lethal ecotoxicology (e.g. reproductive and developmental bioassays), are the wide range of study designs being used and the diversity of endpoints considered. At the same time, environmental hazard and risk assessment, which underpins regulatory decisions to protect the environment from potentially harmful chemicals, often recommends that ecotoxicological data be produced following accepted and validated test guidelines. These guidelines typically do not address behavioural changes, meaning that these, often sensitive, effects are not represented in hazard and risk assessments. Here, we propose a new tool, the EthoCRED evaluation method, for assessing the relevance and reliability of behavioural ecotoxicity data, which considers the unique requirements and challenges encountered in this field. This method and accompanying reporting recommendations are designed to serve as an extension of the "Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED)" project. As such, EthoCRED can both accommodate the wide array of experimental design approaches seen in behavioural ecotoxicology, and could be readily implemented into regulatory frameworks as deemed appropriate by policy makers of different jurisdictions to allow better integration of knowledge gained from behavioural testing into environmental protection. Furthermore, through our reporting recommendations, we aim to improve the reporting of behavioural studies in the peer-reviewed literature, and thereby increase their usefulness to inform chemical regulation., (© 2024 The Author(s). Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society.)

The CLP mandates manufacturers and importers to classify substances and mixtures according to hazard criteria, with notifications submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Substances meeting hazard criteria must be appropriately labelled and packaged to communicate hazards effectively. The CLP establishes hazard classification criteria but does not independently prohibit or restrict the use of hazardous chemicals. Instead, it serves as a basis for regulatory obligations in other specific regulations. This study investigates the regulatory implications of meeting hazard criteria under the CLP across EU regulations and directives listed in EU Chemicals Legislation Finder (EUCLEF). The results show that fulfilling criteria for human health hazard classes trigger regulatory obligations in the highest number of regulations/directives, with carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive toxicity (CMR) leading to obligations in 19 of 20 pieces of legislation linked to the CLP. Conversely, physical, environmental, and ozone layer hazards are associated with fewer regulations and directives, and lead to fewer prohibitions. The study underscores the pivotal role of the CLP in EU chemical legislation and the need for coherence and consistency across regulations. While regulatory obligations are primarily aimed at substances meeting hazard criteria, the variability in self-classification notifications and limitations in harmonized classification processes were observed. Moreover, the complexity of the regulatory structure poses challenges for stakeholders and policymakers, including inconsistencies, compliance difficulties, and the need for frequent revisions. Addressing these challenges is critical for enhancing regulatory effectiveness and ensuring a more coherent and harmonized approach to chemical management in the EU., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Kättström, Beronius, Boije af Gennäs, Rudén and Ågerstrand.)

This work presents a case study in applying a systematic review framework (SYRINA) to the identification of chemicals as endocrine disruptors. The suitability and performance of the framework is tested with regard to the widely accepted World Health Organization definition of an endocrine disruptor (ED). The endocrine disrupting potential of triphenyl phosphate (TPP), a well-studied flame retardant reported to exhibit various endocrine related effects was assessed. We followed the 7 steps of the SYRINA framework, articulating the research objective via Populations, Exposures, Comparators, Outcomes (PECO) statements, performed literature search and screening, conducted study evaluation, performed data extraction and summarized and integrated the evidence. Overall, 66 studies, consisting of in vivo , in vitro and epidemiological data, were included. We concluded that triphenyl phosphate could be identified as an ED based on metabolic disruption and reproductive function. We found that the tools used in this case study and the optimizations performed on the framework were suitable to assess properties of EDs. A number of challenges and areas for methodological development in systematic appraisal of evidence relating to endocrine disrupting potential were identified; significant time and effort were needed for the analysis of in vitro mechanistic data in this case study, thus increasing the workload and time needed to perform the systematic review process. Further research and development of this framework with regards to grey literature (non-peer-reviewed literature) search, harmonization of study evaluation methods, more consistent evidence integration approaches and a pre-defined method to assess links between adverse effect and endocrine activity are recommended. It would also be advantageous to conduct more case studies for a chemical with less data than TPP.

Pollution by chemicals and waste impacts human and ecosystem health on regional, national, and global scales, resulting, together with climate change and biodiversity loss, in a triple planetary crisis. Consequently, in 2022, countries agreed to establish an intergovernmental science-policy panel (SPP) on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention, complementary to the existing intergovernmental science-policy bodies on climate change and biodiversity. To ensure the SPP's success, it is imperative to protect it from conflicts of interest (COI). Here, we (i) define and review the implications of COI, and its relevance for the management of chemicals, waste, and pollution; (ii) summarize established tactics to manufacture doubt in favor of vested interests, i.e., to counter scientific evidence and/or to promote misleading narratives favorable to financial interests; and (iii) illustrate these with selected examples. This analysis leads to a review of arguments for and against chemical industry representation in the SPP's work. We further (iv) rebut an assertion voiced by some that the chemical industry should be directly involved in the panel's work because it possesses data on chemicals essential for the panel's activities. Finally, (v) we present steps that should be taken to prevent the detrimental impacts of COI in the work of the SPP. In particular, we propose to include an independent auditor's role in the SPP to ensure that participation and processes follow clear COI rules. Among others, the auditor should evaluate the content of the assessments produced to ensure unbiased representation of information that underpins the SPP's activities.

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution are planetary-scale emergencies requiring urgent mitigation actions. As these "triple crises" are deeply interlinked, they need to be tackled in an integrative manner. However, while climate change and biodiversity are often studied together, chemical pollution as a global change factor contributing to worldwide biodiversity loss has received much less attention in biodiversity research so far. Here, we review evidence showing that the multifaceted effects of anthropogenic chemicals in the environment are posing a growing threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. Therefore, failure to account for pollution effects may significantly undermine the success of biodiversity protection efforts. We argue that progress in understanding and counteracting the negative impact of chemical pollution on biodiversity requires collective efforts of scientists from different disciplines, including but not limited to ecology, ecotoxicology, and environmental chemistry. Importantly, recent developments in these fields have now enabled comprehensive studies that could efficiently address the manifold interactions between chemicals and ecosystems. Based on their experience with intricate studies of biodiversity, ecologists are well equipped to embrace the additional challenge of chemical complexity through interdisciplinary collaborations. This offers a unique opportunity to jointly advance a seminal frontier in pollution ecology and facilitate the development of innovative solutions for environmental protection., (© 2023 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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.

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.

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.

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. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:000-000. © 2019 SETAC., (© 2019 SETAC.)

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.

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., (© 2017 Society for Risk Analysis.)

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.)

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 peer-reviewed 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 peer-reviewed 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 labour-intensive 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.

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. © 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)., (© 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).)

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.

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.)

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., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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.

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., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2015 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.)

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.

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.