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

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.ConclusionsWe 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12302-016-0073-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Modeling the Fate and Transport of Plastic Debris in Freshwaters: Review and Guidance

“…Quality assurance criteria are common in analytical chemistry or ecotoxicology [113,114] but are less self-evident for monitoring of plastic debris which is a relatively young field of science [115].…”

Testing and refining the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) web‐based platform for evaluating the reliability and relevance of in vivo toxicity studies

“…It is clear that experts' evaluations of study reliability and relevance may vary, even when predefined evaluation criteria are used (Beronius & Ågerstrand, ). However, studies also show that the application of evaluation tools can contribute to reducing variability in evaluations (Kase, Korkaric, Werner, & Agerstrand, ). One reason for the variability observed in the expert assessment of the initial SciRAP method, and the apparent lack of correlation between evaluations and categorization into different reliability categories, may be that no specific guidance was provided to participants.…”

Assessing the reliability of ecotoxicological studies: An overview of current needs and approaches

“…Several methods have been tested on case studies, either internally (Durda and Preziosi ; Breton et al ; Van Der Kraak et al ; Beasley et al ) or using an external “round‐robin” or ring test assessment. For example, the method presented by Hobbs et al () was tested using 2 studies and 23 participants, whereas a round‐robin test of the CRED method by Moermond et al () used 8 studies and 75 participants (Kase et al, ). A method that has been validated and tested for clarity of the guidance using ring tests with multiple users will likely provide more consistent results.…”