Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Making the most of expert judgment in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry.
Number of Authors: 2
2017 (English)In: Toxicology Research, ISSN 2045-452X, E-ISSN 2045-4538, Vol. 6, no 5, 571-577 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 6, no 5, 571-577 p.
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-147017DOI: 10.1039/c7tx00114bISI: 000408593600001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-147017DiVA: diva2:1145377
Available from: 2017-09-28 Created: 2017-09-28 Last updated: 2017-09-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ågerstrand, Marlene
By organisation
Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry
In the same journal
Toxicology Research
Environmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 4 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf