Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288:reg:2:p15
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 2 (pt 15/15)
Character Range: 1290751–1292182

sensitive and are therefore considered as early warning tests. However, if such data is used to derive EILs, this should be clearly stated. Biomarker data can be highly relevant for site-specific ecological risk assessment.

Once the unsuitable toxicity data has been removed, the next step is to assess the quality of the remaining data. Such screening methods are used in the methodologies of most countries to derive environmental quality guidelines (EQGs); for example, in Denmark, the Netherlands and the USA. However, in most cases, how the data was screened is not described. A screening method was used for the Australian and New Zealand WQGs (Warne et al. 1998; Warne 2001). This method assessed whether appropriate experimental designs, chemical analyses and statistics were used to obtain the toxicity data.

The method was based on the method used within the US EPA AQUIRE database, which was later renamed the US EPA ECOTOX database (US EPA 1994, 2004) but was improved by Warne et al. (1998).

These methods were subsequently reviewed and further improved by Hobbs et al. (2005). The Hobbs et al. (2005) data quality assessment procedures were modified so they were suitable for terrestrial ecotoxicity data (see Table 7) for use in this guideline.

Table 7. Scheme to assess the quality of terrestrial ecotoxicology data. This has been modified from the aquatic scheme of Hobbs et al. (2005).
Question  Marks awarded