Table 12 Description and comparison of the four reliability evaluation methods.
Klimisch et al. | Durda and Preziosi | Hobbs et al. | Schneider et al. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Data types | Toxicity (in vivo and in vitro) and ecotoxicity (acute and chronic) data. | Ecotoxicity data. | Ecotoxicity (both acute and chronic) data. | Toxicity data (both in vivo and in vitro). |
Coverage | Reliability. | Reliability. | Reliability. | Reliability and also a few aspects of relevance. |
Evaluation categories | Reliable without restrictions, reliable with restrictions, not reliable and not assignable. | High, moderate and low quality, not reliable and not assignable. | High, acceptable and unacceptable quality. | Reliable without restrictions, reliable with restrictions, not reliable and not assignable. |
No. of evaluation criteria/questions | 12 (acute ecotoxicity), 14 (chronic ecotoxicity). | 40 | 20 | 21 |
No. of aspects per criteria/questions | Several. | 1 | 1 | Several. |
Type of criteria/questions | Recommended. | Recommended and mandatory. | Recommended, mark between 0 and 10. | Recommended and mandatory, mark between 0 and 1. |
Additional guidance to evaluator | No. | Yes. | No. | Yes. |
Information on how to summarize the evaluation | Not stated. | Stated. | Stated. | Stated and calculated automatically. |
Additional information | Recommended in the REACH guidance document for industrial chemicals [39]. | Based on standards from US EPA, OECD and ASTM. | Based on a method developed for the Australasian ecotoxicity database. | The method is called ToxRTool (Toxicological data reliability assessment Tool). |
No. of OECD criteria that the method matched | 14/37 | 22/37 | 15/37 | 14/37 |