Strength of methods assessment for aquatic primary producer toxicity data: A critical review of atrazine studies from the peer-reviewed literature

Abstract

Improving the quality of pesticide toxicity studies is a shared goal in ecotoxicology and a priority for risk assessors. Using the herbicide atrazine and testing on primary producers as a case study, we developed and applied a transparent scoring system for assessing the quality of peer-reviewed studies. The exercise also highlights where data gaps exist for planning future work. We determined that, while a large number of studies (147) present experimental data fitting basic inclusion criteria, only a small proportion provide sufficient information on the test substance, test organism, and test results to be considered of sufficient quality (i.e., a minimum score of >8 out of 16, meaning no critical study weaknesses identified) that would allow recommendation for their use in decision-making. Optimal studies for use in first tier risk assessment were further identified for each taxonomic group as the highest-scoring study scoring >8, that also used the technical grade active ingredient, reported an EC50 for a population-level endpoint (e.g. cell density, dry weight), and an exposure period in line with standard tests (≤96-h for algae, ≤14-d for macrophytes). Ultimately, 22 freshwater studies (four periphyton, ten macrophytes, and eight phytoplankton) achieved scores >8. Only one study with marine phytoplankton scored >8, and no studies met the risk assessment inclusion criteria for marine/estuarine periphyton or macrophytes. This indicates a potential research need with respect to toxicity data for salt-water species. Finally, registrant studies were evaluated, and in many cases, were the most appropriate for risk assessment, with the greatest scores observed for their respective species relative to those reported in the peer-reviewed literature. This exercise highlights the importance of defining and identifying well-performed toxicity tests, illuminating knowledge gaps, and reporting high quality data in support of the risk assessment process outside of the standard regulatory framework.