Table 6.
Abbreviated data quality assessment for case study of ultraviolet filter toxicity tests in corala
| Data quality assessment result | Danovaro et al. (2008) | Downs et al. (2016) | Fel et al. (2019) | He et al. (2019a) | He et al. (2019b)b | He et al. (2019b)c | McCoshum et al. (2016)d | Stein et al. (2019) | Wijgerde et al. (2020) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Biological endpoint stated and defined? | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 |
| 2. Are relevant validity criteria stated and met? | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3. Is the test system used defined (e.g., static conditions)? | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 4. Is the test substance concentration maintained ± 20%? | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 5. Is the test system appropriate for the test organism? | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 |
| 6. Biological effect stated? | 0 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7. Is a parallel reference toxicant study conducted? | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8. Test substance identified and source reported? | 4 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 9. Test substance purity reported? | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| 10. Is the experiment appropriately replicated? | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 11. Significant dose–response relationship demonstrated? | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12. Suitable statistical method/model used to determine toxicity? | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13. Significance level/variability reported for statistical endpoint? | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14. Is exposure duration stated and appropriate? | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| 15. Is a suitable test concentration separation factor used? | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| 16. Do test concentration adequately bracket the endpoint? | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 17. Are organisms appropriately acclimatized to test conditions? | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 18. Are organisms well described? | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 19. Test vessels appropriate for the test substance? | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| 20. Are analytical methods described and QA/QC reported? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 21. Test medium parameters (total out of 22a – f) | 0 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| 22. If used, is solvent in the appropriate range? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | 2 |
| 23. Is the solvent suitable for the test species? | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 33% | 48% | 68% | 64% | 62% | 72% | 30% | 38% | 54% |
| Reliability score | NA2 | R6 | R3 | R4 | R4 | R3 | NA1/NA2 | NA2 | NA2 |
a
The total possible data quality score is presented as a percentage out of a maximum score of 100. The reliability scores were awarded based on the scheme presented in Table 2. Full data quality assessments for each study can be found in the Supporting Information.
b
Two scores are awarded to He et al. (2019b), this score is for the adult assay.
c
Two scores are awarded to He et al. (2019b), this score is for the larval settlement assay.
d
McCoshum et al. (2016) maximum score was out of 96 rather than 100 because questions 22 and 23 were not evaluated as solvent not used in the study.