Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: challenges, opportunities and recommendations

Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a “step change” in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR. Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA.

Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants

Ruminant husbandry is a major source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG). Filling knowledge gaps and providing expert recommendation are important for defining future research priorities, improving methodologies and establishing science-based GHG mitigation solutions to government and non-governmental organisations, advisory/extension networks, and the ruminant livestock sector. The objectives of this review is to summarize published literature to provide a detailed assessment of the methodologies currently in use for measuring enteric methane (CH4) emission from individual animals under specific conditions, and give recommendations regarding their application. The methods described include respiration chambers and enclosures, sulphur hexafluoride tracer (SF6) technique, and techniques based on short-term measurements of gas concentrations in samples of exhaled air. This includes automated head chambers (e.g. the GreenFeed system), the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a marker, and (handheld) laser CH4 detection. Each of the techniques are compared and assessed on their capability and limitations, followed by methodology recommendations. It is concluded that there is no ‘one size fits all’ method for measuring CH4 emission by individual animals. Ultimately, the decision as to which method to use should be based on the experimental objectives and resources available. However, the need for high throughput methodology e.g. for screening large numbers of animals for genomic studies, does not justify the use of methods that are inaccurate. All CH4 measurement techniques are subject to experimental variation and random errors. Many sources of variation must be considered when measuring CH4 concentration in exhaled air samples without a quantitative or at least regular collection rate, or use of a marker to indicate (or adjust) for the proportion of exhaled CH4 sampled. Consideration of the number and timing of measurements relative to diurnal patterns of CH4 emission and respiratory exchange are important, as well as consideration of feeding patterns and associated patterns of rumen fermentation rate and other aspects of animal behaviour. Regardless of the method chosen, appropriate calibrations and recovery tests are required for both method establishment and routine operation. Successful and correct use of methods requires careful attention to detail, rigour, and routine self-assessment of the quality of the data they provide.