95th percentile

The 95th percentile, the more severe level used to describe children who are already obese. 

Fig. 14.1 95th percentile of urine concentrations (pg/g creatinine corrected) for the US population aged 20-59 years, three NHANES surveys. Shaded blocks show 4-nitrophenol (methyl parathion) unshaded blocks show 3,5,6-tnchloro. v-pyndinol 

Error factor The ratio of the 95th percentile value to the median value of a lognormal distribution. 

Table 3 Estimation of maximum dietary exposure (MDE) (95th percentile), non observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and tolerable dally Intake (TDI) of the most used PAEs according to EFSA [62]

The error factor (EF) defined as equation 2.5-16 relates the 50th percentile to the 95th percentile (equation 2.5-17) and the 5th percentile (equatin 2.5-18). 

Table 7 Estimated daily intakes of phthalates in different countries, median (range or 95th percentile), based in urinary metabolite concentrations, expressed in pg/kg b.w./day 

Worst-case character of the traditional default assessment factors is considered doubtful as the 95th percentile for the proposed distributions for the interspecies (anrmal-to-human) factor and the subchronic-to-chronic duration factor are considerably higher than 10. In addition, the limited data on intraspecies (human-to-human) variation is also considered to indicate that a default factor of 10 may not be sufficient. 

If possible, the intake should be expressed both as a statistical mean or median and maximum (e.g., 95th percentile). Ideally, a frequency distribution of exposure for the study area population is the goal. Inmost cases, however, the variability in exposure medium intake rates and pollutant concentrations are unknown and average/maximum values must suffice. 

Table 2 Index Values from the Simulated Non-cumulative Data Sets with No Built-in Error, and 50th (5th— 95th) Percentiles of Each of the 1000-Sized Bootstrap Index Sample Constructed from 3-fold, 6-fold, and 12-fold Replicated Data Sets with Built-in Error 

Children and adolescents stage 1 hypertension is classified by blood pressure levels that range from the 95th percentile to 5 mm Hg above the 99th percentile. 

The authors also noted that the database for the derivation of a standard value is very limited. The few available data support a factor of 2-3 additional (multiplicatively) to the scaling factor in order to cover, for approximately 95% of the substances (i.e., the 95th percentile), a possibly greater sensitivity of humans compared with experimental animals. The overall interspecies assessment factor would then be 8-12 for a rat study and 14—21 for a mouse study. 

A total of 10,000 iterations or calculations of dose were performed as part of this simulation, and Figure 4 shows the resulting distribution of average daily doses of chlorpyrifos as determined by the Monte Carlo simulation. Common practice in exposure and risk assessment is to characterize the 50th percentile as a "typical" exposure and the 95th percentile as the "reasonable maximum" exposure.4 The distributional analysis for these calculated doses 

In 2005, the EES A [62] made an estimation of PAE exposure in human populations based on the limited available literature on DEHP, DBP, BBP, DiNP, and DiDP concentration in foods and diets. Some studies have been conducted in two different populations in United Kingdom (UK) and Denmark from 1996 to 2003 [124—129]. Based on the information obtained from the mentioned studies, the EFSA estimated the daily oral intake and the maximum dietary exposure (calculated in the 95th percentile) (MDE) for the most used PAEs (Table 3). 

Woutersen et al. (1985, as cited in Kalberlah and Schneider 1998 ECETOC 1995, 2003) evaluated toxicity data relating to 82 substances including stabilizers, plasticizers, antioxidants, disinfectants, food additives, pesticides, other agrochemicals, and industrial chemicals. The substances were each tested (oral administration to rats) for a subacute (2-4 weeks) and a subchronic (13-18 weeks) duration of exposure. Both the NOAEL and the LOAEL were included in the comparison. For 56% of the substances (46), the ratio NOAELsubacute/ NOAELsubchronic was about 1. For 44% of the substances (36), the subchronic NOAEL was lower than the subacute NOAEL (i.e., the ratio was above 1), and for 3/82 substances, the ratio was above 100. The 95th percentile was about 10. A factor of 4 covered 70%-80% of the substances. 

---