Chemical NOAEL

In risk characterization, step four, the human exposure situation is compared to the toxicity data from animal studies, and often a safety -margin approach is utilized. The safety margin is based on a knowledge of uncertainties and individual variation in sensitivity of animals and humans to the effects of chemical compounds. Usually one assumes that humans are more sensitive than experimental animals to the effects of chemicals. For this reason, a safety margin is often used. This margin contains two factors, differences in biotransformation within a species (human), usually 10, and differences in the sensitivity between species (e.g., rat vs. human), usually also 10. The safety factor which takes into consideration interindividual differences within the human population predominately indicates differences in biotransformation, but sensitivity to effects of chemicals is also taken into consideration (e.g., safety faaor of 4 for biotransformation and 2.5 for sensitivity 4 x 2.5 = 10). For example, if the lowest dose that does not cause any toxicity to rodents, rats, or mice, i.e., the no-ob-servable-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) is 100 mg/kg, this dose is divided by the safety factor of 100. The safe dose level for humans would be then 1 mg/kg. Occasionally, a NOAEL is not found, and one has to use the lowest-observable-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) in safety assessment. In this situation, often an additional un-... 

No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (NOAEL)—The dose of a chemical at which there were no statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of adverse effects seen between the exposed population and its appropriate control. Effects may be produced at this dose, but they are not considered to be adverse. 

Reference Dose (RfD)—An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of the daily exposure of the human population to a potential hazard that is likely to be without risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The RfD is operationally derived from the no-observed-adverse-efifect level (NOAEL-from animal and human studies) by a consistent application of uncertainty factors that reflect various types of data used to estimate RfDs and an additional modifying factor, which is based on a professional judgment of the entire database on the chemical. The RfDs are not applicable to nonthreshold effects such as cancer. 

Key to figure Species (Strain) Frequency (Specific Route) System NOAEL (mg/kg/day) Less Serious (mg/kg/day) Serious (mg/kg/day) Reference Chemical Form... 

A typical dose-response is shown in Fig. 11.1. This assumes that a dose exists which has no effects due to the capacity of the body to reverse minor changes and maintain cellular homeostasis. The threshold dose is normally taken to be the observed experimental NOAEL, but the NOAEL could be lower than the threshold dose. The NOAEL chosen is the one that represents the most sensitive species studied since all international protocols require that the chemical is tested on at least two species (frequently the rat and the mouse). 

The determination of an acceptable dose for humans involves the application of uncertainty factors to reflect the fact that, unlike the experimental animal, there is wide variability and susceptibility of response in the genetically diverse human population. Variations in gender, age, hormonal and disease status can affect the response to a chemical. In order to minimise any potential risks, uncertainty factors are applied to the NOAEL to arrive at a reduced exposure that is considered tolerable - namely the acceptable daily intake or ADI. These are usually tenfold for variations in susceptibility amongst the human population (the intra-species factor) and tenfold for the potential... 

For some toxins it is possible to demonstrate an apparent improvement in functional response at levels of exposure which are below a threshold. This effect, which has been termed hormesis , is most effectively demonstrated in the consistently improved longevity of animals whose caloric intake is restricted rather than allowing them to feed ad lib (Tannenbaum, 1942). Clearly in this instance, the observed effects are the result of exposure to a complex mixture of chemicals whose metabolism determines the total amount of energy available to the organism. But it is also possible to show similar effects when single chemicals such as alcohol (Maclure, 1993), or caffeic acid (Lutz et al., 1997) are administered, as well as for more toxic chemicals such as arsenic (Pisciotto and Graziano, 1980) or even tetrachloro-p-dibenzodioxin (TCDD) ( Huff et al., 1994) when administered at very low doses. It is possible that there are toxins that effect a modest, reversible disruption in homeostasis which results in an over-compensation, and that this is the mechanism of the beneficial effect observed. These effects would not be observed in the animal bioassays since to show them it would be necessary to have at least three dose groups below the NOAEL. In addition, the strain of animal used would have to have a very low incidence of disease to show any effect. 

---