Hazard assessment dose-response relationships

Related terms Hazard Characterization, Dose-Effect Relationship, Effect Assessment, Dose—Response Relationship, Concentration—Effect Relationship. 

If possible, there should be measurement of the toxic effect in order quantitatively to relate the observations made to the degree of exposure (exposure dose). Ideally, there is a need to determine quantitatively the toxic response to several differing exposure doses, in order to determine the relationship, if any, between exposure dose and the nature and magnitude of any effect. Such dose—response relationship studies are of considerable value in determining whether an effect is causally related to the exposure material, in assessing the possible practical (in-use) relevance of the exposure conditions, and to allow the most reasonable estimates of hazard. 

Hazard characterization and delineation of dose-effect or dose-response relationships. 3. Assessment of exposure 4. Risk characterization... 

Dose-response assessment is the process of obtaining quantitative information about the probability of human illness following exposure to a hazard it is the translation of exposure into harm. Dose-response curves have been determined for some hazards. The curves show the relationship of dose exposure and the probabihty of a response. Since vahdated dose-response relationships are scarce, various other inputs are used to underpin the hazard characterization phase of risk assessment. 

As has been emphasized so many times in the preceding chapters, these various manifestations of toxicity all display dose-response characteristics, where by response we refer to the incidence or severity of specific adverse health effects. As we demonstrated in earlier chapters, toxic responses increase in incidence, in severity, and sometimes in both, as dose increases. Moreover, just below the range of doses over which adverse effects can be observed, there is usually evidence for a threshold dose, what we have called the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). The threshold dose must be exceeded before adverse effects become observable (Chapter 3). Deriving from the literature on toxic hazards, descriptions of the dose-response relationships for those hazards comprise the dose-response assessment step of the four-step process. 

This chapter will first address (Section 4.2) some general aspects of importance for the hazard assessment systemic effects versus local effects (Section 4.2.1) adverse effect(s) versus non-adverse effect(s) (Section 4.2.2) dose-response relationships (Section 4.2.3) no-effect levels and... 

Other terms often used indiscriminately for the dose-response relationship include concentration-effect relationship and dose-effect relationship. According to the joint OECD/IPCS project (OECD 2003 a), which has developed internationally harmonized generic and technical terms used in chemical hazard and risk assessment, the following definitions have been provided although consensus was not achieved ... 

In the first step of the hazard assessment process, aU effects observed are evaluated in terms of the type and severity (adverse or non-adverse), the dose-response relationship, and NOAEL/LOAEL (or alternatively BMD) for every single effect in aU the available studies if data are sufficient, and the relevance for humans of the effects observed in experimental animals. In this last step of the hazard assessment, all this information is assessed as a whole in order to identify the critical effect(s) and to derive a NOAEL, or LOAEL, for the critical effect(s). It is usual to derive a NOAEL on the basis of effects seen in repeated dose toxicity studies and in reproductive toxicity studies. However, for acute toxicity, irritation, and sensitization it is usually not possible to derive a NOAEL because of the design of the studies used to evaluate these effects. For each toxicological endpoint, these aspects are further addressed in Sections 4.4 through 4.10. 

In the hazard assessment process, described in detail in Chapter 4, aU effects observed are evaluated in terms of the type and severity (adverse or non-adverse), their dose-response relationship, and the relevance for humans of the effects observed in experimental animals. 

Immunotoxicity. There are currently no data on the effects of 2-hexanone on the human immune system via any route of exposure. Animal data included an inhalation study in which there was a 40% decrease in peripheral white blood cells in rats exposed to 2-hexanone (Katz et al. 1980). In addition, 2,5-hexanedione, a metabolite of 2-hexanone, was shown to adversely affect lymphoid organs of the immune system in rats and to cause impairment of immunity in mice (Upreti and Shanker 1987). Immunological assessments, including analysis of peripheral blood components and effects on lymphoid tissue, conducted as part of intermediate-or chronic-duration studies and skin sensitization tests would be useful in developing a dose-response relationship and assessing the potential risk to chronically exposed persons in the vicinity of hazardous waste sites or to exposed workers. 

If the hazard assessment indicates that the compound is potentially hazardous, the next step is to evaluate the various possibilities for exposure. What is the most likely route of exposure oral, inhalation or skin How much absorption is expected from the different routes of exposure Information is also needed on amount, duration, and frequency of exposure. Is exposure occurring in the home, workplace, school, or other areas This information helps to define the population of concern. Exposure information may also be important for designing appropriate studies on hazard assessment and certainly for the next step of establishing dose-response relationships. 

Next, it is important to characterize the dose-response relationship for the agent. Data from the initial hazard assessment, combined with exposure assessment information, are used to determine the most sensitive endpoint. Available data are used to define the dose at which there is no observed effect (NOAEL - no observed adverse effect level) and the shape of the dose-response curve (Figure 19.1). It may be necessary to perform additional studies to define the dose-response curve. 

Since risk analysis plays an important role in public policy decision making, efforts have been made to devise a means by which to identify, control, and communicate the risks imposed by agricultural biotechnology. A paradigm of environmental risk assessment was first introduced in the United States by Peterson and Arntzen in 2004. In this risk assessment, a number of assumptions and uncertainties were considered and presented. These include (1) problem formulation, (2) hazard identihcation, (3) dose-response relationships, (4) exposure assessment, and (5) risk characterization. Risk assessment of plant-made pharmaceuticals must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis because the plants used to produce proteins each have different risks associated with them. Many plant-derived biopharmaceuticals will challenge our ability to define an environmental hazard (Howard and Donnelly, 2004). For example, the expression of a bovine-specihc antigen produced in a potato plant and used orally in veterinary medicine would have a dramatically different set of criteria for assessment of risk than, as another example, the expression of a neutralizing nonspecihc oral antibody developed in maize to suppress Campylobacter jejuni in chickens (Peterson and Arntzen, 2004 Kirk et al., 2005). 

The evaluation of dose-response relationships is a critical component of hazard characterization (OECD, 1989 ECETOC, 1992 US , 1997a IPCS, 1999). Evidence for a dose-response relationship is an important criterion in establishing a toxic reproductive effect. It includes the evaluation of data from both human and laboratory animal studies. Because quantitative data on human dose-response relationships are infrequently available, the dose-response evaluation is usually based on the assessment of data from tests performed using laboratory animals. However, if data are available in humans with a sufficient range of doses, dose-response relationships in humans can also be evaluated. 

Risk assessment An empirically based paradigm that estimates the risk of adverse effects) from exposure of an individual or population to a chemical, physical or biological agent. It includes the components of hazard identification, assessment of dose-response relationships, exposure assessment and risk characterization. 

Risk assessment The evaluation of scientific information on the hazardous properties of environmental agents (hazard characterization), the dose-response relationship (dose-response assessment), and the extent of human exposure to those agents (exposure assessment). 

Two types of responses from exposure to hazardous substances, called stochastic or deterministic,5 are of concern in risk assessment. The two types of responses are distinguished by the characteristic features of the dose-response relationship, i.e., the relationship between the dose of a hazardous substance and the probability (or frequency) of a response. 

Dose-Response Relationships. The primary objective of this study is to set forth the foundations of a risk-based waste classification system that applies to hazardous chemicals and radionuclides. Most aspects of the risk assessment process that provide the basis for establishing this system are conceptually the same for chemicals and radionuclides, although the specific data (e.g., solubilities) may differ. One important exception is the assumed relationship of the probability of a response to a unit dose of a substance that causes stochastic effects, which is called the dose-response relationship There are important conceptual differences in the way this relationship has been defined and used for hazardous chemicals and radionuclides, and these differences could pose a major impediment to development of a risk-based waste classification system that applies to both types of substances on a consistent basis. These differences are elucidated in the following section. 

Dose-Response Assessment for Chemicals That Cause Deterministic Effects. For hazardous chemicals that cause deterministic effects and exhibit a threshold in the dose-response relationship, the purpose of the dose-response assessment is to identify the dose of a substance below which it is not likely that there will be an adverse response in humans. Establishing dose-response relationships for chemicals that cause deterministic effects has proved to be complex because (1) multiple responses are possible, (2) the dose-response assessment is usually based on data from animal studies, (3) thousands of such chemicals exist, and (4) the availability and quality of data are highly variable. As a consequence, the scientific community has needed to devise and adhere to a number of methods to quantify the most important (low or safe dose) part of the dose-response relationship. 

Dose-Response Assessment for Chemicals That Cause Stochastic Effects. For hazardous chemicals that do not have a threshold in the dose-response relationship, which is currently believed to... 

Although dose-response assessments for deterministic and stochastic effects are discussed separately in this Report, it should be appreciated that many of the concepts discussed in Section 3.2.1.2 for substances that cause deterministic effects apply to substances that cause stochastic effects as well. The processes of hazard identification, including identification of the critical response, and development of data on dose-response based on studies in humans or animals are common to both types of substances. Based on the dose-response data, a NOAEL or a LOAEL can be established based on the limited ability of any study to detect statistically significant increases in responses in exposed populations compared with controls, even though the dose-response relationship is assumed not to have a threshold. Because of the assumed form of the dose-response relationship, however, NOAEL or LOAEL is not normally used as a point of departure to establish safe levels of exposure to substances causing stochastic effects. This is in contrast to the common practice for substances causing deterministic effects of establishing safe levels of exposure, such as RfDs, based on NOAEL or LOAEL (or the benchmark dose) and the use of safety and uncertainty factors. 

Uncertainties and Deficiencies in Dose-Response Assessment. Any approach to determining the dose-response relationship for hazardous chemicals involves many attendant uncertainties that limit its accuracy. In addition, many dose-response assessments suffer from deficiencies in the way they are conducted, which further decreases accuracy. These two aspects of dose-response assessment, which in some ways have led to adoption of such conservative approaches as large safety factors and UCLs in applying the results to health protection of the public, are discussed in the following two sections. 

In spite of uncertainties in the dose-response relationship for radiation discussed above, it is generally believed that radiation risks in humans can be assessed with considerably greater confidence than risks from exposure to most hazardous chemicals that cause stochastic effects. The state of knowledge of radiation risks in humans compared with risks from exposure to chemicals that cause stochastic effects is discussed further in Section 4.4.2. 

A fundamental difference between radionuclides and hazardous chemicals in regard to dose-response assessment is the following. Estimates of responses from exposure to radionuclides can be based on estimates of absorbed dose and equivalent dose in all organs and tissues, and the dose-response relationships for different organs or tissues obtained from human or animal studies can be applied to any radionuclide and any exposure situation. Separate studies of responses from exposure to each radionuclide of concern are not needed. For hazardous chemicals, however, quantities analogous to absorbed dose and equivalent dose have not been developed i.e.,... 

However, as summarized below, there are important differences in the ways that the dose-response relationships for radionuclides and hazardous chemicals are used in risk assessment and risk management. 

Stochastic responses from exposure to radionuclides and hazardous chemicals generally are of concern in health protection of the public and in classifying waste. Of the three differences in approaches to dose-response assessment identified above, the most important is the use of a best estimate (MLE) of the dose-response relationship for radionuclides but upper-bound estimates (UCLs) for hazardous chemicals that cause stochastic effects. UCL in the dose-response relationship for chemicals that cause stochastic effects normally exceeds MLE by a factor of 5 to 100 or more. If this difference... 

---