Hazard assessment reproductive toxicity

Christian, M.S. (1983). Assessment of reproductive toxicity State of the art. In Assessment of Reproductive and Teratogenic Hazards (Christian, M.S., Galbraith, M., Voytek, P. and Mehlman, M.A., Eds.). Princeton Scientific Publishers, Princeton, pp. 65-76. 

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. 

The combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD TG 422, US-EPA OPPTS 870.3650) comprises a basic repeated dose toxicity study and a fertility/developmental toxicity screening test and, therefore, can be used to provide initial information on possible effects on a limited number of reproductive performance parameters. The test does not provide complete information on all aspects of reproduction, has a relatively short period of exposure, and does not provide evidence for dehnite claims of no reproductive effects, while positive results are useful for initial hazard assessment. Furthermore, results regarding repeated dose toxicity are influenced by the pregnant state of the female animals (see also Sections 4.7.3.1 and 4.7.5.2.2). 

The adverse reproductive effects are considered as being threshold effects, i.e., effects for which there are expected to be a threshold of substance concentration below which the effects will not be manifested. For the hazard and risk assessment, it is important to identify those dose levels at which adverse reproductive effects are observed, and the dose level at which adverse reproductive effects are not observed, i.e., to derive a NOAEL for reproductive toxicity. Crucial in the derivation of the NOAEL and/or LOAEL, is the definition of adverse effects (Section 4.2.2). In the derivation of the NOAEL and/or LOAEL, a number of factors need to be considered these issues are addressed in detail in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. An alternative approach to the derivation of the... 

In order to fully assess the hazardous properties of a substance with respect to reproductive toxicity, the key data requirements are a two-generation study and a prenatal developmental toxicity (teratogenicity) smdy in two species (EC 2003). 

The second objective of the hazard assessment concerns characterization of the identified hazards of a particular substance. Under REACH this means that the registrant must define so-called derived no-effect levels., abbreviated DNELs. With respect to human health, these values constitute exposure levels above which humans should not be exposed and below which risks for humans are considered controlled. The DNEL derivation is a complex process which comprises several conversion steps and the application of different assessment factors. In the case of reproductive toxicity, the registrant derives separate DNELs with respect to developmental toxicity on the one hand and to impairment of sexual function and fertility on the other hand. 

Despite everything that has been written here it is not possible to give a cookbook recipe for hazard identification in reproductive toxicity and risk assessment. It is you who extracts the information and acts upon it. Every substance is different. Every study can teach you something new. The best you can do is pay attention to the data. 

As discussed in the introduction to Section 2.1, there are a number of limitations in the human database for most health effects, the data are inadequate to assess the potential for humans having a particular effect. Because the human data are incomplete, hazard and risk must be extrapolated across species. A large number of adverse effects have been observed in animals, and most have been observed in every experimental animal species tested, if the appropriate dose is administered. This is illustrated in Table 2-8 for 8 major effects associated with CDD toxicity (acute lethality, hepatotoxicity, wasting syndrome, chloracne, immunotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, and cancer). With the exception of acute lethality in humans, positive responses have been observed in each tested species, when a response has been investigated. Despite the similarities in hazard response between different species, large species differences in sensitivity have been observed. Comparisons of species sensitivity demonstrate that no species is consistently sensitive or refractory for all effects and, for some effects,... 

California Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Draft Guidelines for Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Assessment of Agents Causing Developmental and/or Reproductive Toxicity. California Department of Health Services, Health Hazard Assessment Division, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section. April 3. 

The documents are initially prepared by scientists with expertise in reproductive toxicity from the California EPA Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section. They are then reviewed by the DART Identification Committee and open to public comment. The final documents are used to determine whether an agent should be placed on the state s list. 

Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, State of California Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, p.65. 

The hazard classification should lead directly to labelling of acute health effects, environmental and physical hazards. The labelling approach that involves a risk assessment should only be applied to chronic health hazards, e.g. carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, or target organ systemic toxicity based on repeated exposure. The only chemicals it may be applied to are those in the consumer product setting where consumer exposures are generally limited in quantity and duration ... 

---