No-observable effect level NOEL

Undiluted DMAMP, AMP-95, and AB cause eye bums and permanent damage, if not washed out immediately. They are also severely irritating to the skin, causing bums by prolonged or repeated contact. Of these three aLkanolarnines, only AMP has been studied in subchronic and chronic oral studies. The principal effect noted was the action of AMP on the stomach as a result of its alkalinity. The no-observed-effect level (NOEL) in a one-year feeding study in dogs was 110 ppm in the diet. In general, the low volatility and appHcations for which these products are used preclude the likelihood of exposure by inhalation. 

Aquatic toxicity is becoming (ca 1997) a permit requirement on all discharges. Aquatic toxicity is generally reported as an LC q (the percentage of wastewater which causes the death of 50% of the test organisms in a specified period ie, 48 or 96 h, or as a no observed effect level (NOEL), in which the NOEL is the highest effluent concentration at which no unacceptable effect will occur, even at continuous exposure. 

Apart from gastropods, harmful effects of TBT have also been demonstrated in oysters (Environmental Health Criteria 116, Thain and Waldock 1986). Early work established that adult Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) showed shell thickening caused by the development of gel centers when exposed to 0.2 pg/L of TBT fluoride (Alzieu et al. 1982). Subsequent work established the no observable effect level (NOEL) for shell thickening in this, the most sensitive of the tested species, at about 20 ng/L. It has been suggested that shell thickening is a consequence of the effect of TBT on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (Alzieu et al. 1982). Reduced ATP production may retard the function of Ca++ ATPase, which is responsible for the Ca++ transport that leads to CaCOj deposition during the course of shell formation. Abnormal calcification causes distortion of the shell layers. 

Assessments of risks associated with the use of chlorpyrifos insecticide products for workers have been made. The assessments are based on the results of field studies conducted in citrus groves, a Christmas tree farm, cauliflower and tomato fields, and greenhouses that utilized both passive dosimetry and biomonitoring techniques to determine exposure. The biomonitoring results likely provide the best estimate of absorbed dose of chlorpyrifos, and these have been compared to the acute and chronic no observed effect levels (NOELs) for chlorpyrifos. Standard margin-of-exposure (MOE) calculations using the geometric mean of the data are performed however, probability (Student s f-test) and distributional (Monte Carlo simulation) analyses are deemed to provide more realistic evaluations of exposure and risk to the exposed population. 

In the case of noncarcinogenic substances, there exists a threshold this is an exposure with a dose below which there would not be adverse effect on the population that is exposed. This is the reference dose (RfD), and it is defined as the daily exposure of a human population without appreciable effects during a lifetime. The RfD value is calculated by dividing the no observed effect level (NOEL) by uncertainty factors. When NOEL is unknown, the lowest observed effect level (LOEL) is used. NOEL and LOEL are usually obtained in animal studies. The main uncertainty factor, usually tenfold, used to calculate the RfD are the following the variations in interspecies (from animal test to human), presence of sensitive individuals (child and old people), extrapolation from subchronic to chronic, and the use of LOEL instead of NOEL. Noncancer risk is assessed through the comparison of the dose exposed calculated in the exposure assessment and the RfD. The quotient between both, called in some studies as hazard quotient, is commonly calculated (Eq. 2). According to this equation, population with quotient >1 will be at risk to develop some specific effect related to the contaminant of concern. 

The 1-h no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 5 ppm represented a no-effect exposure level for mice, and 11 ppm represented a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) based upon altered hematologic parameters in mice that were reversible at 5 d post-exposure. At 15 ppm, the effects on hematocrit levels, packed cell volume, and RBC count were more severe but were approaching reversibility at 11 d. The use of what might appear to be a conservative NOEL in the derivation of AEGL-2 is justified by the documented latency in the expression of severe toxicity in humans even after removal from exposure... 

Endpoint/Concentration/Rationale 5 ppm for 1 h considered as a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) for decreased hematocrit levels. A NOEL was used because of an extremely steep dose-response curve and the fact that the ultimate toxic effect, renal failure, is delayed for several days. 

Fed 100, 300, 1000, or 3000 mg/kg feed for 78 weeks No evidence of carcinogenicity at any dose tested. No-observable-effect-level (NOEL) was 100 mg/kg diet (equivalent to 15 mg/kg BW) dose-related effects noted in liver at 300 mg/kg diet and higher 1... 

No observed effect level (NOEL), 18 548 of aquatic toxicity, 25 887 Noodle washing, 19 184-185 Nootkatone, 24 549 Nopol, 24 497... 

The ratio between the estimated systemic exposure at the lowest effect level (or highest no-observed-effect-level NOEL) and the estimated systemic exposure at the anticipated therapeutic dosage level (the safety factor ). 

Using the highest no-observed-effect level (NOEL) for determining a safety factor has the following flaws ... 

Such low-dose extrapolation is typically only conducted for tumors believed to be caused by a genotoxic effect, which some, but by no means all, scientists believe have no threshold. For other types of tumors and for many nonneoplastic endpoints a threshold cannot be estimated directly from data at a limited number of dose levels a no observed effect level (NOEL) can be estimated by finding the highest dose level at which there is no significant increase in effects. 

There is little toxicological data available for extracts of carrots, alfalfa, com oil, palm oil, tomatoes, etc. The JECFA had no objections to their use as food colorants provided that the levels of use did not exceed that normally present in vegetables. A number of toxicity experiments were conducted on Dimaliella algae in view of its increasing importance in the health food area. Twelve studies on D. salina indicated no problems. ( is beta-carotene was absorbed to a lesser extent than trans beta-carotene. Furahashi suggested a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 2.5 g kg/day for extracts from D. Hardawil 2 The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the World Health Organization/United Nations (JECFA) did not establish an NOEL or an ADI because of the variation in the composition of the products. 

Experimental investigations and assessments show that the average person takes in about 2 g a year of external plasticizers. Most of this is from traces of DOA migrating from food packaging. The so-called no observed effect level (NOEL) for DOA in rodents is about 40 mg/kg of body weight per day. Extrapolation for a person equates to 1000 g of plasticizer... 

No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) The maximum dose or ambient concentration which an organism can tolerate over a specific period of time without showing any adverse effect and above which adverse effects are detectable. 

No-observed-effect level (NOEL). Highest concentration or amount of a substance, found by experiment or observation, that causes no alterations of morphology, functional capacity, growth, development or life span of the target organism distinguishable from those observed in normal (control) organisms of the same species and strain under the same defined conditions of exposure. 

In a semistatic acute fish toxicity test (Leuciscus idus, melanotus, fresh water fish) a saturated solution with different blue pigment compounds (with unsolved material on the bottom or filtrated solution) no death occurred within 96 hours. Based on the quantity weighed the No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) is greater than 1000 mg/1 (nominal concentrations) [3.222],... 

This method of calculation is based on the use of animal toxicity data to determine limits. As mentioned earlier, this method is particularly suited for determining limits for materials that are not used medically. This method is based upon the concepts of acceptable daily intake (ADI) and no observed effect level (NOEL) developed by scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency [7], the U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and Development Laboratory [8], and the toxicology department at Abbott Laboratories [9], This method has also been recently used to calculate the limits of organic solvent residues allowed in APIs [10]. 

One principle that is central to the understanding of toxicology is the dose-response relationship, which implies that there is a threshold level below which no toxic effects are observed. This level can be approximated in studies in which animals are dosed with the pesticide the maximum dose tested at which there are no detectable differences between treated and untreated control animals is called the no observed effect level (NOEL). The dosage slightly in excess of the NOEL at which toxic effects are observed is referred to as the lowest observed effect level (LOEL). These two dosages should be relatively close together in order to clearly define the threshold level. 

No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) This is the highest dose level of a chemical that, in a given toxicity test, causes no observable effect in the test animals. The NOEL for a given chemical varies with the route and duration of exposure and the nature of the adverse effect (i.e., the indicator of toxicity). The NOEL for the most sensitive test species and the most sensitive indicator of toxicity is usually employed for regulatory purposes. Effects considered are usually adverse effects, and this value may be called the No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL). 

---