Risk assessment benchmark dose

For all toxic effects other than carcinogenicity, a threshold in the dose-response curve is assumed. The lowest NOAEL from all available studies is assumed to be the approximate threshold for the groups of subjects (humans or animals) in which toxicity data were collected. Alternatively, a benchmark dose (BMD) may be estimated from the observed dose-response curve, and used as the point-of-departure for risk assessment (see below and Box). 

The concept of the Benchmark Dose (BMD), a benchmark is a point of reference for a measurement, in health risk assessment of chemicals was first mentioned by Crump (1984) as an alternative to the NOAEL and LOAEL for noncancer health effects in the derivation of the ADI/TDI these terms are addressed in detail in Chapter 5. The BMD approach provides a more quantitative alternative to the dose-response assessment than the NOAEL/LOAEL approach. The goal of the BMD approach is to define a starting point of depariure (POD) for the establishment of a tolerable exposure level (e.g., ADI/TDI) that is more independent of the study design. In this respect, the BMD approach is not... 

Falk Filipsson, A., S. Sand, J. Nilsson, and K. Victorin. 2003. The benchmark dose method - Review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 33 505-542. 

US-EPA. 1995. The use of the benchmark dose approach in health risk assessment. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development, Doc. EPA/630/R-94/007, Washington, DC. 

Gaylor, D.W., R.L. Kodell, J.J. Chen, and D. Krewski. 1999. A unified approach to risk assessment for cancer and noncancer endpoints based on benchmark doses and uncertainty/safety factors. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 29 151-157. 

The rationale supporting use of EDi0 as the benchmark dose is that a 10 percent response is at or just below the limit of sensitivity in most animal studies. Use of the lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose, rather than the best (maximum likelihood) estimate (EDio), as the point of departure accounts for experimental uncertainty the difference between the lower confidence limit and the best estimate does not provide information on the variability of responses in humans. In risk assessments for substances that induce deterministic effects, a dose at which significant effects are not observed is not necessarily a dose that results in no effects in any animals, due to the limited sample size. NOAEL obtained using most study protocols is about the same as an LED10. 

In classifying waste, deterministic responses generally should be of concern only for hazardous chemicals (see Section 3.2.2.1). Therefore, the only important issue for risk assessment is the most appropriate approach to estimating thresholds for induction of responses in humans. The primary concern here is that consistent approaches should be used for all substances that induce deterministic effects. NCRP s recommendation that nominal thresholds in humans should be estimated using the benchmark dose method and a safety factor of 10 or 100, depending on whether the data were obtained in a study in humans or animals (see Section 6.1.2.1), is intended to provide consistency in estimating thresholds for all substances that cause deterministic effects. 

In many respects, the foundations and framework of the proposed risk-based hazardous waste classification system and the recommended approaches to implementation are intended to be neutral in regard to the degree of conservatism in protecting public health. With respect to calculations of risk or dose in the numerator of the risk index, important examples include (1) the recommendation that best estimates (MLEs) of probability coefficients for stochastic responses should be used for all substances that cause stochastic responses in classifying waste, rather than upper bounds (UCLs) as normally used in risk assessments for chemicals that induce stochastic effects, and (2) the recommended approach to estimating threshold doses of substances that induce deterministic effects in humans based on lower confidence limits of benchmark doses obtained from studies in humans or animals. Similarly, NCRP believes that the allowable (negligible or acceptable) risks or doses in the denominator of the risk index should be consistent with values used in health protection of the public in other routine exposure situations. NCRP does not believe that the allowable risks or doses assumed for purposes of waste classification should include margins of safety that are not applied in other situations. 

EPA (1995a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Use of the Benchmark Dose Approach in Health Risk Assessment, EPA/630/R-94/007 (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia). 

The effects of genotoxic compounds are considered non-threshold. Thus, risk assessment for a given exposure is usually performed by a linear or sub-linear extrapolation from the high dose effects observed in animals to the lower human exposure. Since the outcome of the extrapolation depends on the model applied and extrapolation over different orders of magnitude is error prone, the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA 2005) recommended to avoid this extrapolation and proposed the MOE approach. This approach uses the benchmark dose, or the T25 calculated from a carcinogenicity study and compares this with human exposure. A MOE of 10,000 and more is considered to be of minor concern. The advantage is that neither a debatable extrapolation from high to low doses needs to be performed nor are hypothetical cancer cases calculated. For details of the different approaches see, SCHER, SCCP, SCENIHR (2008). 

Once an assessment has determined that the data indicate human risk potential for reproductive and developmental toxicity, the next step is to perform a quantitative evaluation. Dose-response data from human and experimental animal reproductive and developmental toxicity studies are reviewed to identify a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) or a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), and/or to derive a benchmark dose (BMD). Duration adjustments of the NOAEL, LOAEL, or BMD are often made, particularly for inhalation exposures when extrapolating to different exposure scenarios. Such adjustments have not been routinely applied to developmental toxicity data. The subcommittee recommends that duration adjustments be considered for both reproductive and developmental toxicity... 

CHARACTERIZING DOSE AND RISK IN A CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT 277 CASE STUDY 280 Case Study Defining Risk 280 Case Study The Dose-Response Relationship 280 Case Study Using the Margin of Exposure to Characterize the Risk 281 Case Study Benchmark Doses 282 Case Study Margins of Exposure 284... 

The cumulative assessment for endpoint (1) combines only those chemicals and routes that are associated with endpoint (1) via a common mechanism and incorporates only those No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs), benchmark doses, uncertainty factors, etc. associated with endpoint (1). A similar cumulative assessment would be carried out for endpoint (2). Guidance on aggregate exposure and cumulative risk assessment has been recently published (USEPA, 2003). 

Probabilistic risk assessment methods are described herein for determining a popnlation s distribution of the dose from exposure and the combination of that exposnre characterization with appropriate toxicological information to form aggregate and cumulative risk assessments. An individual s dose from exposure is characterized as a set of chemical- and route-specific dose profiles over time. Toxic equivalence factors (TEFs) that reflect the toxic endpoint and exposure duration of concern are used to scale chemical- and route-specific doses to toxic equivalent doses (TEDs). The latter are combined in a temporally consistent manner to form a profile over time of the Total TED. For each individual, a Total MOE is calculated by dividing a toxicologically relevant benchmark dose (e.g. an EDio) by the individual s Total TED. The distribution of the Total MOE in a popnlation provides important information for risk management decisions. 

THIS CHAPTER contains a brief description of the methods used by toxicologists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to derive the U.S. Army s interim reference doses (RfDs) for GA, GB, GD, VX, sulfur mustard, and lewisite. Those methods were based on the procedures outlined by the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency for Superfund risk assessment guidelines (EPA 1989) and for reference concentrations (EPA 1994). An alternative method, the benchmark-dose (BD) approach (Crump 1984) is also described. Because uncertainty factors are integral to both approaches, further consideration is also given to the statistical distribution and confidence associated with them. 

Gaylor, D.W., L. Ryan, D. Krewski, and Y. Zhu. 1998. Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28(2) 150-164. 

Two examples of alternative approaches to cancer risk assessment would be estimations based on threshold-response (EPA, 2005a) and benchmark dose modeling (EPA, 1995, 2000). As a practical matter, if the proposed basis of safety relies on a threshold or mode-of-action characterization to dismiss or mitigate animal tumor data, PDA would reconunend that the safety narrative clearly discuss the scientific rationale and present all relevant data for consideration. In the absence of adequate evidence to the contrary, PDA presumes that certain assumptions are appropriately protective of safety, namely that (i) the induction of tumors in animals is relevant to human... 

See also Benchmark Dose Exposure Assessment Exposure Criteria Hazard Identification Hormesis, LD50/ LC50 (Lethai Dosage 50/Lethai Concentration 50) Levels of Effect in Toxicoiogicai Assessment Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Pharmacokinetics/Toxicokinetics Reference Concentration (RfC) Reference Dose (RfD) Risk Assessment, Ecological Risk Assessment, Human Health Risk Characterization Toxicity, Acute. 

The standard approaches for using dose-response relationship information in the risk assessment process is the focus of ongoing efforts. Guidance provides for use of a point of departure when data are appropriate. The benchmark dose approach is commonly used. 

---