Risk assessment uncertainty factors

Source Modified from KEMl, Human health risk assessment. Proposals for the use of assessment (uncertainty) factors. 

FIGURE S.6 Schematic illustration of the traditional setting of an acceptable level of exposure (ADI) by dividing the NOAEL from an animal study by an assessment factor (AF). The two dose-response relationships have identical NOAEL. If a uniform assessment factor is applied, there will be an adequate MOS at the ADI for effect b but not for effect a. (Modified from KEMI, Human health risk assessment. Proposals for the use of assessment (uncertainty) factors. Application to risk assessment for plant protection products, industrial chemicals and biocidal products within the European Union. Report No. 1/03, Solna, Sweden, 2003. 

Uncertainty on tlie other hand, represents lack of knowledge about factors such as adverse effects or contaminant levels which may be reduced with additional study. Generally, risk assessments carry several categories of uncertainly, and each merits consideration. Measurement micertainty refers to tlie usual eiTor tliat accompanies scientific measurements—standard statistical teclmiques can often be used to express measurement micertainty. A substantial aniomit of uncertainty is often inlierent in enviromiiental sampling, and assessments should address tliese micertainties. There are likewise uncertainties associated with tlie use of scientific models, e.g., dose-response models, and models of environmental fate and transport. Evaluation of model uncertainty would consider tlie scientific basis for the model and available empirical validation. 

The risk assessment steps and the risk characterization are influenced by uncertainty and variability. Variability arise from heterogeneity such as dose-response differences within a population, or differences in contaminant levels in tlie environment. Uncertainty on tlie other lumd, represents lack of knowledge about factors such as adverse effects or contaminant levels. 

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. 

Felter, S.P., et al., An evaluation of the scientific basis for default uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment of the induction of allergic contact dermatitis, Contact Derm. Al, 257-266, 2002. 

Composite (reductive) factor by which an observed or estimated No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (NOAEL) is divided to arrive at a criterion or standard that is considered safe or without appreciable risk. Related terms Assessment Factor, Uncertainty Factor. 

The risk assessment comprises an effect assessment (hazard identification and hazard characterization) and an exposure assessment. The principles for the effect assessment of the active substances are in principle similar to those for existing and new chemicals and are addressed in detail in Chapter 4. Based on the outcome of the effect assessment, an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and an Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL) are derived, usually from the NOAEL by applying an overall assessment factor addressing differences between experimental effect assessment data (usually from animal studies) and the real human exposure situation, taking into account variability and uncertainty for further details the reader is referred to Chapter 5. As a part of the effect assessment, classification and labeling of the active substance according to the criteria laid down in Directive 67/548/EEC (EEC 1967) is also addressed (Section 2.4.1.8). 

As mentioned previously, the assessment of hazard and risk to humans from exposure to chemical substances is generally based on the extrapolation from data obtained in smdies with experimental animals. In the absence of comparative data in humans, a basic assumption for toxicological risk assessment is that effects observed in laboratory animals are relevant for humans, i.e., would also be expressed in humans. In assessing the risk to humans, an assessment factor is applied to take account of uncertainties in the differences in sensitivity to the test substance between the species, i.e., to account for interspecies variability (Section 5.3). If data are available from more than one species or strain, the hazard and risk assessment is generally based on the most susceptible of these except where data strongly indicate that a particular species is more similar to man than the others with respect to toxicokinetics and/or toxicodynamics. Two main aspects of toxicity, toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics, account for the namre and extent of differences between species in their sensitivity to xenobiotics this is addressed in detail in Chapter 5. 

This approach discriminates factors to a large extent in order to distinguish between the single adjustments and to separate best estimates from uncertainty. It should be noted that the ECETOC approach does not mention the establishment of an overall factor and although they mention that all discriminated aspects introduce uncertainties, they do not give guidance on how to account for this. It could also be questioned here whether a nonscientific factor should be discussed in a scientific risk assessment. 

The Interdepartmental Group on Health Risks from Chemicals (IGHRC) in the United Kingdom has published a document entitled Uncertainty Factors Their Use in Human Health Risk Assessment by UK Government (IGHRC 2003). The document intended to lay out the principles used in the United Kingdom. 

In conclusion, the traditional assessment factors (interspecies, intraspecies, subchronic-to-chronic, LOAEL-to-NOAEL, and database-deficiency) are considered to cover the concerns and uncertainties for children adequately, i.e., no children-specific assessment factor is needed when setting tolerable intakes. However, it is recommended to perform children-specific risk assessments for chemical substances in products and foods intended for children, based on specific exposure assessments for children. 

The EU TGD (EC 2003) recognized that the NOAEL is not very accurate with respect to the degree to which it corresponds with the (unknown) true NAEL. In the case of a steep curve the derived NOAEL can be considered as more reliable (the greater the slope, the greater the reduction in response to reduced doses) in the case of a shallow curve, the uncertainty in the derived NOAEL may be higher and this has to be taken into account in the assessment. If a LOAEL has to be used in the assessment, then this value can only be considered reliable in the case of a very steep curve. According to KEMI (2003), extrapolation factors of between 3-5 are used for LOAEL-to-NOAEL extrapolation without any scientific basis in risk assessment reports of existing substances within the European Union. 

---