Risk characterization, definition

These two definitions reflect two sides of the same situation. In this book, the term critical effect(s) will be used for the hazard/effect considered as being the essential one(s) for the purpose of the risk characterization, e.g., for the establishment of a health-based guidance value, permissible exposure level, or Reference Dose. It should be noted that the critical effect could be a local as well as a systemic effect. It should also be recognized that the critical effect for the establishment of a tolerable exposure level is not necessarily the most severe effect of the chemical substance. For example, although a substance may cause a serious effect such as liver necrosis, the critical effect for the establishment of, e.g., an occupational exposure limit could be a less serious effect such as respiratory tract irritation, because the irritation occurs at a lower exposure level. 

It may often be useful to initially conduct an exposure assessment based on worst-case assumptions, and to use default values when model calculations are applied. Such an approach can also be used in the absence of sufficiently detailed data. If the outcome of the risk characterization based on worst-case exposure assumptions is that the substance is not of concern, the risk assessment for that substance can be stopped with regard to the effect/population considered. If, in contrast, the outcome is that a substance is of concern, the assessment must, if possible, be refined using a more realistic exposure prediction in order to come to a definitive conclusion. 

The definition of risk characterization in terms of the TGD differs somewhat from that of the OECD/IPCS given in Section 8.1. According to the TGD (EC 2003) ... 

Risk assessment of chemicals does not, in practice, estimate the incidence and severity of the adverse effects likely to occur in the human population or environmental compartment due to actual or predicted exposure to a substance — the definition of risk characterization in Article 2 of Directive 93/67/EEC. The assessment process hinges on being able to say that there is a threshold below which the chemical has no adverse effects, in other words on being able to derive a no-effect level. Recent debates, discussed later, challenge the idea that there normally is such a threshold. 

Ultimately, the risk characterization results in a statement of the potential susceptibility of children for specific effects from specific exposures to environmental agents. This statement forms the basis, together with other considerations, on which regulatory or management decisions will be made. Often, the risk manager is not a specialist in children s health thus, it is imperative that the risk characterization be clear, definitive, and unencumbered by scientific terminology that may be misunderstood or misinterpreted. The risk assessor must effectively communicate what is known, what is not known, and what is questionable, in order for the risk assessment to be appropriately factored into the overall risk management process. 

An important similarity between human and ecological assessment of mixtures is the structure of the assessment procedure. Both procedures are often organized along a series of consecutive steps, that is, problem definition, hazard identification, exposure assessment, effect- or dose-response assessment, and risk characterization... 

Some aspects of degree of concern currently can be considered in a quantitative evaluation. For example, EPA considers human and animal data in the process of calculating the RfD, and these data are used as the critical effect when they indicate that developmental effects are the most sensitive endpoints. When a complete database is not available, a database UF is recommended to account for inadequate or missing data. The dose-response nature of the data is considered to an extent in the RfD process, especially when the BMD approach is used to model data and to estimate a low level of response however, there is no approach for including concerns about the slope of the dose-response curve. Because concerns about the slope of the dose-response curve are related to some extent to human exposure estimates, this issue must be considered in risk characterization. (If the MOE is small and the slope of the dose-response curve is very steep, there could be residual uncertainties that must be dealt with to account for the concern that even a small increase in exposure could result in a marked increase in response.) On the other hand, a very shallow slope could be a concern even with a large MOE, because definition of the true biological threshold will be more difficult and an additional factor might be needed to ensure that the RfD is below that threshold. 

In the absence of definitive human data, risk assessment may have to depend on the results of cancer bioassays in laboratory animals, short-term tests, or other experimental methods. Hence the following issues must be addressed under such circumstances the ability of the test system to predict risks for man (quantitatively as well as qualitatively) the reproducibility of test results the influence of species differences in pharmacokinetics, metabolism, homeostasis, repair rates, life span, organ sensitivity, and baseline cancer rates extrapolation across dose and dose rates, and routes of exposure the significance of benign tumors fitting models to the data in order to characterize dose-incidence relationships and the significance of negative results. 

There are many concepts in use for the assessment of risks or impacts of chemical mixtures, both for human and ecological risk assessment. Many of these concepts are identical or similar in both disciplines, for example, whole mixture tests, (partial) mixture characterization, mixture fractionation, and the concepts of CA and RA (or I A). The regulatory application and implementation of bioassays for uncharacterized whole mixtures is typical for the field of ecological risk assessment. The human field is leading in the development and application of process-based mixture models such as PBTK and BRN models and qualitative binary weight-of-evidence (BINWOE) methods. Mixture assessment methods from human and ecological problem definition contexts should be further compared, and the comparison results should be used to improve methods. 

The definition and intended application of AEGL values make distinctions between susceptible and hypersusceptible individuals. It is important to characterize these two terms and the potential subpopulations they may represent for purposes of UF selection. It is also important to distinguish between these two populations for purposes of risk communication to emergency planners, emergency responders, and the public. 

Uncertainties inherent to the risk assessment process can be quantitatively described using, for example, statistical distributions, fuzzy numbers, or intervals. Corresponding methods are available for propagating these kinds of uncertainties through the process of risk estimation, including Monte Carlo simulation, fuzzy arithmetic, and interval analysis. Computationally intensive methods (e.g., the bootstrap) that work directly from the data to characterize and propagate uncertainties can also be applied in ERA. Implementation of these methods for incorporating uncertainty can lead to risk estimates that are consistent with a probabilistic definition of risk. 

---