Safe concentration calculation

Step 2 Now we use Kal = 6.2 X 10 8 to find the concentration of HP042. Because Ka2 K,, we can safely assume that the H30+ concentration calculated in step 1 is unchanged by the second deprotonation. The proton transfer equilibrium is... 

To ensure compliance with the withdrawal period, an assay is needed to monitor total residues in the edible tissues. Because it is impractical to develop assays for each residue in each of the edible tissues, the concept of a marker residue and a target tissue is introduced. The marker residue is a selected analyte whose level in a particular tissue has a known relationship to the level of the total residue of toxicological concern in all edible tissues. Therefore, it can be taken as a measure of the total residue of interest in the target animal. The information obtained from studies of the depletion of the radiolabeled total residue can be used to calculate a level of the marker residue that must not be exceeded in a selected tissue (the target tissue) if the total residue of toxicological concern in the edible tissues of the target animal is not to exceed its safe concentration. 

The United States uses food consumption data and food factors in conjunction with the ADI to calculate the tolerance of residues in edible tissues. The calculation starts with an estimate of the safe concentration of the total drug residues by dividing the ADI by food factors that reflect the contribution of the edible tissues to the daily diet. Following analysis of the depletion of the total residues from the edible tissues, a target tissue is selected for residue monitoring. The residue whose concentration is in known relationship to the total residues in the target tissue is selected as the marker residue. The tolerance is the concentration of the marker residue in the target tissue, which ensures that the total residues in each edible tissue are below their safe concentration. 

Calculation of Safe Concentration. If the compound is noL a carcinogen, a no-observed-effect-level or NOEL will be determined from non-carcinogenic toxicity end points. The NOEL used in calculating permitted levels for residues is a level of sponsored compound in the diet of the toxicity test species for the most sensitive end point (lowest level) where there was no observed effect. This level is then used in a calculation of the safe concentration (S.C.) for the compound. The calculation also uses safety and food factors as well as a scale up factor for the body weight of man (60 kg) ... 

Milk Residue Decline Study at 50 mg/quarter. Twenty-six dairy cattle in midlactation and identified as mastitic in one or more quarters were given two intramammary infusions of pirlimycin HCl into all 4 quarters of the udder at a 24-hour interval at a dose rate of 50 mg/quarter (IX). Each cow was milked at 11-13 hour intervals and sub-samples taken for microbiological assay. The results are summarized in Table VIII. As observed in previous studies, the decline of the concentration of pirlimycin residue appears to be bi-phasic with a rapid initial depletion followed by a slower terminal elimination phase. Statistical analysis of the residue decline to a concentration below the calculated safe concentration of 0.4 ppm [following FDA guidelines of applying a confidence interval of 95% on the 99th percentile (75)] support a 36-hour milk discard interval (48-hour safe milk) for pirlimycin in the US. 

In the United States, FDA/CVM reasonably assumes that an individual consuming 300 g of muscle will not, on a given day, also consume liver or kidney but might well consume a full allocation of milk and eggs. FDA therefore calculates a safe concentration of total residues for edible tissues (and if appropriate additionally milk and eggs) from the equation ... 

It is interesting to note that extralabel use of a drug product in an approved species (e.g., at an unapproved dose or by unapproved routes of administration) may or may not result in residues that exceed the assigned tolerances. Specifically, when the ADI is large and incurred residues are low, the tolerances, calculated arithmetically by applying the marker total ratio to the ADI-derived safe concentrations, will be larger than the incurred residues. As a consequence, while the tolerance approach very effectively allows for monitoring of the boundary between... 

Whereas Step 1 is very conservative and nearly no compound fulfils the relevant requirements when using these PEC-values (Predicted Environmental Concentration), calculations with Step 2 tools lead to a more realistic exposure assessment. However, often even more realistic model calculations are needed for the 10 representative surface water scenarios of Step 3 to come to safe use within EU. Whereas in the first two steps, a 30-cm deep static waterbody is used, a few additional types are covered in Step 3. Usually only one PEC is calculated for one use and all relevant exposure routes together. In Step 4, even more specific scenarios have recently been made available which are also useful in connection with the setting of risk mitigation measures [5]. However, currently it is not... 

An earlier study conducted by Rosner and Merget (2001), which calculated a safe concentration of between 15 and 150 ng Pt m , has often been used as the point of reference in assessing the risks of current environmental levels of PGE (e.g. Ravindra et al. 2004). Rosner and Merget s (2001) assessment was based on a study of observed incidences of sensitization among workers in a catalyst production plant and a worst-case scenario that halogenated Pt salts comprise 1% of total Pt emissions. As environmental concentrations of PGE are typically much lower, they concluded that they are unlikely to pose a health risk. 

Freshly opened bottles of these reagents are generally of the concentrations indicated in the table. This may not be true of bottles long opened and this is especially true of ammonium hydroxide, which rapidly loses its strength. In preparing volumetric solutions, it is well to be on the safe side and take a little more than the calculated volume of the concentrated reagent, since it is much easier to dilute a concentrated solution than to strengthen one that is too weak. 

NFPA 69 (NFPA 1997) contains information on basic design considerations, design and operating requirements, and instrumentation requirements. Appendix D presents methods for ventilation calculations, including the time required for ventilation to reduce the concentration to a safe limit, the number of air changes required for reaching a desired... 

Figure 4.30. Back-calculated results for file VALID2.dat. The data from the left half of Fig. 4.29 are superimposed to show that the day-to-day variability most heavily influences the results at the lower concentrations. The lin/lin format is perceived to be best suited to the upper half of the concentration range, and nearly useless below 5 ng/ml. The log/log format is fairly safe to use over a wide concentration range, but a very obvious trend suggests the possibility of improvements (a) nonlinear regression, and (b) elimination of the lowest concentrations. Option (b) was tried, but to no avail While the curvature disappeared, the reduction in n, logf.t) range, and Sxx made for a larger Pres and. thus, larger interpolation errors.

All measurements, of course, have to be made at a finite concentration. This implies that interparticle interactions cannot be fully neglected. However, in very dilute solutions we can safely assume that more than two particles have only an extremely small chance to meet [72]. Thus only the interaction between two particles has to be considered. There are two types of interaction between particles in solution. One results from thermodynamic interactions (repulsion or attraction), and the other is caused by the distortion of the laminar fiow due to the presence of the macromolecules. If the particles are isolated only the laminar flow field is perturbed, and this determines the intrinsic viscosity but when the particles come closer together the distorted flow fields start to overlap and cause a further increase of the viscosity. The latter is called the hydrodynamic interaction and was calculated by Oseen to various approximations [3,73]. Figure 7 elucidates the effect. 

The EDI of phthalates in China, Germany, Taiwan, and US populations are shown in Table 7. The calculation was based on phthalate metabolite (primary and secondary) concentrations, the model of David [137] and the excretion fractions according to various authors [23,28,143,144]. DEHP median values are very close or clearly exceed the TDIs and RfD values (Table 4). The median values for the rest of PAEs are below levels determined to be safe for daily exposures estimated by the US (RfD), the EU and Japan (TDI) (Table 4). However, the upper percentiles of DBP and DEHP urinary metabolite concentrations suggested that for some people, these daily phthalate intakes might be substantially higher than previously assumed and exceed the RfD and TDIs. 

A CSF sample was analyzed 11-fold. The within-run variation coefficient ranged from 1 to 3.5% with two exceptions tryptophan (5%) and methionine (7%), which partially coeluted. The interassay coefficients of variation were calculated from a series of 11 analyses over a 7-month period. The median CV was 8% only taurine, arginine, and glutamate had CVs slightly in excess of 10%. The recovery of added amino acids to three CSF samples ranged form 83% (taurine) to 101% (isoleucine). Most recoveries were between 90 and 100%. At the lower end of the concentration range for CSF, a level of 1 pmol/1 can be safely detected. 

Table IV lists the results of risk calculations provided in the preliminary proposal for the substances that were proposed as potential carcinogens in the regulatory context at that time (44). 1,1-Dichloroethylene was later converted to a listing of equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity. The table includes calculations made by the USEPA CAG and the NAS Safe Drinking Water Committee. These calculations attempt to project concentrations of each chemical in drinking water that, if consumed for a lifetime (70 years) at the rate of 2 L of water per day would contribute an excess lifetime cancer risk of up to 1 in 100,000 and up to 1 in 1,000,000. The quality of evidence of carcinogenicity ranging from sufficient in humans to limited in animals is also included for each chemical. Provisional ADI values calculated from chronic toxicity data only are included for the sake of comparison.

---