Risk assessment standards

For most of the products currently registered within EU only conservative standard environmental risk assessments were conducted which showed that expected risk was acceptable. Basic data requirements according to Annex II (active substances) and Annex III (formulated products) for most important groups of organisms are [2]  

A complete data package for active substances must be available for nearly all intended uses and for most of the group whereas, for formulated products and metabolites, bridging studies are required. Only in cases where these substances are more toxic than the actives is a complete data package also required for these substances. For those groups where mainly tests with the formulated product are required, often no additional tests with actives are requested. Usually studies are conducted in accordance with OECD-guidelines. 

For birds and mammals, estimated theoretical environmental concentrations (ETEs) are calculated for granivorous, herbivorous, and insectivorous organisms depending on their size and different groups of crops. Seed treatments are a special item. Based on a large survey of the relevant literature, food intake rates (FIR) and expected residues on feed items (RUD) for these different groups of organisms were collected and representative numbers were fixed in the relevant 

Birds and mammals Acute, short-term, reproduction test Mainly a.i. tests, data from mammalian toxicology are used 

Aquatic organisms Acute test fish (2x) and Daphnia, long-term/chronic test fish and Daphnia, algae, aquatic plant for herbicides, sediment organisms, bioaccumulation study Mainly a.i. tests 

---

There are of course many mathematically complex ways to perform a risk assessment, but first key questions about the biological data must be resolved. The most sensitive endpoint must be defined along with relevant toxicity and dose-response data. A standard risk assessment approach that is often used is the so-called divide by 10 rule . Dividing the dose by 10 applies a safety factor to ensure that even the most sensitive individuals are protected. Animal studies are typically used to establish a dose-response curve and the most sensitive endpoint. From the dose-response curve a NOAEL dose or no observed adverse effect level is derived. This is the dose at which there appears to be no adverse effects in the animal studies at a particular endpoint, which could be cancer, liver damage, or a neuro-behavioral effect. This dose is then divided by 10 if the animal data are in any way thought to be inadequate. For example, there may be a great deal of variability, or there were adverse effects at the lowest dose, or there were only tests of short-term exposure to the chemical. An additional factor of 10 is used when extrapolating from animals to humans. Last, a factor of 10 is used to account for variability in the human population or to account for sensitive individuals such as children or the elderly. The final number is the reference dose (RfD) or acceptable daily intake (ADI). This process is summarized below. 

Traditionally, when setting acceptable (typically considered safe ) levels of exposure, the risk assessor will select the highest experimental exposure that does not cause an adverse effect (no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL)) in an experiment that demonstrated a graded exposure response from no effect to adverse effects. In standard risk-assessment practice (NRC 1993a), the exposure level identified as the NOAEL would then be divided by appropriate uncertainty factors and modifying factors to derive an acceptable exposure level for humans. However, there are a number of limitations in this... 

Although activation of the AHR by DLCs is a key event, mechanistic data indicate that AHR-mediated responses are not well conserved across species, with lower sensitivity in humans. A TEF value for a DLC based on rodent data may overestimate the potency of a DLC in humans, and this has not been considered in the current risk assessment of DLCs. Thus, the current TEF-Toxic Equivalency Quotient scheme tends to compound the conservative estimates of risk that exist within standard risk assessment approaches. Moreover mechanistic differences will now be considered by US EPA in the risk assessment of chemical carcinogens. The mechanistic data currently available for receptor-mediated DLCs and PPs clearly indicate that humans respond differently to these two classes of rodent carcinogens, and these data will need to be incorporated into cancer risk assessments for these chemicals. Full appreciation of the species differences in these receptor mechanisms will require continued development and refinement of models such as primary... 

According to the principles of decision making defined in EU Directive 91/414 EEC, Annex VIC 2.5.22 (European Commission 2002a), a plant protection product (PPP) failing the acceptability criteria in a standard risk assessment will not be authorized unless it is clearly established through an appropriate risk assessment that... 

SCCPs are persistent and bioaccumulative, and thus concentrations in the environment and biota are expected to increase with continued release to the environment. Standard risk assessment methods comparing effect levels to environmental concentrations may underestimate the risk of persistent and bioaccumulative substances, such as SCCPs. Persistent substances can take decades to reach a maximum steady state concentration in the environment, resulting in an underestimation of the potential exposure to these compounds if steady-state has not been achieved, and releases into the environment continue. Similarly, it can take a long time for persistent and bioaccumulative substances to reach a maximum steady-state concentration within an organism this is supported by the observations of Sochova et al., [62] who noted an increase in toxicity of SCCPs for longer exposure duration with nematodes. The durations of standard toxicity tests may be insufficient to achieve the maximum tissue concentration, resulting in an underestimation of the effect threshold. 

The first method observed current standards. Risk assessment was based on comparing measured averaged values of power density designated as Sav with the effective action value of power density Sr = 50 W.m . The ratio of both values served for the assessment of the hazard quotient HQ which was overshot only once out of nine posts observed. The value for this post amoimted to HQ3 = 2.65. 

Second, not only is there no standard risk assessment code (RAC) but also some people in this field maintain that there is no adequate risk assessment code. They are all so subjective as to be almost meaningless. 

A standard risk assessment, done solely for purposes of prevention, where there is no actual case of lead poisoning, involves inspecting the home for lead paint hazards and testing for lead in dust and soil. This is followed by a detailed listing of what needs to be done to fix or control the lead hazard. The process is described in Chapter 11. 

If your home is in good condition and you do not think there is much risk of lead exposure, you can get an abbreviated type of assessment, referred to as a screen risk assessment, just to be sure. It is much simpler and less expensive than a standard risk assessment or a paint inspection. A screen risk assessment consists of a visual inspection of the condition of the paint and the analysis of only a few dust samples. If lead hazards are found, however, a full risk assessment should be done. 

The lEUBK model is currently the standard risk assessment tool by which Federal and state lead risk assessments are carried out at Pb exposure sites with young children potentially exposed. Reliance on predictive modeling rather than requiring sole use of PbB screening of impacted children is driven in large part because of those concerns. 

The first publication of standardized risk assessment concepts and terminology was written by the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 [8], This paper outlines four basic steps of risk management (1) hazard identification, (2) dose-response assessment, (3) exposure assessment, and (4) risk characterization. In the first step, a scientist attempts to identify the harm a compound could cause. 

---