Risk assessment for neurobehavioral toxicity: SGOMSEC joint report

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 104, Issue SUPPL. 2, 1996, Pages 217-226

  Hattis, Dale ^a   Glowa, John ^b   Tilson, Hugh ^c   Ulbrich, Beate ^d  

^a CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES   (United States)

^c U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^d Bundesgesundheitsamtes   (Germany)

Author keywords

Benchmark dose; Effect levels; Identification of neurotoxicity; Interindividual variability; Quantitative models; Reference doses; Regulatory activity; Reversibility

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; CONFERENCE PAPER; DOSE RESPONSE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROTOXICITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE VALUE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY;

EID: 0029999225     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.96104s2217     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (43)

1. Fisher F. Neurotoxicology and government regulation of chemicals in the United States. In: Experimental and Clinical Neurotoxicology (Spencer P, Schaumburg H, eds). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1980;874-882.
2. Tilson H. Neurotoxicology in the 1990s. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:293-300 (1990).
3. Kimmel RA. Current status of behavioral teratology: science and regulation. Crit Rev Toxicol 19:1-10 (1988).
4. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Summary report OECD Ad Hoc Meeting on Neurotoxicity Testing. of Eastern Research Group, Lexington, MA, 1990.
5. WHO. Environmental Health Criteria 60: Principles and Methods for the Assessment of Neurotoxicity Associated with Exposure to Chemicals. Geneva:World Health Organization, 1986.
6. Moser VC, MacPhail RC. International validation of a neurobehavioral screening battery: the IPCS/WHO collaborative study. Toxicol Lett 64/65:217-223 (1992).
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OPPTS Test Guidelines: Neurotoxicity. Springfield, VA:National Technical Information Service, No PB91-154617, 1991.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final report: Principles of neurotoxicity risk assessment. Fed Reg 59:42360-42404 (1994).
9. Dews PB. Modification by Drugs of Performance on Simple Schedules of Positive Reinforcement. Ann NY Acad Sci 65:268-281 (1956).
10. Armstrong RD, Leach LJ, Belluscio PR, Maynard EA, Hodge HC. Behavioral changes in the pigeon following inhalation of mercury vapor, Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 24:366-75 (1963).
11. Lehman AJ, Fitzhugh OG. 100-Fold margin of safety. U.S. Quart Bull 18:33-35 (1954).
12. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Labelling requirements for art materials presenting chronic hazards; guidelines for determining chronic toxicity of products subject to the FHSA; Supplementary definition of ìtoxicî under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act; final rules. Fed Reg 57:46626-46674 (1992).
13. Tilson HA, MacPhail RC, Crofton KM. Setting exposure standards: A decision process. Environ Health Perspect 104(Suppl 2):401-405 (1996).
14. U.S. EPA. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. WashingtoN:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and strategies for Environmental Protection. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
16. Barnes DG, Dourson M. Reference dose (RFD): description and use in health risk assessments. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 8:421-486 (1988).
17. Kimmel CA. Quantitative approaches to human risk assessment for noncancer health effects. Neurotoxicology 11:189-198 (1990).
18. Crump KS. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam AppL Toxicol 4:854-871 (1984).
19. National Academy of Sciences. Seafood Safety Washington:National Academy Press, 1991.
20. Ashford NA, Bregman C, Hattis DB, Karmali A, Schabacker C, Schierow LJ, Whitbeck C. Monitoring the Community for Exposure and Disease: Scientific, Legal, and Ethical Considerations. Atlanta:Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1991.
21. Hattis D, Erdreich L, Ballew M, Human variability in susceptibility to toxic chemicals -a preliminary analysis of pharmacokinetic data from normal volunteers. Risk Anal 7:415-426 (1987).
22. Hattis D, Bird S, Erdreich L. Human variability in susceptibility to anticholinesterase agents. CTPID 87-4. Boston:Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December, 1987.
23. Hattis D, Silver K, Human interindividual variability - a major source of uncertainty in assessing risks for non-cancer health effects. Risk Anal 14:421-431 (1994).
24. Hattis D. The challenge of mechanism-based modeling in risk assessment for neurobehavioral end points. Environ Health Perspect 104(Suppl 2):381-390 (1996).
25. Kimmel CA, Gaylor DW. Issues in qualitative and quantitative risk analysis for developmental toxicology. Risk Anal 8:15-20 (1988).
26. Gaylor D.W. and Slikker, W. Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects. Neurotoxicology 11:211-218 (1990).
27. Dews PB. Estimation of low risks The Pharmacologist 22:159 (1980).
28. Cox C, Clarkson TW, Marsh DO, Amin-Zaki L, Tikriti S, Myers GG. Dose-response analysis of infants prenatally exposed to methylmercury. An application of a single compartment model to single-strand hair analysis. Environ Res 49:318-332 (1989).
29. Marsh DO, Clarkson TW, Cox C, Myers GJ, Amin-Zaki L, Al-Tikriti S. Fetal methylmercury poisoning. Relationship between concentration in single strands of maternal hair and child effects. Arch Neurol 44: 1017-1022 (1987).
30. Finney DJ. Probit Analysis. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 1971.
31. Gaddum JH. The estimate of the safe dose. Br J Pharmacol. 11, 156-160 (1956).
32. Rees DC, Hattis D. Developing quantitative strategies for animal to human extrapolation. In: Principles and Methods of Toxicology, 3rd ed (AW Hayes ed). New York:Raven Press;1994; 275-315.
33. Fiserova-Bergerova V. Modeling of Inhalation Exposure to Vapors: Uptake, Distribution, ana Elimination, Vois 1, 2. Boca Raton, Fl:CRC Press, 1983;162 pp, 176 pp.
34. Ramsey JC, Andersen ME. A physiologically based description of the inhalation pharmacokinetics of styrene in rats and humans. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 73:159-175 (1984).
35. Hattis D. Use of biological markers and pharmacokinetics in human health risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 89:230-238 (1991).
36. Hattis D. Pharmacokinetic principles for dose rate extrapolation of carcinogenic risk from genetically active agents. Risk Anal 10:303-316 (1990).
37. Hattis D, Shapiro K. Analysis of dose/time/response relationships for chronic toxic effects-the case of acrylamide. Neurotoxicology 11:219-236 (1990).
38. Molecular Epidemiology: Principles and Practices (Schulte P, Perera R. eds). New York:Academic Press, 1993.
39. Rees RC, Glowa JR. Extrapolations to humans for neurotoxicants. In: The Vulnerable Brain and Environmental Risks. Vol 3: Toxins in Air and Water (Isaacson R, Jensen K Eds). Plenum Press, New York: 1994; 207-230.
40. Hattis D, Crofton K. Use of biological indicators of causal mechanisms in the quantitative assessment of neurotoxic risks. In: Handbook of Neurotoxicology. Vol. 3 Approaches and Methodologies (Chang L, Slikker W, eds). New York:Dekker, in press.
41. Anger WK. Neurochemical testing of chemicals: impact of recommended standards. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 6:147-153 (1984).
42. Rodier PM. Time of exposure and time of testing in developmental neurotoxicology. Neurotoxicology 7: 69-76, (1986).
43. Weiss B. Risk assessment: the insidious nature of neurotoxicity and the aging brain. Neurotoxicology 11:305-313, (1990).