Categorical default uncertainty factors-interspecies variation and adequacy of database

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA)

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 157-163

  Meek, M E ^a  

^a HEALTH CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Body surface area scaling; Categorical default; Interspecies variation; Tolerable or reference dose concentration; Uncertainty; Variability

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044527655     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Baird SJS, Cohen JT, Graham JD, et al. 1996. Noncanccr risk assessment: A probabilistic alternative to current practice. Human Ecol Risk Assess 2(1):78-99
2. Brand KP, Rhomberg L, and Evans JS. 1999. Estimating noncancer uncertainty factors: Are ratios of NOAELs informative? Risk Analysis 19:295-308
3. BIBRA Toxicology International. 1995. Insight into the Relationship between Toxic Effect Level and Period of Administration. Part I. Report prepared for Health Canada under DSS Contract H4078-459/01-SS. Ottawa, Canada
4. BIBRA Toxicology International. 1996. Insight into the Relationship between Toxic Effect Level and Period of Administration. Part II. Report prepared for Health Canada under DSS Contract H4078-459/01-SS. Ottawa, Canada
5. Dourson ML. 1994. Methods for establishing oral reference doses. In: Mertz W, Abernathy CO, and Olin SS (eds), Risk Assessment of Essential Elements, pp 51-61. ILSI Press, Washington, DC
6. Dourson ML and Stara JF. 1983. Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors. Regul Tox Pharm 3:224-38
7. Evans JS and Baird SJ. 1998. Accounting for missing data in noncancer risk assessment. Human Ecol Risk Assess 4:291-317
8. Government of Canada. In press. Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Priority Substances List Assessment Report. Formaldehyde. Ministry of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada
9. IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). 1994. Assessing Human Health Risks of Chemicals: Derivation of Guidance Values for Health-Based Exposure Limits. Environmental Health Criteria 170. World Health Organization, Genera, Switzerland
10. Jarabek AM. 1994. Inhalation RfC methodology: Dosimetric adjustments and dose-response estimation of noncancer toxicity in the upper respiratory tract. Inhal Toxicol 6(suppl): 301-25
11. McLaren/Hart, Inc and the Sapphire Group, Inc. 2000. Evaluation of Body Weight Scaling Practices for Six Chemicals Using Internal Dose Measures as Calculated by Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling. Phase II. Report prepared for Health Canada under DSS Contract H4045-9-CH93/001/SS. Ottawa, Canada
12. McNamara BP. 1976. Concepts in health evaluation of commercial and industrial chemicals. In: Mehlman MA, Shapiro RE, and Blumenthal H (eds), Advances in Modern Toxicology: New concepts in Safety Evaluation, vol 1, pt 1, pp 61-140. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC
13. Meek ME, Newhook R, Liteplo, et al. 1994. Approach to assessment of risk to human health for Priority Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Environ Carcino & Ecotox Revs C12(2):105-34
14. Nessel CS, Lewis SC, Stauber KL, et al. 1995. Subchronic to chronic extrapolation: Toxicologic evidence for a reduced uncertainty factor. Human Ecol Risk Assess 1(5):516-26
15. Renwick AG. 1993. Data-derived safety (uncertainty) factors for the evaluation of food additives and environmental contaminants. Food Addit Contam 10:275-305
16. Weil CS and McCollister DD. 1963. Relationship between short and long-term feeding studies in designing an effective toxicity test. Agric Food Chem 11:486-91
17. Woutersen RA, Till HP, and Feron VJ. 1984. Sub-acute versus subchronic oral toxicity study in rats: Comparative study of 82 compounds. J Appl Toxicol 5:277-80
18. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Draft Report: A Cross-Species Scaling Factor for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Based on Equivalence of Mg/Kg 3/4/Day. 57 Fed Reg 24152, June 5