The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment

Journal of Applied Toxicology

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 405-421

  Sand, Salomon ^a   Victorin, Katarina ^a   Filipsson, Agneta Falk ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Benchmark dose; BMD; BMDL; Risk assessment; Safety assessment

Indexed keywords

DATA ANALYSIS; DOSE RESPONSE; HEALTH HAZARD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BENCHMARKING; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 44149087583     PISSN: 0260437X     EISSN: 10991263     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jat.1298     Document Type: Review

References (92)

1. Allen BC, Gentry R, Shipp A, Landingham C. 1998. Calculation of benchmark doses for reproductive and developmental toxicity observed after exposure to isopropanol. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28: 38-44.
2. Allen BC, Kavlock RJ, Kimmel CA, Faustman EM. 1994a. Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity II. Comparison of generic benchmark dose estimates with no observed adverse effect levels. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 23: 487-495.
3. Allen BC, Kavlock RJ, Kimmel CA, Faustman EM. 1994b. Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity III. Statistical models. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 23: 496-509.
4. Allen BC, Strong PL, Price CJ, Hubbard SA, Daston GP. 1996. Benchmark dose analysis of developmental toxicity in rats exposed to boric acid. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 32: 194-204.
5. Bailer AJ, Noble RB, Wheeler MW. 2005. Model uncertainty and risk estimation for experimental studies of quantal responses. Risk Anal. 25: 291-299.
6. Barlow S, Renwick AG, Kleiner J, Bridges JW, Busk L, Dybing E, Edler L, Eisenbrand G, Fink-Gremmels J, Knaap A, Kroes R, Liem D, Muller DJ, Page S, Rolland V, Schlatter J, Tritscher A, Tueting W, Wurtzen G. 2006. Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe. Food Chem. Toxicol. 44: 1636-1650.
7. Barnes D, Datson P, Evans J, Jarabek A, Kavlock R, Kimmel C, Park C, Spitzer H. 1995. Benchmark dose workshop: Criteria for use of a benchmark dose to estimate a reference dose. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 21: 296-306.
8. Barton HA, Andersen ME, Allen BC. 1998. Dose-response characteristics of uterine responses in rats exposed to estrogen agonists. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28: 133-149.
9. Barton HA, Das S. 1996. Alternatives for a risk assessment on chronic noncancer effects from oral exposure to trichloroethylene. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 24: 269-285.
10. Birnbaum LS, Harris MW, Stocking LM, Clark AM, Morrissey RE. 1989. Retinole acid and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin selectively enhance teratogenesis in c57bl/6n mice. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 98: 487-500.
11. Bokkers BG, Slob W. 2005. A comparison of ratio distributions based on the NOAEL and the benchmark approach for subchronic-to-chronic extrapolation. Toxicol. Sci. 85: 1033-1040.
12. Budtz-Jorgensen E, Grandjean P, Kieding N, White RF, Weihe P. 2000. Benchmark dose calculations of methylmercury-associated neurobehavioral deficits. Toxicol. Lett. 112-113: 193-199.
13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 1998. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer: New York.
14. Casarett LJ, Doull J. 1996. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, Klaassen CD (ed.), 5th edn. McGraw-Hill: USA.
15. Clewell HJ, Lawrence GA, Calne DB, Crump KS. 2003. Determination of an occupational exposure guideline for manganese using the benchmark method. Risk Anal. 23: 1031-1046.
16. Cornish-Bowden A. 1995. Fundamentals of Enzyme Kinetics. Portland Press: London.
17. Crump K. 1984. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 4: 854-871.
18. Crump K. 1995. Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Anal. 15: 79-89.
19. Crump K. 2002. Critical issues in benchmark calculations from continuous data. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 32: 133-153.
20. Cramp K, Kjellstrom T, Shipp A, Silvers A, Stewart A. 1998. Influence of prenatal mercury exposure upon scholastic and psychological test performance: benchmark analysis of a New Zealand cohort. Risk Anal. 18: 701-713.
21. Crump K, Van Landingham C, Shamlaye C, Cox C, Davidson P, Myers G, Clarkson W. 2000. Benchmark concentrations for methylmercury obtained from the Seychelles child development study. Environ. Health Perspect. 108: 257-263.
22. Crump K, Viren J, Silvers A, Clewell H, Gearhart J, Shipp A. 1995. Reanalysis of dose-response data from the Iraqi methylmercury poisoning episode. Risk Anal. 15: 523-532.
23. Dekkers S, de Heer C, Rennen MA. 2001. Critical effect sizes in toxicological risk assessment: a comprehensive and critical evaluation. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 10: 33-52.
24. Dekkers S, Telman J, Rennen MA, Appel MJ, de Heer C. 2006. Within-animal variation as an indication of the minimal magnitude of the critical effect size for continuous toxicological parameters applicable in the benchmark dose approach. Risk Anal. 26: 867-880.
25. Dybing E, Doe J, Groten J, Kleiner J, O'Brien J, Renwick AG, Schlatter J, Steinberg P, Tritscher A, Walker R, Younes M. 2002. Hazard characterisation of chemicals in food and diet: dose response, mechanisms and extrapolation issues. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40: 237-282.
26. Edler L, Kopp-Schneider A. 1998. Statistical models for low dose exposure. Mutat. Res. 405: 227-236.
27. Edler L, Poirier K, Dourson M, Kleiner J, Mileson B, Nordmann H, Renwick AG, Slob W, Walton K, Wurtzen G. 2002. Mathematical modeling and quantitative methods. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40: 283-326.
28. Falk Filipsson A, Sand S, Nilsson J, Victorin K. 2003. The benchmark dose method - review of available models, and recommendations for application in heath risk assessment. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 33: 505-542.
29. Falk Filipsson A, Victorin K. 2003. Comparison of available benchmark dose softwares and models using trichloroethylene as a model substance. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 37: 343-355.
30. Faustman EM, Allen BC, Kavlock RJ, Kimmel CA. 1994. Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity I. Characterization of database and determination of no observed adverse effect levels. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 23: 478-486.
31. Fitzgerald DJ, Robinson NI, Pester BA. 2004. Application of benzo(a)pyrene and coal tar tumor dose-response data to a modified benchmark dose method of guideline development. Environ. Health Perspect. 112: 1341-1346.
32. Fowles JR, Alexeeff GV, Dodge D. 1999. The use of benchmark dose methodology with acute inhalation lethality data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 29: 262-278.
33. Gaylor DW. 1996. Quantalization of continuous data for benchmark dose estimation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 24: 246-250.
34. Gaylor DW, Aylward LL. 2004. An evaluation of benchmark dose methodology for non-cancer continuous-data health effects in animals due to exposures to dioxin (TCDD). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 40: 9-17.
35. Gaylor DW, Chen J. 1996. Precision of benchmark dose estimates for continuous (nonquantal) measurements of toxic effects. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 24: 19-23.
36. Gaylor D, Ryan L, Krewski D, Zhu Y. 1998. Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28: 150-164.
37. Gaylor DW, Slikker W. 1990. Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects. Neurotoxicology 11: 211-218.
38. Gaylor DW, Slikker W. 1994. Modeling for risk assessment of neurotoxic effects. Risk Anal. 14: 333-338.
39. Gaylor DW, Slikker W. 2004. Role of the standard deviation in the estimation of benchmark doses with continuous data. Risk Anal. 6: 1683-1687.
40. Gephart LA, Salminen WF, Nicolich MJ, Pelekis M. 2001. Evaluation of subchronic toxicity data using the benchmark dose approach. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 33: 37-59.
41. Haag-Grönlund M, Fransson-Steen R, Victorin K. 1995. Application of the benchmark method to risk assessment of trichloroethene. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 21: 261-269.
42. Haber LT, Allen BC, Kimmel CA. 1998. Non-cancer risk assessment for nickel compounds: issues associated with dose-response modeling of inhalation and oral exposures. Toxicol. Sci. 43: 213-229.
43. Jacobson JL, Janisse J, Banerjee M, Jester J, Jacobson SW, Ager J. 2002. A benchmark dose analysis of prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ. Health Perspect. 110: 393-398.
44. Kalliomaa K, Haag-Grönlund M, Victorin K. 1998. A new model function for continuous data sets in health risk assessment of chemicals using the benchmark dose concept. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 27: 98-107.
45. Kavlock RJ, Allen BC, Faustman EM, Kimmel CA. 1995. Dose-response assessments for developmental toxicity IV. Benchmark doses for fetal weight changes. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 26: 211-222.
46. Kavlock RJ, Schmid JE, Setzer RW. 1996. A simulation study of the influence of study design on the estimation of benchmark doses for developmental toxicity. Risk Anal. 3: 399-410.
47. Kim AH, Kohn MC, Portier CJ, Walker NJ. 2002. Impact of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling on benchmark dose calculations for TCDD-induced biochemical responses. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 36: 287-296.
48. Kimmel CA, Gaylor DW. 1988. Issues in qualitative and quantitative risk analysis for developmental toxicology. Risk Anal. 8: 15-21.
49. Kodell RL, Chen JJ, Gaylor DW. 1995. Neurotoxicity modeling for risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 22: 24-29.
50. Kodell RL, Howe RB, Chen JJ, Gaylor DW. 1991. Mathematical modeling of reproductive and developmental toxic effects for quantitative risk assessment. Risk Anal. 11: 583-590.
51. Kodell RL, West RW. 1993. Upper confidence limits on excess risk for quantitative responses. Risk Anal. 13: 177-182.
52. Krewski D, Smythe R, Fung KY. 2002. Optimal designs for estimating the effective dose in developmental toxicity experiments. Risk Anal. 22: 1195-1205.
53. Krewski D, Van Ryzin J. 1981. Dose response models for quantal response toxicity data. In Statistics and Related Topics, Csorgo M, Dawson D, Rao JNK, Saleh E (eds). North-Holland: Amsterdam; 201-231.
54. Krewski D, Zhu Y. 1994. Applications of multinomial dose-response models in developmental toxicity risk assessment. Risk Anal. 14: 613-627.
55. Krewski D, Zhu Y. 1995. A simple data transformation for estimating benchmark doses in developmental toxicity experiments. Risk Anal. 15: 29-39.
56. Kuljus K, von Rosen D, Sand S, Victorin K. 2006. Comparing experimental designs for benchmark dose calculations for continuous endpoints. Risk Anal. 26: 1031-1043.
57. Kupper LL, Portier C, Hogan MD, Yamamoto E. 1986. The impact of litter effects on dose-response modeling in teratology. Biometrics 42: 85-98.
58. Leisenring W, Ryan L. 1992. Statistical properties of the NOAEL. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15: 161-171.
59. McClellan RO. 1999. Human health risk assessment: A historical overview and alternative paths forward. Inhal. Toxicol. 11: 477-518.
60. Moerbeek M, Piersma AH, Slob W. 2004. A comparison of three methods for calculating confidence intervals for the benchmark dose. Risk Anal. 24: 31-40.
61. Murrell JA, Portier CJ, Morris RW. 1998. Characterizing dose-response I: Critical assessment of the benchmark dose concept. Risk Anal. 18: 13-26.
62. Rai K, Van Ryzin J. 1985. A dose-response model for teratological experiments involving quantal responses. Biometrics 41: 1-9.
63. Reiss R, Gaylor D. 2005. Use of benchmark dose and meta-analysis to determine the most sensitive endpoint for risk assessment for dimethoate. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 43: 55-65.
64. Rice DC. 2004. The US EPA reference dose for methylmercury: sources of uncertainty. Environ. Res. 95: 406-413.
65. Sand S, Falk Filipsson A, Victorin K. 2002. Evaluation of the benchmark dose method for dichotomous data: model dependence and model selection. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 36: 184-197.
66. Sand S, von Rosen D, Eriksson P, Fredriksson A, Viberg H, Victorin K, Falk Filipsson A. 2004. Dose-response modeling and benchmark calculations from spontaneous behavior data on mice neonatally exposed to 2,2′,4,4′,5- pentabromodiphenyl ether. Toxicol. Sci. 81: 491-501.
67. Sand S, von Rosen D, Falk Filipsson A. 2003. Benchmark calculations in risk assessment using continuous dose-response information: the influence of variance and the determination of a cut-off value. Risk Anal. 23: 1059-1068.
68. Sand S, von Rosen D, Victorin K, Falk Filipsson A. 2006. Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci. 90: 241-251.
69. Setzer RW, Kimmel CA. 2003. Use of NOAEL, benchmark dose, and other models for human risk assessment of hormonally active substances. Pure Appl. Chem. 75: 2151-2158.
70. Slikker W, Andersen ME, Bogdanffy MS, Bus JS, Cohen SD, Conolly RB, David RM, Doerrer NG, Dorman DC, Gaylor DW, Hattis D, Rogers JM, Setzer RW, Swenberg JA, Wallace K. 2004a. Dose-dependent transitions in mechanisms of toxicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 201: 203-225.
71. Slikker W, Andersen ME, Bogdanffy MS, Bus JS, Cohen SD, Conolly RB, David RM, Doerrer NG, Dorman DC, Gaylor DW, Hattis D, Rogers JM, Setzer RW, Swenberg JA, Wallace K. 2004b. Dose-dependent transitions in mechanisms of toxicity: case studies. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 201: 226-294.
72. Slikker W, Scallet A, Gaylor DW. 1998. Biologically-based dose-response model for neurotoxicity risk assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 102-103: 429-433.
73. Slob W. 2002. Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci. 66: 298-312.
74. Slob W, Moerbeek M, Rauniomaa E, Piersma AH. 2005. A statistical evaluation of toxicity study designs for the estimation of the benchmark dose in continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci. 84: 167-185.
75. Slob W, Pieters MN. 1998. A probabilistic approach for deriving acceptable human intake limits and human health risks from toxicological studies: general framework. Risk Anal. 18: 787-798.
76. Stiteler WM, Swartout J. 1991. Some statistical issues relating to the evaluations of risk levels at hazardous waste sites. Proceedings of the Section on Statistics and the Environment, American Statistical Association: VA, USA; 39-43.
77. Suwazono Y, Sand S, Vahter M, Falk Filipsson A, Skerfving S, Lidfeldt J, Akesson A. 2006. Benchmark dose for cadmium-induced renal effects in humans. Environ. Health Perspect. 114: 1072-1076.
78. Toyoshiba H, Walker NJ, Bailer AJ, Portier CJ. 2004. Evaluation of toxic equivalency factors for induction of cytochromes P450 CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 enzyme activity by dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 194: 156-168.
79. Travis KZ, Pate I, Welsh ZK. 2005. The role of the benchmark dose in a regulatory context. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 43: 280-291.
80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. The Use of The Benchmark Dose (BMD) Approach in Health Risk Assessment. Final report. EPA/630/R-94/007. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.
81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance Document (BMDTG). External review draft. EPA/630/R-00/001. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.
82. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Final report. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.
83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. The benchmark dose software version 1.3.2. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/ [January 2007].
84. Viluksela M, Bager Y, Tuomisto JT, Scheu G, Unkila M, Pohjanvirta R, Flodström S, Kosma V, Mäki-Paakkanen J, Vartiainen T, Klimm C, Schramm K, Wärngård L, Tuomisto J. 2000. Liver tumor-promoting activity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in TCDD-sensitive and TCDD-resistant rat strains. Cancer Res. 60: 6911-6920.
85. Weller EA, Catalano PJ, Williams PL. 1995. Implications of developmental toxicity study design for quantitative risk assessment. Risk Anal. 15: 567-574.
86. West RW, Kodell RL. 1993. Statistical methods of risk assessment for continuous variables. Commun. Statist. Theory Meth. 22: 3363-3376.
87. West RW, Kodell RL. 1999. A comparison of methods of benchmark-dose estimation for continuous response data. Risk Anal. 19: 453-459.
88. World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Principles for the Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Exposure to Chemicals. Environmental Health Criteria 210. World Health Organization: Geneva.
89. Woutersen RA, Jonker D, Stevenson H, te Biesebeek JD, Slob W. 2001. The benchmark approach applied to a 28-day toxicity study with Rhodorsil Silane in rats: the impact of increasing the number of dose groups. Food Chem. Toxicol. 39: 697-707.
90. Zhou T, Ross DG, DeVito MJ, Crofton KM. 2001. Effects of short-term in vivo exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers on thyroid hormones and hepatic enzyme activities in weanling rats. Toxicol. Sci. 61: 76-82.
91. Zhou T, Taylor MM, DeVito MJ, Crofton KM. 2002. Developmental exposure to brominated diphenyl ethers results in thyroid hormone disruption. Toxicol. Sci. 66: 105-116.
92. Zhu Y, Jia Z, Wang W, Gift JS, Moser VC, Pierre-Louis BJ. 2005. Analyses of neurobehavioral screening data: Benchmark dose estimation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 42: 190-201.