Characterizing the noncancer toxicity of mixtures using concepts from the TTC and quantitative models of uncertainty in mixture toxicity

Risk Analysis

Volumn 29, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1534-1548

  Price, Paul S ^a   Hollnagel, Heli M ^b   Zabik, Jack M ^a  

^a DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY   (United States)

^b DOW EUROPE GMBH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Cramer classes; DNELs; Mixtures; RfD; Toxicity; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL MIXTURES; COMPONENT BASED; CRAMER CLASSES; DEFAULT VALUES; DNELS; MIXTURE COMPONENTS; MIXTURE TOXICITY; QUANTITATIVE MODELS; RFD; SCREENING ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

TOXICITY;

MIXTURES;

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TOXICITY; TOXICOLOGY;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; NONHUMAN; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; THRESHOLD OF TOXICOLOGICAL CONCERN; TOXICITY; TOXICOLOGY; UNCERTAINTY;

DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HUMANS; LETHAL DOSE 50; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PESTICIDE RESIDUES; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY; WASTE DISPOSAL, FLUID; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

EID: 70350491293     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01300.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. U.S. EPA. Concepts, methods and data sources for cumulative health risk assessment of multiple chemicals, exposures and effects: A resource document. Cincinnati, OH : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2007 EPA/600/R-06/013F Internet 2007 cited 2008 December 1 Available at : http://ieh.cranfield.ac.uk/IGHRC/mixtures-document.pdf.
2. Hertzberg RC, Teuschler LK. Evaluating quantitative formulas for dose-response assessment of chemical mixtures. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002 110 (Suppl 6 965 970.
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic Actions of Chemical Mixtures. Atlanta, GA : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 2004.
4. U.S. EPA. Supplementary guidance for conducting health risk assessment of chemical mixtures. In : Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 2000 EPA 630/R-00-002.
5. Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RL. Estimation of toxic hazard - A decision tree approach. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology, 1978 16 (3 255 276.
6. Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E, Sprenger JG. Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: A proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 1996 34 (9 829 867.
7. Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman M, Kleiner J, Mangelsdorf I, Piersma A. Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): Guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2004 42 (1 65 83.
8. Barlow S. Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) - A Tool for Assessing Substances of Unknown Toxicity Present at Low Levels in the Diet. Washington, DC : International Life Sciences Institute, 2005.
9. Swartout JC, Price PS, Daurson ML, Carlson-Lynch HL, Keenan RE. A probabilistic framework for the reference dose (probabilistic RfD). Risk Analysis, 1998 18 (3 271 282.
10. Vermeire T, Stevenson H, Peiters MN, Rennan M, Slob W, Hakkert BC. Assessment factors for human health risk assessment: A discussion paper. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 1999 29 (5 439 490.
11. NRC. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA, Washington, DC : National Research Council, 2008.
12. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health. In : Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Helsinki, Finland : European Chemicals Agency, 2008.
13. U.S. EPA. Reference Dose (RfD): Description and use in health risk assessments: Background Document 1A [Internet]. Washington, DC : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. 1993. Available at : http://www.epa.gov/ IRIS/rfd.htm, Accessed on December 1, 2008.
14. Könemann WH, Pieters MN. Confusion of concepts in mixture toxicology. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 1996 34 (11-12 1025 1031.
15. Price PS, Keenan RE, Swartout JC, Gillis CA, Dourson MC. A Monte Carlo based approach for modeling noncarcinogenic dose response rates. Paper presented at Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting, December 3-5, Sheraton Waikiki Hotel, Honolulu, HI, 1995.
16. Baird SJS, Cohen JT, Graham JD, Shlyakhter AI, Evans JS. Noncancer risk assessment: A probabilistic alternative to current practice. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1996 2 (1 79 102.
17. Slob W, Pieters MN. A probabilistic approach for deriving acceptable human intake limits and human health risks from toxicological studies: General framework. Bilthoven (The Netherlands RIVM, 1997 Rapport 620110005
18. Vermeire T, Stevenson H, Peiters MN, Rennan M, Slob W, Hakkert BC. Probabilistic assessment factors for human health risk assessment: A practical guide. Bilthoven, The Netherlands : RIVM, 1991 TNO report V3489
19. Kalberlah F, Fost U, Schneider K. Uncertainty in toxicological risk assessment for non-carcinogenic health effects. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2003 37 (1 92 104.
20. Gaylor DW, Kodell RL. Percentiles of the product of assessment factors for establishing probabilistic reference doses. Risk Analysis, 2000 20 (2 245 250.
21. Kodell RL, Chen JJ. On the use of hierarchical probabilistic models for characterizing and managing uncertainty in risk/safety assessment. Risk Analysis, 2007 27 (2 433 437.
22. Price PS, Keenan RE, Swartout JC, Gillis CA, Carlson-Lynch H, Dourson ML. An approach for modeling noncancer dose responses with an emphasis on uncertainty. Risk Analysis, 1997 17 (4 427 437.
23. Brand KP, Rhomberg L, Evans JS. Estimating noncancer assessment factors: Are ratios NOAELs informative? Risk Analysis, 1999 19 (2 295 308.
24. Brand KP, Catalano PJ, Hammitt JK, Rhomberg L, Evans JS. Limitations to empirical extrapolation studies: The case of BMD ratios. Risk Analysis, 2001 21 (4 625 640.
25. Price PS, Keenan RE, Swartout JS. Characterizing interspecies uncertainty using data from studies of anti-neoplastic agents in animals and humans. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2008 233 (1 64 70.
26. Bokkers BG, Slob W. Deriving a data-based interspecies assessment factor using the NOAEL and the benchmark dose approach. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2007 37 (5 355 373.
27. Rhomberg LR, Wolff SK. Empirical scaling of single oral lethal doses across mammalian species based on a large database. Risk Analysis, 1998 18 (6 741 753.
28. Kalberlah F, Fost U, Schneider K. Time extrapolation and interspecies extrapolation for locally acting substances in case of limited toxicological data. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2002 46 (2 175 185.
29. Schneider K, Oltmanns J, Hassauer M. Allometric principles for interspecies extrapolation in toxicological risk assessment - Empirical investigations. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2004 39 (3 334 347.
30. Renwick AG. Data-derived safety factors for the evaluation of food additives and environmental contaminants. Food Additives and Contaminants, 1993 10 (3 275 305.
31. Price PS, Keenan RE, Schwab B. Defining the interindividual (intraspecies) uncertainty factor. HERA, 1999 5 (5 1023 1033. (Pubitemid 129725207)
32. Bokkers BG, Slob W. A comparison of ratio distributions based on the NOAEL and the benchmark approach for subchronic-to-chronic extrapolation. Toxicology Science, 2005 85 (2 1033 1040.
33. Schneider K, Hassauer M, Oltmanns J, Schuhmacher-Wolz U, Elmshouser E, Mosbach-Shulz O. Uncertainty Analysis in Workplace Effect Assessment, Research Report F 1824, F 1825, F1826, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Dortmund/Berlin/Dresden, 2005.
34. Lee KE, Barber LB, Furlong ET, Cahill JD, Kolpin DW Meyer MT et al. Presence and Distribution of Organic Wastewater Compounds in Wastewater, Surface, Ground, and Drinking Waters, Minnesota, 2000-02. Prepared in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Scientific Investigation Report 2004-5138, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, 2004.
35. Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman M, Kleiner J, Mangelsdorf I, Piersma A et al. The threshold of toxicological concern concept in risk assessment. Toxicology Science, 2005 86 (2 226 230.