Use of threshold and mode of action in risk assessment

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

Volumn 41, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 637-650

  Crump, Kenny S ^a  

^a Louisiana Tech University   (United States)

Author keywords

Dose response; Exposure guideline; Low dose linearity; Mode of action; Quantitative risk assessment; Scientific method; Thresholds; United States Environmental Protection Agency

Indexed keywords

TOXIC SUBSTANCE;

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EVALUATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY;

ANIMALS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 79961239375     PISSN: 10408444     EISSN: 15476898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2011.566258     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Albert R. (1994). Carcinogen risk assessment in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Crit Rev Toxicol 24:75-85. (Pubitemid 24122408)
2. Andersen ME, Krewski D. (2009). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Bringing the vision to life. Toxicol Sci 107:324-330.
3. Bogdanfy MS, Daston G, Faustman EM, Kimmel CA, Kimmel GL, Seed J, Vu V. (2001). Harmonization of cancer and noncancer risk assessment: Proceedings of a consensus-building workshop. Toxicol Sci 61:18-31. (Pubitemid 32409683)
4. Bolt HM, Huici-Montagud A. (2008). Strategy of the scientifc committee on occupational exposure limits (SCOEL) in the derivation of occupational exposure limits for carcinogens and mutagens. Arch Toxicol 82:61-64.
5. Calabrese EJ, Blain R. (2004). Te occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: An overview. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 202:289-301. (Pubitemid 40164282)
6. Carmichael P, Kirsch-Volders M, Vrijhof H. (2009). Tresholds for genotoxins and their application in risk assessment. Mutat Res 678:71.
7. Clewell HJ, Crump KS. (2005). Quantitative estimates of risk for noncancer endpoints. Risk Anal 25:285-289. (Pubitemid 40664358)
8. Collins FS, Gray GM, Bucher JR. (2008). Transforming environmental health protection. Science 319:906-907. (Pubitemid 351263750)
9. Crawford M, Wilson R. (1996). Low-dose linearity: Te rule or the exception? Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2:305-330.
10. Creech, J, Johnson M. (1974). Angiosarcoma of liver in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride. J Occup Environ Med 16:150-152.
11. Crump KS. (1977). Open query: Teoretical problems in the modifed Mantel-Bryan procedure. Biometrics 33:752-757.
12. Crump KS, Chen C, Chiu W, Louis TA, Portier CJ, Subramaniam RP, White PD. (2010a). What role for biologically-based dose-response models in estimating low-dose risk? Environ Health Perspect 118:585-588.
13. Crump KS, Chen C, Louis TA. (2010b). Te future use of in vitro data in setting human exposure standards-Challenging problems and familiar solutions. Environ Health Perspect 118:1350-1354. (published on line June 18) doi:10.1289/ehp.1001931
14. Crump KS, Chiu WA, Subramaniam RP. (2010c). Issues in using human variability distributions to estimate low-dose risk. Environ Health Perspect 118:387-393.
15. Crump KS, Clewell HJ, Andersen M. (1997). Cancer and non-cancer risk assessment should be harmonized. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 3:495-499. (Pubitemid 127717225)
16. Crump KS, Hoel DG, Langley C, Peto R. (1976). Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res 36:2973-2979.
17. Hattis D, Banati P, Goble R. (1999). Distributions of individual susceptibility among humans for toxic efects. How much protection does the traditional tenfold factor provide for what fraction of which kinds of chemicals and efects? Ann N Y Acad Sci 895:286-316. (Pubitemid 30040561)
18. Johnson GE, Doak SH, Grifths SM, Quick EL, Skibinski DOF, Zair ZM, Jenkins GJ. (2009). Nonlinear dose-response of DNA-reactive genotoxins: Recommendations for data analysis. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 678:95-100.
19. Kirsch-Volders M, Aardema M. (2000). Concepts of threshold in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Mutat Res 464:4-11.
20. Klein AK, Christopher JP. (1995). Evaluation of crystalline silica as a threshold carcinogen. Scand J Work Environ Health 21 (Suppl 2):95-98. (Pubitemid 26059624)
21. Kohn M, Melnick R. (2002). Biochemical origins of the non-monotonic receptor-mediated dose-response. J Mol Endocrinol 29:113-123. (Pubitemid 34965750)
22. Krewski D, Andersen ME, Mantus E, Zeise L. (2008). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Implications for human health risk assessment. Risk Anal 29:474-479.
23. Lutz WK. (2001). Susceptibility diferences in chemical carcinogenesis linearize the dose-response relationship: Treshold doses can be defned only for individuals. Mutat Res 482:71-76. (Pubitemid 32787083)
24. Lutz WK, Lutz RW. (2009). Statistical model to estimate a threshold dose and its confdence limits for the analysis of sublinear dose-response relationships, exemplifed for mutagenicity data. Mutat Res 678:118-122.
25. National Research Council. (1977). Drinking Water and Health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. National Research Council. (1983). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. National Research Council. (2006a). Health Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record-id = 11688&page=R1, September 2010.
28. National Research Council. (2006b). Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29. National Research Council. (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11970.html.
30. National Research Council. (2008). Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31. Pottenger LH, Carmichael N, Banton MI, Boogaard PJ, Kim J, Kirkland D, Phillips RD, van Benthem J, Williams GM, Castrovinci A. (2009a). ECETOC workshop on the biological signifcance of DNA adducts: Summary of follow-up from an expert panel meeting. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 678:152-157.
32. Pottenger LH, Schisler MR, Zhang F, Bartels MJ, Fontaine DD, McFadden LG, Gollapudi B. (2009b). Dose-response and operational thresholds/NOAELs for in vitro mutagenic efects from DNA-reactive mutagens, MMS and MNU. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 678:138-147.
33. Rhomberg LR. (2004). Mechanistic considerations in the harmonization of dose-response methodology: the role of redundancy at diferent levels of biological organization. In: McDaniels TL, Small MJ, eds. Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. New York: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 3, pages 46-73.
34. Steenland K, Mannetje A, Bofetta P, Stayner L, Attfeld M, Chen J, Dosemeci M, DeKlerk N, Hnizdo E, Koskela R, Checkoway H. (2001). Pooled exposure-response and risk assessment for lung cancer in 10 cohorts of silica-exposed workers: An IARC multicentre study. Cancer Causes Control 12:773-784. (Pubitemid 33010614)
35. Turbiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, Bonnin A, Le Guen B, Masse R, Monier R, Valleron A, de Vathaire, F. (2005) Dose-efect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic efect of low doses of ionizing radiation. Paris: Académie des Sciences-Académie Nationale de Médecine. English text: Feb. 2005; www. academie-medecine.fr/actualites/rapports.asp.
36. Upton AC. (2001). Radiation hormesis: Data and interpretations. Crit Rev Toxicol 31:681-695. (Pubitemid 32706334)
37. US Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/FR-91/001.
38. US Environmental Protection Agency. (1996). Guidelines for reproductive toxicity risk assessment. Federal Register 61:56272-56322.
39. US Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Guidelines for neurotoxicity risk assessment. Federal Register 63:26926-26954.
40. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/630/P-03/001F.
41. Weinberg A. (1972). Science and trans-science. Science 177:211.
42. White RH, Cote I, Zeise L, Fox M, Dominici F, Burke TA, White PD, Hattis DB, Samet JM. (2009). State-of-the-science workshop report: issues and approaches in low-dose-response extrapolation for environmental health risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 117:283-287.