A signal-to-noise crossover dose as the point of departure for health risk assessment

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 119, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1766-1774

  Sand, Salomon ^a,b   Portier, Christopher J ^c   Krewski, Daniel ^b,d  

^a NATIONAL FOOD ADMINISTRATION   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^d RISK SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Benchmark dose; Cancer bioassay; Human exposure guideline; Low dose extrapolation; Point of departure; Reference dose; Signal to noise crossover dose; Uncertainty factor

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; DRUG DOSE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HEALTH HAZARD; POINT OF DEPARTURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE VALUE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL TO NOISE CROSSOVER DOSE; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOLOGICAL PARAMETERS;

EID: 82755192178     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1003327     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. 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.
2. Allen BC, Kavlock RJ, Kimmel CA, Faustman EM. 1994b. Dose- response assessment for developmental toxicity. III. Statistical models. Fundam Appl Toxicol 23:496-509.
3. Barnes DG, Dourson M. 1988. Reference dose (RfD): description and use in health risk assessments. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 8:471-486.
4. Bokkers B, Slob W. 2007. Deriving a data-based interspecies assessment factor using the NOAEL and the benchmark dose approach. Crit Rev Toxicol 37:353-377.
5. Bucher JR, Portier C. 2004. Human carcinogenic risk evalua- tion, part V: the National Toxicology Program vision for assessing the human carcinogenic hazard of chemicals. Toxicol Sci 82:363-366.
6. Chhabra RS, Huff JE, Schwetz BS, Selkirk J. 1990. An overview of prechronic and chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity experimental study designs and criteria used by the National Toxicology Program. Environ Health Perspect 88:313-321.
7. Crump K. 1984. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam Appl Toxicol 4:854-871.
8. Dourson M, Felter S, Robinson D. 1996. Evolution of science- based uncertainty factors in noncancer risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 24:108-120.
9. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to a harmonised approach for risk assessment of substances which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. EFSA J 282:1-31.
10. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2009a. Guidance of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J 1150:1-72.
11. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2009b. Scientific opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in food. EFSA J 980:1-139.
12. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2009c. Scientific opinion of EFSA prepared by the Panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids (CEF) on toxicological evaluation of benzophenone. EFSA J 1104:1-30.
13. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2010. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM); scientific opinion on lead in food. EFSA J 8(4):1570.
14. Firestone M, Kavlock R, Zenick H, Kramer M. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Working Group on the Future of Toxicity Testing. 2010. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency strategic plan for evaluating the toxicity of chemicals. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 13:139-162.
15. Fowles JR, Alexeeff GV, Dodge D. 1999. The use of benchmark dose methodology with acute inhalation lethality data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 29:262-278.
16. Gaylor D. 1992. Incidence of developmental defects at the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 15:151-160.
17. Gaylor DW, Kodell RL, Chen JJ, Krewski, D. 1999. A unified approach to risk assessment for cancer and noncancer endpoints based on benchmark doses and uncertainty/ safety factors. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 29:161-167.
18. Gaylor DW, Ryan L, Krewski D, Zhu Y. 1998. Procedures for calculating the benchmark dose for health risk assessment. Regula Toxicol Pharmacol 28:150-164.
19. Kimmel CA, Gaylor DW. 1988. Issues in qualitative and quan- titative risk analysis for developmental toxicology. Risk Anal 8:15-21.
20. Krewski D, Westphal M, Al-Zoughool M, Croteau M, Andersen ME. 2011. New directions in toxicity testing. Annu Rev Public Health 32:161-178.
21. Lehman AJ, Fitzhugh OG. 1954. 100-fold margin of safety. Assoc Food Drug Off US Q Bull 18:33-35.
22. Leisenring W, Ryan L. 1992. Statistical properties of the NOAEL. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 15:161-171.
23. Murrell JA, Portier CJ, Morris RW. 1998. Characterizing dose- response I: critical assessment of the benchmark dose concept. Risk Anal 18:13-26.
24. National Research Council. 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
25. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2006. NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) (CAS No. 1746-01-6) in Female Harlan Sprague-Dawley Rats (Gavage Studies). TR 521. Research Triangle Park, NC:NTP. Available: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/521_Web.pdf [accessed 21 October 2011].
26. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2009. Database Search Application. Available: https://ntp-apps.niehs.nih.gov/iacf/demo/tdmsmenu.cfm [accessed 14 January 2009].
27. Sand S, Victorin K, Filipsson AF. 2008. The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment. J Appl Toxicol 28:405-421.
28. Sand S, von Rosen D, Victorin K, Filipsson AF. 2006. Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints. Toxicol Sci 90:241-251.
29. Slob W. 2002. Dose-response modeling of continuous end- points. Toxicol Sci 66:298-312.
30. 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.
31. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. The Use of the Benchmark Dose Approach in Health Risk Assessment. Final Report. EPA/630/R-94/007. Washington, DC:Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. EPA.
32. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance Document. External Review Draft. EPA/630/R-00/001. Washington, DC:Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. EPA.
33. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Final Report. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Washington, DC:Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. EPA.