Probabilistic methods for non-cancer health effects.

Noncancer risk assessment methods and harmonization with cancer assessment methods have advanced from the simple divide a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) by a default safety factor or a linear extrapolation to background of the early 1980's. This advance is due in part due to groups such as the American Industrial Health Council, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Society for Risk Analysis, the Society of Toxicology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the International Programme on Chemical Safety, and to many independent researchers outside of and within a workshop series sponsored by the Alliance for Risk Assessment prompted by the NAS \. Several of the case studies from this workshop series, and earlier work such as Bogdanffy et al., demonstrate that the dose response assessment of non-cancer toxicity and the harmonization of cancer and non-cancer methods are more than just a simple reflection of treating all non-cancer toxicity as if it has a threshold, or all cancer toxicity as if it did not. Moreover, one recommendation of NAS \ was to develop a problem formulation with risk managers prior to conducting any risk assessment. If the development of this problem formulation only necessitates the determination of a safe, or virtually safe dose, then the estimation of a Reference Dose (RfD) or virtually safe dose (VSD) or similar constructs should be encouraged. Not all of our environmental problems need a precise quantitative solution.

Range of the perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) safe dose for human health: An international collaboration.

Many government agencies and expert groups have estimated a dose-rate of perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) that would protect human health. Most of these evaluations are based on the same studies (whether of humans, laboratory animals, or both), and all note various uncertainties in our existing knowledge. Nonetheless, the values of these various, estimated, safe-doses vary widely, with some being more than 100,000 fold different. This sort of discrepancy invites scrutiny and explanation. Otherwise what is the lay public to make of this disparity? The Steering Committee of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (2022) called for scientists interested in attempting to understand and narrow these disparities. An advisory committee of nine scientists from four countries was selected from nominations received, and a subsequent invitation to scientists internationally led to the formation of three technical teams (for a total of 24 scientists from 8 countries). The teams reviewed relevant information and independently developed ranges for estimated PFOA safe doses. All three teams determined that the available epidemiologic information could not form a reliable basis for a PFOA safe dose-assessment in the absence of mechanistic data that are relevant for humans at serum concentrations seen in the general population. Based instead on dose-response data from five studies of PFOA-exposed laboratory animals, we estimated that PFOA dose-rates 10-70 ng/kg-day are protective of human health.

Analysis for data-derived extrapolation factors for procymidone.

The derivation of Chemical Specific Adjustment Factors (CSAFs) (IPCS, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2014) depends on the choice of appropriate dose metric. EPA and IPCS guidance was applied to derive a CSAF for developmental toxicity for procymidone (PCM). Although kinetic data were not available in humans at any dose, sufficient toxicokinetic data are available in a surrogate species, primates, and from chimeric mice with both rat and human liver cells to offer insights. Alternative approaches were explored in the derivation of the CSAG based on review of the available kinetic data. The most likely dosimetric adjustment is the Cmax based on the character of the critical effect - reduced anogenital distance and increased incidence of hypospadias in male rats, which likely occurs during a small window of time during development of the rat fetus. Cmax is also the default dosimeter from U.S. EPA (1991). However, in this case, the use of Cmax is also likely more conservative than the use of area under the curve (AUC), which otherwise is the default recommendation of the IPCS (2005). Despite human data, estimated tentative CSAF value is 0.48 (range, 0.22 to 0.74). The use of any of these values would be supported by the available data.

Suggestions for Improving the Characterization of Risk from Exposures to Per and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances.

Many state and federal environmental and health agencies have developed risk-based criteria for assessing the risk of adverse health effects of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) exposure to humans and the environment. However, the criteria that have been developed vary; drinking water criteria developed for perfluorooctanoic acid, for example, can vary by up to 750 fold. This is due to differences and variability in the data and information used, study/endpoint selection, assumptions and magnitude of uncertainty factors used in the absence and extrapolation of critical effect data, differences in underlying approaches to addressing exposure within criteria development, and/or policy decisions on levels of acceptable risk. We have critically evaluated the methods used to develop these criteria while focusing on derivation and application of drinking water criteria and discuss a range of improvements to risk-characterization practice recently presented at a Focused Topic Meeting on PFAS conducted by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in Durham, North Carolina, USA, 12 to 15 August 2019. We propose methods that consider maximizing the use of disparate data streams, seeking patterns, and proposing biologically based approaches to evidence integration toward informed criteria development. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:883-898. © 2020 SETAC.

Data derived Extrapolation Factors for developmental toxicity: A preliminary research case study with perfluorooctanoate (PFOA).

Guidelines of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1991) and the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS, 2005) suggest two different default positions for dosimetric extrapolation from experimental animals to humans when the dosimetry of the critical effect is not known. The default position of EPA (1991) for developmental toxicity is to use peak concentration (or Cmax) for this dosimetric extrapolation. In contrast, IPCS (2005, page 39) states its default position for dosimetric choice in the absence of data is to use the area under the curve (or AUC). The choice of the appropriate dose metric is important in the development of either a Chemical Specific Adjustment Factor (CSAF) of IPCS (2005) or a Data Derived Extrapolation Factor (DDEF) of EPA (2014). This research shows the derivation of a DDEF for developmental toxicity for perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), a chemical of current interest. Here, identification of the appropriate dosimetric adjustment from a review of developmental effects identified by EPA (2016) is attempted. Although some of these effects appear to be related to Cmax, most appear to be related to the average concentration or its AUC, but only during the critical period of development for a particular effect. A comparison was made of kinetic data from PFOA exposure in mice with newly available and carefully monitored kinetic data in humans after up to 36 weeks of PFOA exposure in a phase 1 clinical trial by Elcombe et al. (2013). Using the average concentration during the various exposure windows of concern, the DDEF for PFOA was determined to be 1.3 or 14. These values are significantly different than comparable extrapolations by several other authorities based on differences in PFOA half-life among species. Although current population exposures to PFOA are generally much lower than both the experimental animal data and the clinical human study, the development of these DDEFs is consistent with current guidelines of both EPA (2014) and IPCS (2005).

Let the IRIS Bloom:Regrowing the integrated risk information system (IRIS) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an important role in protecting public health. Originally it provided a single database listing official risk values equally valid for all Agency offices, and was an important tool for risk assessment communication across EPA. Started in 1986, IRIS achieved full standing in 1990 when it listed 500 risk values, the effort of two senior EPA groups over 5 years of monthly face-to-face meetings, to assess combined risk data from multiple Agency offices. Those groups were disbanded in 1995, and the lack of continuing face-to-face meetings meant that IRIS became no longer EPA's comprehensive database of risk values or their latest evaluations. As a remedy, a work group of the Agency's senior scientists should be re-established to evaluate new risks and to update older ones. Risk values to be reviewed would come from the same EPA offices now developing such information on their own. Still, this senior group would have the final authority on posting a risk value in IRIS, independently of individual EPA offices. This approach could also lay the groundwork for an all-government IRIS database, especially needed as more government Agencies, industries and non-governmental organizations are addressing evolving risk characterizations.

Benchmark dose (BMD) modeling: current practice, issues, and challenges.

Benchmark dose (BMD) modeling is now the state of the science for determining the point of departure for risk assessment. Key advantages include the fact that the modeling takes account of all of the data for a particular effect from a particular experiment, increased consistency, and better accounting for statistical uncertainties. Despite these strong advantages, disagreements remain as to several specific aspects of the modeling, including differences in the recommendations of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Differences exist in the choice of the benchmark response (BMR) for continuous data, the use of unrestricted models, and the mathematical models used; these can lead to differences in the final BMDL. It is important to take confidence in the model into account in choosing the BMDL, rather than simply choosing the lowest value. The field is moving in the direction of model averaging, which will avoid many of the challenges of choosing a single best model when the underlying biology does not suggest one, but additional research would be useful into methods of incorporating biological considerations into the weights used in the averaging. Additional research is also needed regarding the interplay between the BMR and the UF to ensure appropriate use for studies supporting a lower BMR than default values, such as for epidemiology data. Addressing these issues will aid in harmonizing methods and moving the field of risk assessment forward.

Update: Mode of action (MOA) for liver tumors induced by oral exposure to 1,4-dioxane.

Previous work has shown that the weight of evidence supports the hypothesis that 1,4-dioxane causes liver tumors in rodents through cytotoxicity and subsequent regenerative hyperplasia. Questions regarding a lack of concordant findings for this mode of action (MOA) in mice have not been resolved, however. In the current work, a reanalysis of data from two chronic mouse cancer bioassays on 1,4-dioxane, one 13-week mouse study, seven rat cancer bioassays, coupled with other data such as 1,4-dioxane's negative mutagenicity, its lack of up-regulated DNA repair, and the appearance of liver tumors with a high background incidence, support the conclusion that rodent liver tumors, including those in mice, are evoked by a regenerative hyperplasia MOA. The initiating event for this MOA is metabolic saturation of 1,4-dioxane. Above metabolic saturation, higher doses of the parent compound cause an ever increasing toxicity in the rodent liver as evidenced by higher blood levels of enzymes indicative of liver cell damage and associated histopathology that occurs in a dose and time related manner. Importantly, alternative modes of action can be excluded. The observed liver toxicity has a threshold in the dose scale at or below levels that saturate metabolism, and generally in the range of 9.6-42 mg/kg-day for rats and 57 to 66 mg/kg-day for mice. It follows that threshold approaches to the assessment of this chemical's toxicity are supported by the non-mutagenic, metabolic saturation kinetics, and cytotoxicity-generated regenerative repair information available for 1,4-dioxane promoted rodent liver tumors.

Advances in assessing ingredient safety.

The safety of food ingredients will be assessed in the 21st century by mixture of traditional methods, such as the "safe" dose concept, which is thought to be an accurate but imprecise estimation of dose below the population threshold for adverse effect, and contemporary methods, such as the Benchmark Dose (BMD), Chemical Specific Adjustment Factors (CSAF), physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models, and biologically-informed dose response modeling. New research on the horizon related to toxicology 21 may also improve these risk assessment methods, or suggest new ones. These traditional, contemporary and new methods and research will be briefly described.

Managing risks of noncancer health effects at hazardous waste sites: A case study using the Reference Concentration (RfC) of trichloroethylene (TCE).

A method for determining a safety range for non-cancer risks is proposed, similar in concept to the range used for cancer in the management of waste sites. This safety range brings transparency to the chemical specific Reference Dose or Concentration by replacing their "order of magnitude" definitions with a scientifically-based range. EPA's multiple RfCs for trichloroethylene (TCE) were evaluated as a case study. For TCE, a multi-endpoint safety range was judged to be 3 µg/m(3) to 30 µg/m,(3) based on a review of kidney effects found in NTP (1988), thymus effects found in Keil et al. (2009) and cardiac effects found in the Johnson et al. (2003) study. This multi-endpoint safety range is derived from studies for which the appropriate averaging time corresponds to different exposure durations, and, therefore, can be applied to both long- and short-term exposures with appropriate consideration of exposure averaging times. For shorter-term exposures, averaging time should be based on the time of cardiac development in humans during fetal growth, an average of approximately 20-25 days.

A case study of potential human health impacts from petroleum coke transfer facilities.

Petroleum coke or "petcoke" is a solid material created during petroleum refinement and is distributed via transfer facilities that may be located in densely populated areas. The health impacts from petcoke exposure to residents living in proximity to such facilities were evaluated for a petcoke transfer facilities located in Chicago, Illinois. Site-specific, margin of safety (MOS) and margin of exposure (MOE) analyses were conducted using estimated airborne and dermal exposures. The exposure assessment was based on a combined measurement and modeling program that included multiyear on-site air monitoring, air dispersion modeling, and analyses of soil and surfaces in residential areas adjacent to two petcoke transfer facilities located in industrial areas. Airborne particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) were used as a marker for petcoke. Based on daily fence line monitoring, the average daily PM10 concentration at the KCBX Terminals measured on-site was 32 µg/m3, with 89% of 24-hr average PM10 concentrations below 50 µg/m3 and 99% below 100 µg/m3. A dispersion model estimated that the emission sources at the KCBX Terminals produced peak PM10 levels attributed to the petcoke facility at the most highly impacted residence of 11 µg/m3 on an annual average basis and 54 µg/m3 on 24-hr average basis. Chemical indicators of petcoke in soil and surface samples collected from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the facilities were equivalent to levels in corresponding samples collected at reference locations elsewhere in Chicago, a finding that is consistent with limited potential for off-site exposure indicated by the fence line monitoring and air dispersion modeling. The MOE based upon dispersion model estimates ranged from 800 to 900 for potential inhalation, the primary route of concern for particulate matter. This indicates a low likelihood of adverse health effects in the surrounding community. Implications: Handling of petroleum coke at bulk material transfer facilities has been identified as a concern for the public health of surrounding populations. The current assessment, based on measurements and modeling of two facilities located in a densely populated urban area, indicates that petcoke transport and accumulation in off-site locations is minimal. In addition, estimated human exposures, if any, are well below levels that could be anticipated to produce adverse health effects in the general population.

Bayesian methods for uncertainty factor application for derivation of reference values.

In 2014, the National Research Council (NRC) published Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process that considers methods EPA uses for developing toxicity criteria for non-carcinogens. These criteria are the Reference Dose (RfD) for oral exposure and Reference Concentration (RfC) for inhalation exposure. The NRC Review suggested using Bayesian methods for application of uncertainty factors (UFs) to adjust the point of departure dose or concentration to a level considered to be without adverse effects for the human population. The NRC foresaw Bayesian methods would be potentially useful for combining toxicity data from disparate sources-high throughput assays, animal testing, and observational epidemiology. UFs represent five distinct areas for which both adjustment and consideration of uncertainty may be needed. NRC suggested UFs could be represented as Bayesian prior distributions, illustrated the use of a log-normal distribution to represent the composite UF, and combined this distribution with a log-normal distribution representing uncertainty in the point of departure (POD) to reflect the overall uncertainty. Here, we explore these suggestions and present a refinement of the methodology suggested by NRC that considers each individual UF as a distribution. From an examination of 24 evaluations from EPA's IRIS program, when individual UFs were represented using this approach, the geometric mean fold change in the value of the RfD or RfC increased from 3 to over 30, depending on the number of individual UFs used and the sophistication of the assessment. We present example calculations and recommendations for implementing the refined NRC methodology.

Approaches for describing and communicating overall uncertainty in toxicity characterizations: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as a case study.

Single point estimates of human health hazard/toxicity values such as a reference dose (RfD) are generally used in chemical hazard and risk assessment programs for assessing potential risks associated with site- or use-specific exposures. The resulting point estimates are often used by risk managers for regulatory decision-making, including standard setting, determination of emission controls, and mitigation of exposures to chemical substances. Risk managers, as well as stakeholders (interested and affected parties), often have limited information regarding assumptions and uncertainty factors in numerical estimates of both hazards and risks. Further, the use of different approaches for addressing uncertainty, which vary in transparency, can lead to a lack of confidence in the scientific underpinning of regulatory decision-making. The overarching goal of this paper, which was developed from an invited participant workshop, is to offer five approaches for presenting toxicity values in a transparent manner in order to improve the understanding, consideration, and informed use of uncertainty by risk assessors, risk managers, and stakeholders. The five approaches for improving the presentation and communication of uncertainty are described using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as a case study. These approaches will ensure transparency in the documentation, development, and use of toxicity values at EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and other similar assessment programs in the public and private sector. Further empirical testing will help to inform the approaches that will work best for specific audiences and situations.

Lessons learned, challenges, and opportunities: the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act and amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a screening program to investigate the potential of pesticide chemicals and drinking water contaminants to adversely affect endocrine pathways. Consequently, the EPA launched the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to develop and validate estrogen, androgen, and thyroid (EAT) pathway screening assays and to produce standardized and harmonized test guidelines for regulatory application. In 2009, the EPA issued the first set of test orders for EDSP screening and a total of 50 pesticide actives and 2 inert ingredients have been evaluated using the battery of EDSP Tier 1 screening assays (i.e., five in vitro assays and six in vivo assays). To provide a framework for retrospective analysis of the data generated and to collect the insight of multiple stakeholders involved in the testing, more than 240 scientists from government, industry, academia, and non-profit organizations recently participated in a workshop titled "Lessons Learned, Challenges, and Opportunities: The U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program." The workshop focused on the science and experience to date and was organized into three focal sessions: (a) Performance of the EDSP Tier 1 Screening Assays for Estrogen, Androgen, and Thyroid Pathways; (b) Practical Applications of Tier 1 Data; and (c) Indications and Opportunities for Future Endocrine Testing. A number of key learnings and recommendations related to future EDSP evaluations emanated from the collective sessions.

A framework for fit-for-purpose dose response assessment.

The NRC report Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment made several recommendations to improve chemical risk assessment, with a focus on in-depth chronic dose-response assessments conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The recommendations addressed two broad elements: improving technical analysis and utility for decision making. To advance the discussions in the NRC report, in three multi-stakeholder workshops organized by the Alliance for Risk Assessment, available and evolving risk assessment methodologies were considered through the development and application of case studies. A key product was a framework (http://www.allianceforrisk.org/Workshop/Framework/ProblemFormulation.html) to guide risk assessors and managers to various dose-response assessment methods relevant to a range of decision contexts ranging from priority setting to full assessment, as illustrated by case studies. It is designed to facilitate selection of appropriate methodology for a variety of problem formulations and includes a variety of methods with supporting case studies, for areas flagged specifically by the NRC committee for consideration--e.g., susceptible sub-populations, population variability and background. The framewok contributes to organization and communication about methodologies for incorporating increasingly biologically informed and chemical specific knowledge into dose-response analysis, which is considered critical in evolving fit-for-purpose assessment to address relevant problem formulations.

The importance of problem formulations in risk assessment: a case study involving dioxin-contaminated soil.

The need to remediate contaminated soils is typically accomplished by applying standard risk assessment methods followed by risk management to select remedial options. These human health risk assessments (HHRAs) have been largely conducted in a formulaic manner that relies heavily on standard deterministic exposure, toxicity assumptions and fixed mathematical formulas. The HHRA approach, with its traditional formulaic practice, does not take advantage of problem formulation in the same manner as is done in ecological risk assessment, and historically, has generally failed to emphasize incorporation of site-specific information. In response to these challenges, the National Academy of Sciences recently made several recommendations regarding the conduct of HHRAs, one of which was to begin all such assessments with problem formulation. These recommendations have since been extended to dose response assessment. In accordance with these recommendations, a group of experts presented and discussed findings that highlighted the importance and impact of including problem formulation when determining the need for remediation of dioxin contamination in soils, focusing in particular on exposure assessment is described.

Peer consultation on relationship between PAC profile and toxicity of petroleum substances.

An expert peer consultation panel reviewed a report by the PAC Analysis Task Group, which hypothesized that systemic, developmental, and reproductive toxicity observed in repeated-dose dermal toxicity studies was related to polycyclic aromatic compound (PAC) content. Peer consultations seek to solicit scientific and technical input from experts on the scientific basis and merits of the subject report. This peer consultation panel included nine scientists with expertise in petroleum chemistry, biostatistics, toxicology, risk assessment, structure activity, and reproductive and developmental toxicology. The panel evaluated the technical quality of the PAC report and provided recommendations for improving the statistical and biological approaches. The PAC report authors revised their methods and documentation, which are published elsewhere in this supplement. A review of the post peer consultation manuscripts confirmed that many of the key suggestions from expert panel members were considered and incorporated. In cases where the PAC report authors did not fully incorporate panel suggestions from the peer consultation, they have provided an explanation and support for their decision. This peer consultation demonstrates the value of formal engagement of peers in development of new scientific methods and approaches.

Safety assessment of boron by application of new uncertainty factors and their subdivision.

The available toxicity information for boron was reevaluated and four appropriate toxicity studies were selected in order to derive a tolerable daily intake (TDI) using newly proposed uncertainty factors (UFs) presented in Hasegawa et al. (2010). No observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) of 17.5 and 8.8 mgB/kg/day for the critical effect of testicular toxicity were found in 2-year rat and dog feeding studies. Also, the 95% lower confidence limit of the benchmark doses for 5% reduction of fetal body weight (BMDL(05)) was calculated as 44.9 and 10.3 mgB/kg/day in mouse and rat developmental toxicity studies, respectively. Measured values available for differences in boron clearance between rats and humans and variability in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in pregnant women were used to derive chemical specific UFs. For the remaining uncertainty, newly proposed default UFs, which were derived from the latest applicable information with a probabilistic approach, and their subdivided factors for toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic variability were applied. Finally, overall UFs were calculated as 68 for rat testicular toxicity, 40 for dog testicular toxicity, 247 for mouse developmental toxicity and 78 for rat developmental toxicity. It is concluded that 0.13 mgB/kg/day is the most appropriate TDI for boron, based on rat developmental toxicity.