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.

Mode of action human relevance (species concordance) framework: Evolution of the Bradford Hill considerations and comparative analysis of weight of evidence.

The mode of action human relevance (MOA/HR) framework increases transparency in systematically considering data on MOA for end (adverse) effects and their relevance to humans. This framework continues to evolve as experience increases in its application. Though the MOA/HR framework is not designed to address the question of "how much information is enough" to support a hypothesized MOA in animals or its relevance to humans, its organizing construct has potential value in considering relative weight of evidence (WOE) among different cases and hypothesized MOA(s). This context is explored based on MOA analyses in published assessments to illustrate the relative extent of supporting data and their implications for dose-response analysis and involved comparisons for chemical assessments on trichloropropane, and carbon tetrachloride with several hypothesized MOA(s) for cancer. The WOE for each hypothesized MOA was summarized in narrative tables based on comparison and contrast of the extent and nature of the supporting database versus potentially inconsistent or missing information. The comparison was based on evolved Bradford Hill considerations rank ordered to reflect their relative contribution to WOE determinations of MOA taking into account increasing experience in their application internationally. This clarification of considerations for WOE determinations as a basis for comparative analysis is anticipated to contribute to increasing consistency in the application of MOA/HR analysis and potentially, transparency in separating science judgment from public policy considerations in regulatory risk assessment.

A systematic approach for evaluating and scoring human data.

An approach is described for how the quality of human data can be systematically assessed and categorised. The approach mirrors the animal data quality considerations set out by Klimisch et al., in order that human data quality can be addressed in a complementary manner and to help facilitate transparent (and repeatable) weight of evidence comparisons. Definitions are proposed for the quality and adequacy of data. Quality is differentiated into four categories. A description of how the scheme can be used for evaluating data reliability, especially for use when contributing entries to the IUCLID database, is shown. A discussion of how the criteria might also be used when determining overall data relevance is included. The approach is intended to help harmonise human data evaluation processes worldwide.

Naphthalene animal carcinogenicity and human relevancy: overview of industries with naphthalene-containing streams.

Bioassays in mice and rats exposed via inhalation to naphthalene show incidences of lung and nasal cancer, respectively. To address the question of human relevancy, a literature search for cancer case reports in workers exposed to naphthalene was performed, along with an evaluation of major studies from industries with naphthalene-containing streams having the highest naphthalene exposures and/or most extensive epidemiology data. Although no epidemiologic studies of workers exposed solely to naphthalene were found, a population-based case-control study of oral and oropharynx cancer found no relation with naphthalene exposure. Limited case reports of laryngeal and colorectal cancer and naphthalene exposure exist, but these data are inadequate for evaluating human cancer risk. No case reports of nasal tumors were found, which is informative because case reports have historically identified several occupational carcinogens. Combined with anatomic and metabolic differences between rodent and human upper airways and data suggesting that cancer potency based on the rat bioassay is overestimated, relevancy of rat nasal tumors to humans is questionable. For lung cancer, existing human studies are insufficient to make firm conclusions about the presence or absence of a potential naphthalene-related risk, although no occupationally-related lung cancer risks were identified in the industries evaluated.