Time extrapolation in regulatory risk assessment: The impact of study differences on the extrapolation factors.

In human risk assessment, time extrapolation factors (EFs) account for differences in exposure duration of experimental studies. We calculated EFs based on N(L)OEL (no (lowest) observed effect level) ratios, dividing shorter-term by longer-term values. The 'oral' datasets comprised 302 EFs (subacute-subchronic) and 1059 EFs (subchronic-chronic). The 'inhalation' datasets contained 67 EFs (subacute-subchronic) and 226 EFs (subchronic-chronic). The experimental EF distribution oral:subchronic-chronic showed that study parameters like deviation in dose selection and spacing influence mainly the data variance. Exclusion of these influences led to a dataset representing more realistically the difference of N(L)OELs with prolonged treatment. This dataset showed a GM of 1.5, indicating that the impact of a longer treatment period on the study N(L)OEL is on average not high. A factor of 1.5 seemed to be also sufficiently conservative for subacute-subchronic and subchronic-chronic extrapolation (inhalation or oral exposure). EFs for groups of similar compounds did not differ, but for compounds with low and high NOEL values. Relatively toxic compounds (GM 1) might thus not require time extrapolation. Within and between chemical variance was analysed in the dataset oral:subchronic-chronic (GSD 4.8). The variance between chemicals should be considered within extrapolation by selecting an appropriate percentile for which a chemical variance factor is suggested. In risk assessment, often a combination of EFs is required. Our analysis indicates that such a combination will result in an accumulation of non-toxicological variance and therefore unrealistically high EFs. Further evaluations are needed to identify appropriate chemical variance factors for these situations.

Current pesticide dietary risk assessment in light of comparable animal study NOAELs after chronic and short-termed exposure durations.

Dietary risk assessment (DRA) of pesticides includes the estimation of chronic and acute exposures from crop residues, but assesses acute exposures only for pesticides with an acute reference dose (ARfD). Acute estimation uses high percentiles of food consumption surveys which are considerably higher than per capita lifetime averaged food consumption values which are used for chronic estimations. Assessing acute risks only for pesticides with an ARfD tacitly assumes that chronic risk assessment covers also intermittent occurring exposures which could significantly exceed chronic estimates. The present investigation conducted on 2200 rat studies from 436 pesticides provides evidence demonstrating that pesticides with and without ARfD have no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) which remain statistically unchanged in developmental, subacute, subchronic, reproductive and chronic toxicity studies covering exposure durations between 2 and 104 weeks. DRA of pesticides without ARfD needs reconsideration in light of equally high toxic dose levels after short- and long-term exposures, suggesting that intermittent exposures could be toxic, if they repeatedly exceed the acceptable chronic daily intake (ADI; conceptually the human counterpart of chronic animal NOAEL). As such risks are currently not assessed for pesticides without ARfD, the current DRA concept, which automatically presumes the use of low chronic exposure estimates entirely covers the risks of not acutely toxic pesticides, needs reconsideration. Furthermore, risks to intermittent occurring high exposures are probably also insufficiently assessed for pesticides where the ARfD is significantly higher than the ADI. As an example, the maximum residue limit for bifenazate in peaches is discussed.