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.

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 tiered asthma hazard characterization and exposure assessment approach for evaluation of consumer product ingredients.

Asthma is a complex syndrome with significant consequences for those affected. The number of individuals affected is growing, although the reasons for the increase are uncertain. Ensuring the effective management of potential exposures follows from substantial evidence that exposure to some chemicals can increase the likelihood of asthma responses. We have developed a safety assessment approach tailored to the screening of asthma risks from residential consumer product ingredients as a proactive risk management tool. Several key features of the proposed approach advance the assessment resources often used for asthma issues. First, a quantitative health benchmark for asthma or related endpoints (irritation and sensitization) is provided that extends qualitative hazard classification methods. Second, a parallel structure is employed to include dose-response methods for asthma endpoints and methods for scenario specific exposure estimation. The two parallel tracks are integrated in a risk characterization step. Third, a tiered assessment structure is provided to accommodate different amounts of data for both the dose-response assessment (i.e., use of existing benchmarks, hazard banding, or the threshold of toxicological concern) and exposure estimation (i.e., use of empirical data, model estimates, or exposure categories). Tools building from traditional methods and resources have been adapted to address specific issues pertinent to asthma toxicology (e.g., mode-of-action and dose-response features) and the nature of residential consumer product use scenarios (e.g., product use patterns and exposure durations). A case study for acetic acid as used in various sentinel products and residential cleaning scenarios was developed to test the safety assessment methodology. In particular, the results were used to refine and verify relationships among tiered approaches such that each lower data tier in the approach provides a similar or greater margin of safety for a given scenario.

Safety assessment for ethanol-based topical antiseptic use by health care workers: Evaluation of developmental toxicity potential.

Ethanol-based topical antiseptic hand rubs, commonly referred to as alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS), are routinely used as the standard of care to reduce the presence of viable bacteria on the skin and are an important element of infection control procedures in the healthcare industry. There are no reported indications of safety concerns associated with the use of these products in the workplace. However, the prevalence of such alcohol-based products in healthcare facilities and safety questions raised by the U.S. FDA led us to assess the potential for developmental toxicity under relevant product-use scenarios. Estimates from a physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling approach suggest that occupational use of alcohol-based topical antiseptics in the healthcare industry can generate low, detectable concentrations of ethanol in blood. This unintended systemic dose probably reflects contributions from both dermal absorption and inhalation of volatilized product. The resulting internal dose is low, even under hypothetical, worst case intensive use assumptions. A significant margin of exposure (MOE) exists compared to demonstrated effect levels for developmental toxicity under worst case use scenarios, and the MOE is even more significant for typical anticipated occupational use patterns. The estimated internal doses of ethanol from topical application of alcohol-based hand sanitizers are also in the range of those associated with consumption of non-alcoholic beverages (i.e., non-alcoholic beer, flavored water, and orange juice), which are considered safe for consumers. Additionally, the estimated internal doses associated with expected exposure scenarios are below or in the range of the expected internal doses associated with the current occupational exposure limit for ethanol set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These results support the conclusion that there is no significant risk of developmental or reproductive toxicity from repeated occupational exposures and high frequency use of ABHSs or surgical scrubs. Overall, the data support the conclusion that alcohol-based hand sanitizer products are safe for their intended use in hand hygiene as a critical infection prevention strategy in healthcare settings.