No abstract

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.

The uncertainty factor concept is integrated into health risk assessments for all aspects of public health practice, including by most organizations that derive occupational exposure limits. The use of uncertainty factors is predicated on the assumption that a sufficient reduction in exposure from those at the boundary for the onset of adverse effects will yield a safe exposure level for at least the great majority of the exposed population, including vulnerable subgroups. There are differences in the application of the uncertainty factor approach among groups that conduct occupational assessments; however, there are common areas of uncertainty which are considered by all or nearly all occupational exposure limit-setting organizations. Five key uncertainties that are often examined include interspecies variability in response when extrapolating from animal studies to humans, response variability in humans, uncertainty in estimating a no-effect level from a dose where effects were observed, extrapolation from shorter duration studies to a full life-time exposure, and other insufficiencies in the overall health effects database indicating that the most sensitive adverse effect may not have been evaluated. In addition, a modifying factor is used by some organizations to account for other remaining uncertainties – typically related to exposure scenarios or accounting for the interplay among the five areas noted above. Consideration of uncertainties in occupational exposure limit derivation is a systematic process whereby the factors applied are not arbitrary, although they are mathematically imprecise. As the scientific basis for uncertainty factor application has improved, default uncertainty factors are now used only in the absence of chemical-specific data, and the trend is to replace them with chemical-specific adjustment factors whenever possible. The increased application of scientific data in the development of uncertainty factors for individual chemicals also has the benefit of increasing the transparency of occupational exposure limit derivation. Improved characterization of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors has led to increasing rigor and transparency in their application as part of the overall occupational exposure limit derivation process.

No abstract