No abstract

No abstract

Copper (Cu) and its alloys are used extensively in domestic and industrial applications. Cu is also an essential element in mammalian nutrition. Since both copper deficiency and copper excess produce adverse health effects, the dose-response curve is U-shaped, although the precise form has not yet been well characterized. Many animal and human studies were conducted on copper to provide a rich database from which data suitable for modeling the dose-response relationship for copper may be extracted. Possible dose-response modeling strategies are considered in this review, including those based on the benchmark dose and categorical regression. The usefulness of biologically based dose-response modeling techniques in understanding copper toxicity was difficult to assess at this time since the mechanisms underlying copper-induced toxicity have yet to be fully elucidated. A dose-response modeling strategy for copper toxicity was proposed associated with both deficiency and excess. This modeling strategy was applied to multiple studies of copper-induced toxicity, standardized with respect to severity of adverse health outcomes and selected on the basis of criteria reflecting the quality and relevance of individual studies. The use of a comprehensive database on copper-induced toxicity is essential for dose-response modeling since there is insufficient information in any single study to adequately characterize copper dose-response relationships. The dose-response modeling strategy envisioned here is designed to determine whether the existing toxicity data for copper excess or deficiency may be effectively utilized in defining the limits of the homeostatic range in humans and other species. By considering alternative techniques for determining a point of departure and low-dose extrapolation (including categorical regression, the benchmark dose, and identification of observed no-effect levels) this strategy will identify which techniques are most suitable for this purpose. This analysis also serves to identify areas in which additional data are needed to better define the characteristics of dose-response relationships for copper-induced toxicity in relation to excess or deficiency.

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.

Animals can be useful predictors of chemical hazards to humans. Growth and development are compressed into a shorter period in animals, which makes interpretation of animal testing inherently more difficult. However, similar events occur in both humans and laboratory animals and testing that covers the full period of animal development can reasonably be considered an appropriate surrogate for human development. Some have proposed an additional 10-fold factor for the extra protection of children when estimating safe exposures. Use of such an additional factor, as required by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), is meant to address the same issues covered by the EPA's database uncertainty factor, UFD, and ad-448~I

Determining the probabilistic limits for the uncertainty factors used in the derivation of the Reference Dose (RfD) is an important step toward the goal of characterizing the risk of noncarcinogenic effects from exposure to environmental pollutants. If uncertainty factors are seen, individually, as "upper bounds" on the dose-scaling factor for sources of uncertainty, then determining comparable upper bounds for combinations of uncertainty factors can be accomplished by treating uncertainty factors as distributions, which can be combined by probabilistic techniques. This paper presents a conceptual approach to probabilistic uncertainty factors based on the definition and use of RfDs by the U.S. EPA. The approach does not attempt to distinguish one uncertainty factor from another based on empirical data or biological mechanisms but rather uses a simple displaced lognormal distribution as a generic representation of all uncertainty factors. Monte Carlo analyses show that the upper bounds for combinations of this distribution can vary by factors of two to four when compared to the fixed-value uncertainty factor approach. The probabilistic approach is demonstrated in the comparison of Hazard Quotients based on RfDs with differing number of uncertainty factors.

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