The Use of Data on Biologically Reactive Intermediates in Risk Assessment

  • J. Robert Buchanan
  • Christopher J. Portier
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 387)

Abstract

As defined by the US National Academy of Sciences (1994), risk assessment is “the evaluation of scientific information on the hazardous properties of environmental agents and on the extent of human exposure to those agents”. The goal of risk assessment is a scientifically defensible regulatory exposure level (Pease et al., 1991). The eventual product of any risk assessment should be the probability that populations exposed to the agent will be harmed and to what degree. In achieving this goal, three rather disjoint elements must cooperate and attempt to understand each other; science, politics and policy. The scientific element of risk assessment is usually divided into the three basic categories of hazard identification, dose-response modeling and risk characterization. Hazard identification is the process of determining if there exists a health risk from exposure to an agent and determining that there is exposure to the same agent. Dose-response modeling then uses the available data on exposure and hazard to quantify the risk for varying levels of exposure. Risk characterization concludes the scientific component of the risk assessment by summarizing the degree of risk in populations exposed to the agent.

Keywords

Risk Assessment Reactive Intermediate PBPK Model Biologically Effective Dose Quantitative Risk Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, M. E., Clewell III, H. J., Gargas, M. L., Smith, F. A., and Reitz, R. H. (1987). Physiologically-based pharmacokinetics and the risk assessment process for methylene chloride. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 87, 185–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buckpitt, A. R. and Warren, D. L. (1983). Evidence for hepatic formation, export and covalent binding of reactive naphthalene metabolites in extraheaptic tissues in vivo. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 225(1), 8–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cho, M. et al. (1994). Covalent interactions of reactive naphthalene metabolites with proteins. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 269(2), 881–889.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Corley, R. A., Mendrala, A. L., Smith, F. A., Staats, D. A., Gargas, M. L., Conolly, R. B., Andersen, M. E., and Reitz, R, H. (1990). Development of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for chloroform. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 103, 512–527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crump, K. S. (1981). An improved procedure for low-dose carcinogenic risk assessment from animal data. Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicology, 52, 675–684.Google Scholar
  6. Crump, K. S. (1984). A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 4, 854–871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finney, D. J. (1971). Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press, London, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  8. Hattis, D. (1990). Pharmacokinetic Principles for dose rate extrapolation of carcinogenic risk from genetically active agents. Risk Analysis, 10, 303–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hattis, D., and Burmaster, D. E. (1994). Assessment of variability and uncertainty distributions for practical risk analyses. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 713–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanekal, S. et al. (1991). Metabolism and cytotoxicity of naphthalene oxide in the isolated perfused mouse lung. Journal of Pharamcology and Experimental Therapeutics, 256(1), 391–401.Google Scholar
  11. Kohn, M. C. and Portier, C. J. (1994). A model of effects of TCDD on expression of rat liver proteins. Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, 387, P211–P222.Google Scholar
  12. Lucier, G. W., Portier, C. J., and Gallo, M. A. (1993). Receptor mechanisms and dose-response models for the effects of dioxins. Environmental Health Perspectives, 101(1), 36–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moolgavkar, S. and Venzon, D. (1979). Two-event models for carcinogenesis: Incidence curves for childhood and adult tumors. Mathematical Biosciences, 47, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Research Council, (1994). Science and judgement in risk assessment. National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20418Google Scholar
  15. Pease, W., Vendenberg, J., and Hooper, K. (1991). Comparing alternative approaches to establishing regulatory levels for reproductive toxicants: DBCP as a case study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 91, 141–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Portier, C. J. and Kaplan, N. L. (1989). Variability of safe dose estimates when using complicated models of the carcinogenic process. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 13, 533–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Ryzin, J. (1980). Quantitative risk assessment. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 22(5), 321–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson, E. B. and Worchester, J. (1943). The determination of LD 50 and its sampling error in bioassay. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 29, 78–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Robert Buchanan
    • 1
  • Christopher J. Portier
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Quantitative and Computational BiologyNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesUSA

Personalised recommendations