Case Study: Risk – Risk Comparison n-Propyl Bromide vs

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CODE OF PRACTICE AND COMMODITIES STANDARDS, PRESENTED AT NIGERIA AFLATOXIN WORKSHOP BY STANDARDS ORGANISATION OF NIGERIA.
Advertisements

Session III: Assessing Cumulative Effects of Endocrine Active Substances 9:15 - 9:30 Introduction” Rick Becker (Session Chair and Panel Moderator) 9:30.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) Toxicity Values Update Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting March 27, 2014 C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S. Deputy Director Office.
Regulatory Toxicology James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Risk Assessment.
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment and Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Risks from Early-Life Exposures March 29, 2005 Hugh A. Barton,
1 Risk assessment: overview and principles –Risk principles –Steps in risk assessment –Risk calculation –Toxicology.
Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene 6th Edition
1 Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Case Number: 88ABW , 6 Dec 2011 FUELS: The Naphthalene Question.
Lynne Haber Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment Presentation to the CPSC April 8,
William H. Farland, Ph.D. Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science Office of Research and Development U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Biomarkers:
Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation: A Risk Characterization Challenge Mary A. Fox, PhD, MPH Linda C. Abbott, PhD USDA Office of Risk Assessment.
CropLife America & RISE 2014 Spring Conference Arlington, VA Finding Common Ground in the Pesticide Risk Assessment Process Bruce K. Hope, Ph.D.
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
Sources of Uncertainty and Current Practice for Addressing Them: Toxicological Perspective David A. Bussard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The views.
Policy Roundtable: Risk Assesment and Management at EPA Prepared by Chris Dockins Will Wheeler U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Economics for.
Lynn H. Pottenger, PhD, DABT The Dow Chemical Company
Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) Approach to Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens David H. Phillips* COC Chairman Descriptive vs. Quantitative.
Air Quality Health Risk Assessment – Methodological Issues and Needs Presented to SAMSI September 19, 2007 Research Triangle Park, NC Anne E. Smith, Ph.D.
Toxicology and Industrial Hygiene The chemical engineers must be knowledgeable about The way toxicants enter biological organisms (T); The ways toxicants.
CE Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science Readings for This Class: Chapter 4 O hio N orthern U niversity Introduction Chemistry,
Dr. Manfred Wentz Director, Hohenstein Institutes (USA) Head, Oeko-Tex Certification Body (USA) AAFA – Environmental Committee Meeting November 10, 2008.
Michael J. Sullivan, Ph.D., CIH, REA
INTRODUCTION TO TOXICOLOGY SIDNEY GREEN, PH.D. DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE HOWARD UNIVERISTY.
Health Hazards Instructional Goal
A Novel Bottom Up Approach to Bounding Potential Human Cancer Risks from Endogenous Chemicals Thomas B. Starr, PhD TBS Associates, Raleigh NC SOT RASS.
Risk Assessment Nov 7, 2008 Timbrell 3 rd Edn pp Casarett & Doull 7 th Edn Chapter 7 (pp )
Module 3 Risk Analysis and its Components. Risk Analysis ● WTO SPS agreement puts emphasis on sound science ● Risk analysis = integrated mechanism to.
Quantitative Assessment of Cumulative Impacts: Challenges and Progress Lauren Zeise Cal/EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment CAPCOA Workshop:
TCA in groundwater Anne Karvonen Juha Villman Mikko Pohjola.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant Department of Toxicology University of Würzburg Germany Risk, Hazard, and Innovation.
Risk Assessment 1 Thanks to Paul R. Harp, Ph.D., NH Department of Health & Human Services, US EPA Air Quality Planning & Standards Division, and the DOE.
Risk Assessment & Risk Reduction in Environmental Policy.
Determining Risks to Background Arsenic Using a Margin – of – Exposure Approach Presentation at Society of Risk Analysis, New England Chapter Barbara D.
Pollution and Human Health
The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences | SOT Meeting March 9, 2011 Update on Formaldehyde Case Study: Adaptation of the Biologically Based Dose Response.
Chapter 15.3 Risk Assessment 2002 WHO report: “Focusing on risks to health is the key to preventing disease and injury.” risk assessment—process of evaluating.
Air Toxics Risk Assessment: Traditional versus New Approaches Mark Saperstein BP Product Stewardship Group.
Part 1d: Exposure Assessment and Modeling Thomas Robins, MD, MPH.
SQO 4/7/05 INCORPORATING MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE INTO SEDIMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES Stephen B. Weisberg Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.
NUATRC/TCEQ Air Toxics Workshop October Air Toxics Air Toxics: What We Know, What we Don’t Know, and What We Need to Know Human Health Effects –
Welcome Descriptive vs. Quantitative Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens 2 nd April 2009.
RISK DUE TO AIR POLLUTANTS
‘DOSE’-‘OUTCOME’ IN GENERAL Relationship between a measured outcome associated with a measured dose –‘outcome’ = level of biological response or prevalence.
Perspective on the current state-of-knowledge of mode of action as it relates to the dose response assessment of cancer and noncancer toxicity Jennifer.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Environmental Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment and Information for SRP July 28, 2009 Reeder.
Science of Toxicology The science of toxicology (tossicologia) is based on the principle that there is a relationship between a toxic reaction (the response)
HEX-Tox paper reading Tue Hye Young Choi.
Acute Toxicity Studies Single dose - rat, mouse (5/sex/dose), dog, monkey (1/sex/dose) 14 day observation In-life observations (body wt., food consumption,
1 Risk Assessment for Air Toxics: The 4 Basic Steps NESCAUM Health Effects Workshop Bordentown, NJ July 30, 2008.
Benchmark Dose Modeling
DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 5 Occupational Exposure Limits and Assessment of Workplace Chemical Risks.
Systematic review of the potential adverse effects of caffeine consumption in healthy adults, pregnant women, adolescents, and children: Cardiovascular.
Benchmark dose methodology for setting human health regulatory endpoints Dr Nick Fletcher.
FIFRA SAP Meeting February 2, 2010
Risk Assessment Dec 4 -6, 2006.
Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science (3rd ed.)
Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene 6th Edition
Milton Tenenbein, MD University of Manitoba
Dr. Daniele Wikoff – ToxStrategies Experimental Biology 2017
OAK CREEK Toxicology & Risk Assessment Consulting
Decision Contexts in a Changing Toxicology Paradigm
Risk Assessment Dec 7, 2009 Timbrell 3rd Edn pp 16-21
Eric Ruder Henry Roman Industrial Economics
The Consortium for Environmental Risk Management, LLC
Food Chemicals Toxicity
ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE OF POTENTIAL MAJOR ACCIDENTS
Pollution and Human Health
EFSA’s Chemical Hazards Database
Presentation transcript:

Case Study: Risk – Risk Comparison n-Propyl Bromide vs Case Study: Risk – Risk Comparison n-Propyl Bromide vs. Perchloroethylene in Dry Cleaning Harvey Clewell The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences Research Triangle Park, NC

Risk Comparison: Perchloroethylene (Perc) vs. n-Propyl Bromide (nPB) Issue: EPA regulation of Perc use in dry cleaning is leading to substitution of Perc with nPB Comparative Toxicity Endpoint Perc nPB Neurotoxicity reversible irreversible Developmental Toxicant * no yes Carcinogenic Potency 1.5x10^3/ppm 2x10^3/ppm ** Exposure (TWA) 40 ppb *** Up to 54 ppm ** ACGIH TLV 25 ppm 10 ppm * CalEPA Prop 65 listing * * Not yet regulated by EPA ** * EPA regulatory limit 1

Case Study on Risk – Risk Comparison Goal: Develop a methodology for comparing risks of alternative materials Assure hazardous materials are not replaced with more toxic alternatives Challenge: current risk assessment paradigms are ill-suited for such situations conservative assumptions/analyses Ad hoc uncertainty factors Approach: review original data on each chemical, and conduct parallel analyses comparing best estimates rather than biased (health-protective) estimates 2

Differences Between Conservative Risk Assessments and Risk – Risk Comparisons Single-chemical risk assessment Risk-Risk Comparison Point of departure BMDL BMD UFanimal to human dynamics 3 1 Potency 95% UCL MLE Linear vs threshold Bias toward linear default Weight of evidence Database limitations UF up to 10 Read-across

Elements of Risk – Risk Comparison Characterization of best estimate and range of estimates Consistent with OMB Principles for Risk Assessment Unbiased characterization of uncertainty Probability distributions of predicted risks CSAFs in place of UFs Semi-quantitative documentation of expert judgment Decision (probability) trees (Clewell et al. 2008) Rodricks plots (Rodricks et al. 1987) 4

Decision Analysis Framework for Methylene Chloride Unit Risk Animal Bioassay Species Internal Dose per MLE LMS Other Applied PB-PK Dose Response Model Pharmacokinetics Species to Human Pharmacodynamics Human Exposure Target Body Surface Weight Source: Clement and Tatman, 1990

Methylene Chloride Tree Diagram Unit Human Risk Pathway Pharmaco- n/a 8.4e-7 4.38e-8 5.04e-7 Weighted average of unit risk = 2.1x10-7 MFO 0.2 GST 0.7 DCM 0.1 PB-PK Applied 0.3 Body Surface Body Weight 1.0 0.0 0.8 Unit Risk Pathway Human Pharmaco- kinetics Species to Human Pharmacodynamics Species Pharmacokinetics OLD EPA FDA NEW EPA USAF Source: Clement and Tatman, 1990

Unit Risk Distribution for DCM Unit Risk (x10-7) Source: Clement and Tatman, 1990

Relative Impact of Decisions on Risk Source: Clement and Tatman, 1990

Relative Impact of Mode of Action Decision vs. Model Uncertainty on Risk Source: Clement and Tatman, 1990 Lung GST Liver GST Liver MFO Lung MFO

Example of Rodricks Plot Need to change title from “biological plausibility” to “confidence”. This figure demonstrates that as we increase our confidence and certainty in the endpoint observed.being an “adverse” effect. This figure demonstrates that decreasing uncertainty that the NOAEL is in the range of 1-10 mg/kg/day, with the lowest LOAEL in the range of 10-25 mg/kg/day. What else do we want to say about this figure and doe we need text boxes beside the lines like Clewell et al. 2008. Source: Gentry et al. 2011