1 SESSION on Risk Characterization. Session 5-2 Risk Characterization David Miller Chemist (USPHS) Health Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Consumer Exposure Assessment at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: A ccomplishments and Opportunities for Global Collaboration Thomas Brennan.
Advertisements

Perspectives from EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Richard A. Becker, Ph.D., D.A.B.T American Chemistry Council Arlington, Virginia Comments on “Dose Setting” EDMVS Meeting July 23-24, 2002.
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.
Use of pesticides and residues in wine Patrizia Restani SCRAISIN - March 2009 Patrizia Restani SCRAISIN - March 2009.
CONFERENCE ON “ FOOD ADDITIVES : SAFETY IN USE AND CONSUMER CONCERNS“ JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY NAIROBI, 24 JUNE 2014.
Methods for Incorporating Aquatic Plant Effects into Community Level Benchmarks EPA Development Team Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010.
Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation: A Risk Characterization Challenge Mary A. Fox, PhD, MPH Linda C. Abbott, PhD USDA Office of Risk Assessment.
Session on Assessment of Food Exposure Session 2-2 William O. Smith, Ph.D. Chemist Health Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs Food Exposure.
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
Your head on a block-Part 2A decisions Dr Naomi Earl Associate Director Head of Human Health Risk Assessment Land Quality Atkins Limited
Key issues in biopesticide regulation Pesticides Safety Directorate 19 June 2007.
The ICH E5 Question and Answer Document Status and Content Robert T. O’Neill, Ph.D. Director, Office of Biostatistics, CDER, FDA Presented at the 4th Kitasato-Harvard.
FAO/WHO CODEX TRAINING PACKAGE
FFT Data Analysis Project – Supporting Self Evaluation  Fischer Family Trust / Fischer Education Project Extracts may be reproduced for non commercial.
Toxicity Evaluation of Chemicals with Limited Toxicity Data Roberta L. Grant, Ph.D. Toxicology Division - Chief Engineer’s Office Texas Commission on Environmental.
TCEQ/NUATRC Air Toxics Workshop: Session V – Human Health Effects Nathan Pechacek, M.S. Toxicology Section Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Cost-Benefit & Risk Analysis in Public Policy
Lynn H. Pottenger, PhD, DABT The Dow Chemical Company
CVM’s Procedure for Setting Tolerances
Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) Approach to Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens David H. Phillips* COC Chairman Descriptive vs. Quantitative.
ATSDR’s approach to site assessment and epidemiologic considerations for multisite studies Steve Dearwent, PhD, MPH Chief, Health Investigations Branch.
Training Session Product File Notes and Registration Reports, 23 October Product File Note Part Residues Frédéric Joris and Bruno Dujardin Federal.
Study Designs Afshin Ostovar Bushehr University of Medical Sciences Bushehr, /4/20151.
Charge Question 5-1 Comment Summary for HHCB Peer Review Panel Meeting January 9, 2014.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
Nonclinical Perspective on Initiating Phase 1 Studies for Small Molecular Weight Compounds John K. Leighton, PH.D., DABT Supervisory Pharmacologist Division.
Biomedical Research Objective 2 Biomedical Research Methods.
Multimedia Assessment for New Fuels: Stakeholders’ Meeting September 13, 2005 Sacramento, CA Dean Simeroth, California Air Resources Board Dave Rice, Lawrence.
Management & Development of Complex Projects Course Code MS Project Management Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis Lecture # 25.
Charge Question 4-1: Please comment on the ecotoxicity studies selected to represent the most sensitive species in each of the risk scenarios (acute aquatic,
Integrated Risk Management Charles Yoe, PhD Institute for Water Resources 2009.
Reregistration of Consumer Pesticides: US Environmental Protection Agency December 13, 2005 US Environmental Protection Agency December 13, 2005 Mosquito.
RISK ASSESSMENT. Major Issues to be considered in designing the Study 1.- Emission Inventory What is the relative significance of the various sources.
Module 3 Risk Analysis and its Components. Risk Analysis ● WTO SPS agreement puts emphasis on sound science ● Risk analysis = integrated mechanism to.
Is the association causal, or are there alternative explanations? Epidemiology matters: a new introduction to methodological foundations Chapter 8.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES.
CALIFORNIA proposed SAFER CONSUMER PRODUCT REGULATIONS Marjorie MartzEmerson October 24, 2012.
MAIN TOXICITY TESTING. TESTING STRATEGIES A number of different types of data are used in order to establish the safety of chemical substances for use.
Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion to the Hazard Ranking System U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response February 24, 2011 Listening Session.
Sub-regional Workshop on Census Data Evaluation, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, November 2011 Evaluation of Age and Sex Distribution United Nations Statistics.
Advisory Committee Presentation on Vioxx (Rofecoxib) Discussion on the meta analyses for cardiovascular risk assessment Qian Li, Sc. D.
Air Toxics Risk Assessment: Traditional versus New Approaches Mark Saperstein BP Product Stewardship Group.
An Overview of the Objectives, Approach, and Components of ComET™ Mr. Paul Price The LifeLine Group All slides and material Copyright protected.
Opening Remarks -- Ozone and Particles: Policy and Science Recent Developments & Controversial Issues GERMAN-US WORKSHOP October 9, 2002 G. Foley *US EPA.
Benefit transfer in valuing the costs of air pollution Gordon Hughes The World Bank & NERA UK.
Proposal on Revised Mechanism of Selecting Applications for Approval Presentation by Secretariat of Council for the AIDS Trust Fund in Sharing Session.
RISK DUE TO AIR POLLUTANTS
1/L Get Training or Wait? Long-Run Employment Effects of Training Programs for the Unemployed in West Germany Bernd Fitzenberger, Aderonke Osikominu, and.
Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 Elizabeth Southerland Director of Assessment & Remediation Division Office of Superfund.
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.
Development of Toxicity Indicators Steven Bay Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)
Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs with Regard to Their Microbiological Effects on Bacteria of Human Health Concern Qualitative Antimicrobial.
The Maximum Cumulative Ratio (MCR), a tool that uses both exposure and toxicity data to determine when cumulative assessments are most necessary Paul Price.
Chemical Risk Assessment & Exposure Monitoring Quantitative Risk Assessment Revision December Information provided subject to the 'Conditions for.
Key Concepts on Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures.
Presentation for Office of Surface Mines on Potential Use of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework to enhance source terms for use of CCRs in.
Dr Karl Davis Consultant Geriatrician. Public Health Wales All the frameworks highlighted the following six areas as key priorities (although there is.
Considerations for Developing Alternative Health Risk Assessment Approaches for Addressing Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects External Review Draft.
Risk Assessment of Exposure to Trihalomethanes: Use of Biomonitoring Equivalents and Biomonitoring Data from NHANES Lesa L. AylwardRichard A. Becker Sean.
CHAPTER 5 Occupational Exposure Limits and Assessment of Workplace Chemical Risks.
FIFRA SAP Meeting February 2, 2010
Evaluating Cumulative Impacts: The Value of Epidemiology
Casualty Actuarial Society Practical discounting and risk adjustment issues relating to property/casualty claim liabilities Research conducted.
Evaluating Cumulative Impacts: The Value of Epidemiology
Welcome to the CSBM operational workshop:
Unemployment Insurance Integrity Performance Measures
FQPA: “It’s a Good Thing” (for Kids)
VICH GL 54, Studies to evaluate the safety of residues of veterinary drugs in human food: General approach to establish an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD)
Presentation transcript:

1 SESSION on Risk Characterization

Session 5-2 Risk Characterization David Miller Chemist (USPHS) Health Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs

Session 5-3 Outline Summary of Preliminary Results/Findings Key Principles for Conducting a CRA  Hazard/Exposure Aspects Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment Time Frame Considerations Example Exposure Scenarios Questions to SAP

Session 5-4 Summary of Preliminary Results/ Findings In general, consistent exposure/risk patterns across regions  Major contributor to risk is indoor residential uses of DDVP  Exposure through food is considered to be national and does not vary by region or season performing additional analyses of these results  Drinking water and outdoor lawn and garden uses are not a significant contributor to risk

Session 5-5 Key Principles for Conducting a Cumulative Risk Assessment Time Frame of Toxic Effect  What is the time to peak effect?  What is the time to recovery? Time Frame of Exposure  How often does exposure occur?  At what levels does exposure occur?  What is the exposure duration? How are Exposure and Toxicity compared?

Session 5-6 Time-Frame Considerations September 2001 SAP Meeting considered this issue of how to compare time component of toxicity endpoints and exposure:  CRA should ideally compare toxicity endpoints and exposure durations of same time-frame  To the extent possible, comparison should take into account the pattern of human exposure

Session 5-7 Time-Frame Considerations: Hazard Aspects Steady-state/equilibrium ChE Data  Point at which continued exposure at the same dose level does not result in further reduction in ChE activity  RPFs and PODs based on studies of 21 days or longer of continued dosing of naive animals Represent more stable measures of RPFs and PODs Following insult, recovery of ChE inhibition may require days to weeks.

Session 5-8 Time-Frame Considerations: Exposure Aspects Human exposure patterns to multiple OP pesticides may be single-day(spike) or short term exposures through food, drinking water, and residential uses superimposed upon more or less continuous exposures through food  biomonitoring data from NHANES  most animal data available to OPP are developed using laboratory animals that were naïve in their exposures to OPs Continuous exposures through food might resemble multi- day dosing used in determining BMD 10

Session 5-9 Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment PCRA used a BMD 10 which reflects continual daily dosing for a sufficient period to produce equilibrium response  BMD 10 used in PCRA is based on multi- day animal dosing studies and reflects that multi-day dose required to achieve a steady-state 10% inhibition of cholinesterase

Session 5-10 Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment In the PCRA, OPP developed a distribution of single consecutive day exposures (NOT rolling time frame) and compared this to a steady-state (equilibrium) multi-day BMD 10 Consider “pattern” of exposures looking for sustained elevated exposures over a period of time  Recognize that such sustained elevated exposures at high percentiles are unlikely to reflect the same single individual

Session 5-11 Time-Frame Considerations DEEM(FCID)/Calendex permits use of a “rolling time frame” approach  Exposures to the same individual are tracked over the time frame of interest and averaged for that individual over that time-frame. SAP considered this issue in previous session of this meeting

Session 5-12 Time-Frame Considerations While this rolling time frame approach may allow for a better “match” between selected exposure time frames (e.g, 7 days or longer) and the hazard endpoint, OPP is concerned that this may not adequately permit estimates of risk associated with shorter duration exposures  e.g., single day (spike) or short-term exposures

Session 5-13 Time-Frame Considerations While an advantage of a rolling time frame approach is that it better simulates continual (non-naive) exposures and allows us to better match the time frame associated with the toxicological data, result of this “averaging” process may obscure one- day “spike” or elevated short-term exposures

Session 5-14 Time-Frame Considerations A BMD 10 associated with a 21 day steady- state response is appropriate for 21 days or more If acute (1-day) or short-term (<21 days) exposures are of concern, how might OPP evaluate/compare such exposures with toxicity data which is based on a multi-day BMD 10 ?  How does one estimate the effect of different exposure patterns on risk?

Session 5-15 Time-Frame Considerations Some information is available with respect to how multi-day BMD 10 s compare to 1-day NOAEL values  A rough comparison of BMD10s with NOAELs based on ChE data from single-dose studies reveals good similarity of values Based on limited data set Some exceptions

Session 5-16 Example Exposure Scenarios Discussion NOTE: The example exposure scenarios will be provided on transparencies

Session 5-17 Questions for the SAP on Risk Characterization

Session 5-18 Question 1 There are several key principles for conducting a cumulative risk assessment. One such principle concerns the time frame of both the exposure (e.g., What is the exposure duration?) and of the toxic effect (e.g., What are the time to peak effects and the time to recovery?). Both must be adequately characterized prior to performing a cumulative risk assessment so that an individual’s exposure is matched with relevant toxicological values in terms of duration. There are several important considerations with respect to the temporal characteristics of the exposures and of the cholinesterase inhibitory effects of organophosphorus pesticides in estimating their cumulative risk.  There may be single day (spike) or short-term exposures to organophosphorus pesticides via food, nonoccupational/residential uses, and drinking water, as well as more or less continuous exposure via the diet (food).

Session 5-19 Question 1 (continued)  In the Preliminary OP Cumulative Risk Assessment, OPP used relative potency factors and points of departure developed from cholinesterase inhibition in rats exposed to pesticides for 21 days or more. This practice was adopted to reflect cholinesterase inhibition at a point in the treatment schedule at which a steady state had been achieved. OPP elected to use data reflecting a steady state in the interest of producing relative potency factors (RPFs) that are reproducible and reflect less uncertainty due to rapidly changing time-sensitive measures of cholinesterase. In addition, when the compounds are at steady state, the differences in toxicokinetics among the OPs are less likely to impact the assessment.  OPP has information that indicates that the American population, in general, has some continuous level of exposure to OPs. Biomonitoring data from NHANES suggests that more than 80% of the American public have urinary metabolites indicating possible exposure to OPs.

Session 5-20 Question 1 (continued)  Most animal data available to OPP are developed using laboratory animals that were not previously exposed to OPs. In other words, the laboratory animals used in the toxicology studies were naive in their exposure to OPs. These studies show that OP’s can produce cholinesterase inhibition after a single exposure. A rough comparison of the BMD10s derived from female brain rat cholinesterase data from 21 days or longer duration with NOAELs based on cholinesterase data from single-dose studies reveals good similarity of values, with differences rarely exceeding two- to three-fold.  Animal data suggest that recovery from a single exposure may take days to weeks.

Session 5-21 Question 1 (continued) In light of all these factors, OPP wants to evaluate exposure across the most appropriate time frame(s). In the Preliminary OP Cumulative Risk Assessment, OPP developed a distribution of single consecutive day exposures, considering the pattern of MOEs occurring at a particular percentile of exposure across the calendar year. This approach focuses on exposure to the population of interest as a whole rather than attempting to track the variation in an individual's exposure from various sources of pesticide exposure. As an example, at the 95th percentile of exposure, each day of the year will reflect a 95th percentile exposure for the entire population and not reflect what may be lower, multi-day average exposures for any given individual. Calendex allows calculation of multi-day, rolling averages of exposure estimates for the individuals within the population. While this may allow for a match between selected exposure time frames (e.g., 7 day or longer) and the hazard endpoint, OPP is concerned that this may not adequately permit estimates of risk associated with shorter duration exposures.

Session 5-22 Question 1 (continued) Please comment on how best to evaluate risk, taking into account the temporal characteristics of the hazard endpoint (i.e., cholinesterase inhibition) and the temporal characteristics of the exposure patterns for the food, drinking water, and residential/ nonoccupational pathways, with specific reference to: the pros and cons of various approaches of combining the exposure and hazard time frames to estimate cumulative risk, and methods to bound or estimate the biases in each approach.

Session 5-23 Question 2 In the Preliminary OP Cumulative Risk Assessment, Section I.H lists a number of potential follow-up activities proposed by OPP. This list is not exhaustive. Does the Panel recommend any additional follow- up activities or sensitivity analyses beyond those listed? Does the Panel have any thoughts or recommendations about how these additional analyses should be conducted? Which activities should receive the greatest priority?

Session 5-24 The End