The Scientific Basis of Uncertainty Factors Used in Setting Occupational Exposure Limits

REFERENCES

• Lehman A.J., and O.G. Fitzhugh: 100-Fold margin of safety. Assoc. Food Drug Off. U. S. Q. Bull. 18:33–35 (1954).
   Google Scholar
• Fairhurst S.: The uncertainty factor in the setting of occupational exposure limits. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 39:375–385 (1995).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeire, T., H. Stevenson, M.N. Pieters, M. Rennen, W. Slob, and B.C. Hakkert: Assessment factors for human health risk assessment: a discussion paper. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 29(5):439–490 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zielhuis, R.L., and F.W.van derKreek: The use of a safety factor in setting health based permissible levels for occupational exposure. I. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 42:191–201 (1979).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargent, E.V., and G.D. Kirk: Establishing airborne exposure control limits in the pharmaceutical industry. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 49(6):309–313 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agius, R.: Occupational exposure limits for therapeutic substances. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 33:555–562 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galer, D.M., H.W. Leung, R.G. Sussman, and R.J. Trzos: Scientific and practical considerations for the development of occupational exposure limits (OELs) for chemical substances. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15:291–306 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, G.D., and S. Øvrebø: Background, approaches and recent trends for setting health-based occupational exposure limits: A minireview.Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 51:253–269 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henschler, D.: Evaluation of adverse effects in the standard-setting process. Toxicol. Lett. 64–65 Spec No:53-7 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-106 1995.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC): Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler, M.W., R. Park, A.J. Bailer, and C. Whittaker: Historical context and recent advances in exposure-response estimation for deriving occupational exposure limits. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(S1):S7–S17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuempel, E., L. Sweeney, J. Morris, and A. Jarabek: Advances in inhalation dosimetry models and methods for occupational risk assessment and exposure limit derivation. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(S1):S18–S40.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. Washington, D.C.: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/8-90-066F 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Haber, L., and A. Maier: Scientific Criteria Used for the Development of Occupational Exposure Limits for Metals and Other Mining-Related Chemicals.Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 36:262–279 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deveau, M., C.-P. Chen, G. Johansen, et al.: The global landscape of occupational exposure limits—Implementation of harmonization principles to guide limit selection. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(S1):S127–S144 (2015).
   Google Scholar
• Dourson, M.L., and Stara, J.F.: Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 3:224–238 (1983).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Naumann, B.D., and P.A. Weideman: Scientific basis for uncertainty factors used to establish occupational exposure limits for pharmaceutical active ingredients.Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 1:590–613 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Dourson, M.L., S.P. Felter, and D. Robinson: Evolution of science-based uncertainty factors in noncancer risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 24:108–120 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS): Assessing Human Health Risk of Chemicals: The Derivation of Guidance Values for Health-Based Exposure Limits. Environmental Health Criteria 170. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS): Chemical-Specific Adjustment Factors for Interspecies Differences and Human Variability: Guidance Document for Use of Data in Dose/Concentration Assessment. IPCS Harmonization Project Document No. 2, Geneva: World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, 2005; . http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241546786_eng.pdf (accessed May 6, 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A review of the Reference Dose (RfD) and Reference Concentration (RfC) processes. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-02/002F, December 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Guidance for Industry: Estimating the Maximum Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), 2005; http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm (accessed October 18, 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, I.W.E., J.C. Parker, and R.P. Beliles: Biological basis for extrapolation across mammalian species. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 6:211–237 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mordenti, J., and W. Chappell: The use of interspecies scaling in toxicokinetics. In: Toxicokinetics and New Drug Development, A. Yacobi, J.P. Skelly, and V.K. Batra (eds.). New York, Pergamon Press, 1989. pp. 42–96.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Recommended Use of Body Weight ^¾ as the Default Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose, Office of the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Bokkers, B.G.H., and W. Slob: Deriving a data-based interspecies assessment factor using the NOAEL and the benchmark dose approach. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 37:355–373 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escher, S.E., M. Batke, S. Hoffmann-Doerr, H. Messinger, and I. Mangelsdorf: Interspecies extrapolation based on the RepDose database—A probabilistic approach. Tox. Lett. 218:159–165 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gloede, E., J.A. Cichocki, J.B. Baldino, and J.B. Morris: A validated hybrid computational fluid dynamics-physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for respiratory tract vapor absorption in the human and rat and its application to inhalation dosimetry of diacetyl. Toxicol. Sci. 123(1):231–246 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson, M., G. Johanson, and M. Öberg: How are asthmatics included in the derivation of guideline values for emergency planning and response? Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 63:461–470 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese, E.J.: Uncertainty factors and interindividual variation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 5:190–196 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick, A.G., and N.R. Lazarus: Human variability and noncancer risk assessment—An analysis of the default uncertainty factor. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 27:3–20 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dourson, M.L., G. Charnley, and R. Scheuplein: Differential sensitivity of children and adults to chemical toxicity: II. Risk and regulation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 35:448–467 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Environment and Health (IEH): Variability and Susceptibility in Human Response to Occupational Exposure to Chemicals in the UK. Report R13. Leicester, UK: Medical Research Council Institute for Environment and Health, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Falk-Filipsson, A., A. Hanberg, K. Victorin, M. Warholm, and M. Wallén: Assessment factors—Applications in health risk assessment of chemicals. Environ. Res. 104:108–127 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schenk, L., and G. Johanson: Use of uncertainty factors by the SCOEL in their derivation of health-based occupational exposure limits. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 40:791–798, 2010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL): Methodology for the Derivation of Occupational Exposure Limits. Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL). Key Documentation (version 7 (2013); http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4526&langId=en (accessed September 10, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Monson, R.R.: Observations on the healthy worker effect. J. Occup. Med. 28:425–433 (1981).
   Google Scholar
• Li, C.-Y., and E.-C. Sung: A review of the healthy worker effect in occupational epidemiology. Occup. Med. 49(4):225–229 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Schulte, P.A., C.Whittaker, and C.P. Curran: Considerations of using genetic and epigenetic Information in occupational health risk assessment and standard setting. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(S1):S69–S81.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency (ECHA): Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment; Available from http://echa. europa. eu/) (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Naumann, B.D., K.C. Silverman, R. Dixit, E.C. Faria, and E.V. Sargent: Case studies of categorical data-derived adjustment factors. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 7(1):61–105 (2001).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman, K.C., B.D. Naumann, D.J. Holder, et al.: Establishing data-derived adjustment factors from published pharmaceutical clinical trial data. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 5(5):1059–1089 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weil, C.S.: Statistics vs. safety factors and scientific judgment in the evaluation of safety for man. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 21:454–463 (1972).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S.C.: Reducing uncertainty with adjustment factors. In: Improvements in quantitative noncancer risk assessment (A symposium overview). Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 20:1–14 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abdel-Rahman, M.S., and A.M. Kadry: Studies on the use of uncertainty factors in deriving RfDs. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 1(5):614–624 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Weil, C.S., and D.D. McCollister: Relationship between short- and long-term feeding studies in designing an effective toxicity test. Agr. Food Chem. 11(6):86–491 (1963).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, B.P.: Concepts in health evaluation of commercial and industrial chemicals. In New Concepts in Safety Evaluation, M.A. Mehlman, R.E. Shapiro, and H. Blumenthal (eds.). Washington, D.C.:Hemisphere, 1976. pp. 61–140.
   Google Scholar
• Woutersen, R.A., H.P. Til, and V.J. Feron: Sub-acute versus sub-chronic oral toxicity study in rats: comparative study of 82 compounds. J. of Appl. Toxicol. 4(5):277–280 (1984).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S.C., J.R. Lynch, and A.I. Nikiforov: A new approach to deriving community exposure guidelines from “no-observed-adverse-effect levels.” Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 11:314–330 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S.C., and C.S. Nessel: Extrapolating subchronic test results to estimate chronic no-observed-adverse-effect levels: Factors of 10 are larger than necessary. Toxicologist 14(1):401 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Kadry, A.M., G.A Skowronski, and M.S. Abdel-Rahman: Evaluation of the use of uncertainty factors in deriving RfDs for some chlorinated compounds. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 44:83–95 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Dourson, M.L., L.A. Knauf, and J.C. Swartout: On Reference Dose (RfD) and its underlying toxicity data base. Toxicol. Industr. Health. 8(3):171–189 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Interdepartmental Group on Health Risks from Chemicals (IGHRC): Guideline on Route-to-Route Toxicity Data when Assessing Health Risks of Chemicals. Published by the Institute of Environment and Health, 2006; http://ieh.cranfield.ac.uk/ighrc/pdf/cr%20reports/cr12%5b1%5d%5b1%5d.pdf (accessed September 29, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Gaffney S.H., and D.J. Paustenbach: A proposed approach for setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants based on chemosensory models. Ann Occup Hyg. 51:345–356 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naumann, B.D., P.A. Weideman, R. Sarangapani, S. Hu, R. Dixit, and E.V. Sargent: Investigations of the use of bioavailability data to adjust occupational exposure limits for active pharmaceutical ingredients. Toxicol. Sci. 112(1):196–210 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese, E.J. and C.E. Gilbert: Lack of total independence of uncertainty factors (UFs): Implications for the size of the total uncertainty factor. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 17:44–51 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swartout, J.C., P.S. Price, M.L. Dourson, H.L. Carlson-Lynch, and R.E. Keenan: A Probabilistic Framework for the Reference Dose (Probabilistic RfD). Risk Anal. 18:271–282 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaylor, D.W., and R.L. Kodell: Percentiles of the product of uncertainty factors for establishing probabilistic reference doses. Risk Anal. 20:245–250 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelekis, M., M.J. Nicolich, and J.S. Gauthier: Probabilistic framework for the estimation of the adult and child toxicokinetic intraspecies uncertainty factors. Risk Anal. 23:1239–1255 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasegawa, R., M. Hirata-Koizumi, M.L. Dourson et al. : Proposal of new uncertainty factor application to derive tolerable daily intake. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 58:237–242 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters, M., L. McKernan, A. Maier, M. Jayjock, V. Schaeffer, and L. Brosseau: Exposure estimation and interpretation of occupational risk: Enhanced information for the occupational risk manager. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(S1):S99–S111.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Current Intelligence Bulletin 66: Derivation of Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Values. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 2014–100.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeire, T., M. Pieters, M. Rennen, and P. Bos: Probabilistic Assessment Factors for Human Health Risk Assessment–A Practical Guide. RIVM report 601516 005/TNO report V3489. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) (in cooperation with TNO Nutrition and Food Research), Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Renwick, A.G.: Safety factors and establishment of acceptable daily intakes. Food Add. Contamin. 8(2):135–150 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick, A.G.: Data-derived safety factors for the evaluation of food additives and environmental contaminants. Food Add. Contam. 10(3):275–305 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick, A.G.: Subdivision of uncertainty factors to allow for toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 5(5):1035–1050 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS): Guidance Document for the Use of Data in Development of Chemical Specific Adjustment Factors (CSAFs) for Interspecies Differences and Human Variability in Dose/Concentration Response Assessment. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, 2001; available at http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/uncertainty/en/ (accessed August 9, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Meek, B., E. Ohanian, A. Renwick, et al.: Guidelines for application of chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAFs) in dose/concentration-response assessment. Comm. Toxicol. 7:575–590 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Naumann, B.D., D.G. Dolan, and E.V. Sargent: Rationale for the chemical-specific adjustment factors used to derive an occupational exposure limit for timolol maleate.Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 10:99–111 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattis, D., L. Erdreich, M. Ballew: Human variability in susceptibility to toxic chemicals–a preliminary analysis of pharmacokinetic data from normal volunteers. Risk Anal. 7(4):415–426 (1987).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargent, E.V., B.D. Naumann, D.G. Dolan, E.C. Faria, and L. Schulman: The importance of human data in the establishment of occupational exposure limits. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 8(4):805–822 (2002).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naumann, B.D., P.A. Weideman, R. Dixit, S.J. Grossman, C.F. Shen, and E.V. Sargent: Use of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data to reduce uncertainties when setting occupational exposure limits for pharmaceuticals. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 3(4):555–565 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar