Use of the RISK21 roadmap and matrix: human health risk assessment of the use of a pyrethroid in bed netting

The HESI-coordinated RISK21 roadmap and matrix are tools that provide a transparent method to compare exposure and toxicity information and assess whether additional refinement is required to obtain the necessary precision level for a decision regarding safety. A case study of the use of a pyrethroid, “pseudomethrin,” in bed netting to control malaria is presented to demonstrate the application of the roadmap and matrix. The evaluation began with a problem formulation step. The first assessment utilized existing information pertaining to the use and the class of chemistry. At each stage of the step-wise approach, the precision of the toxicity and exposure estimates were refined as necessary by obtaining key data which enabled a decision on safety to be made efficiently and with confidence. The evaluation demonstrated the concept of using existing information within the RISK21 matrix to drive the generation of additional data using a value-of-information approach. The use of the matrix highlighted whether exposure or toxicity required further investigation and emphasized the need to address the default uncertainty factor of 100 at the highest tier of the evaluation. It also showed how new methodology such as the use of in vitro studies and assays could be used to answer the specific questions which arise through the use of the matrix. The matrix also serves as a useful means to communicate progress to stakeholders during an assessment of chemical use.     

The usefulness of the bioconcentration factor as a tool for priority setting in chemicals control

The implementation of the REACH system will lead to the creation of a single, uniform legislation for industrial chemicals in Europe. An important aim of this legislation is to generate toxicity data for previously untested chemicals. Testing tens of thousands of chemicals can however not be done in one step, and criteria for priority setting is therefore an essential part of the proposed REACH system. In this study we investigate potential consequences of using bioaccumulation (B) data as a tool for priority setting in chemicals control. The results of this investigation suggests that the use of data for the bioconcentration factor (BCF, as an estimation of B) at first tier will not introduce bias towards a particular type of toxicity (i.e. carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity or mutagenicity) in the priority setting process.     

Human biomonitoring as a pragmatic tool to support health risk management of chemicals--examples under the EU REACH programme

REACH requires health risk management for workers and the general population and introduced the concept of Derived No-Effect Level (DNEL). DNELs must be derived for all substances that are classified as health hazards. As with analogues to other health-risk based guidance values, such as reference doses (RfDs) and tolerable daily intakes (TDIs), risk to health is considered negligible if the actual exposure is less than the DNEL. Exposure assessment is relatively simple for occupational situations but more complex for the general public, in which exposure may occur via multiple pathways, routes, and media. For such complex or partially defined exposure scenarios, human biomonitoring gives a snapshot of internal or absorbed dose of a chemical and is often the most reliable exposure assessment methodology as it integrates exposures from all routes. For human risk management human biomonitoring data can be interpreted using the recently developed concept of Biomonitoring Equivalents (BE). Basically, a BE translates an established reference value into a biomarker concentration using toxicokinetic data. If the results of an exposure assessment using human biomonitoring indicate that the levels measured are below the DNEL-based BE (BE(DNEL)), it would indicate that the combined exposure via all potential exposure routes is unlikely to pose a risk to human health and that health risk management measures might not be needed. Hence, BEs do not challenge existing risk assessments but rather build upon them to help risk management, the ultimate goal of any risk assessment. A challenge in implementing this approach forms the limited availability of toxicokinetic information for many substances. However, methodologies such as generic physiologically-based toxicokinetic models, which allow estimation of biomarker concentrations based on physicochemical properties, are being developed for less data-rich chemicals. Use of BE by regulatory authorities will allow initial screening of population exposure to chemicals to identify those chemicals requiring more detailed risk and exposure assessment, assisting in priority setting and ultimately leading to improved product stewardship and risk management.     

Review of REACH Annex IV – Establishing the minimum risk of a substance based on its intrinsic properties

Registration is the main mechanism in REACH that ensures the safety of substances. However, some substances are exempted from Registration, such as those included in Annex IV. Annex IV lists substances that are exempted from Registration on the basis that ‘sufficient information is known about these substances that they are considered to cause minimum risk because of their intrinsic properties’. As part of the follow up to the co-decision process on REACH, the Commission was mandated to review Annex IV. To enable consideration of whether additional substances should be added to Annex IV and whether substances currently in the Annex should remain, the Commission, together with stakeholders, operationalised the core concepts of minimum risk and sufficient information in the form of criteria. These criteria consider the intrinsic properties of the substance and are based on the classification criteria in Annex VI of Directive 67/548/EEC but were set at a level ‘well below’ the classification criteria to correspond with a minimum risk level. As a result of the review, Annex IV has been recently amended. This paper looks at how the agreed criteria demonstrate minimum risk and concludes that, although developed in the frame of REACH registration, they could be more widely used in the sound management of chemicals.     

The challenge of reproductive and developmental toxicology under REACH.

The European Union's REACH regulation has explicit requirements for reproductive and developmental toxicity data on all substances manufactured in or imported into the European Union at > or = 10 metric tons/year. Meeting the data requirements with whole-animal testing could result in the use of almost 22 million vertebrate animals for the registration of existing chemicals and cost up to several hundred thousand dollars per registered substance. The requirement for financial and animal resources can be reduced by the use of in vitro testing, quantitative structure-activity relationship models, and grouping of related substances. Although REACH strongly encourages these methods of avoiding vertebrate animal testing, it does not appear that in vitro testing or quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis will be able to replace whole-animal reproductive and developmental toxicity testing. Grouping of related compounds offers the possibility, perhaps in conjunction with in vitro testing and structure-activity analysis, of reducing vertebrate animal testing provided there is sufficient information on the related compounds and sufficient reason to believe that the related compounds will have similar toxicological properties. The designation of a substance as a reproductive or developmental toxicant follows criteria that do not consider the dose level of the substance at which reproductive or developmental effects occur, as long as excessive generalized toxicity does not occur. This method of labeling substances without consideration of effective dose level does not provide information on the actual risk of the chemical. Designation of a substance as a reproductive or developmental toxicant may have important implications under REACH and can be expected to result in the need to obtain authorization for marketing of the substance in the European Union.     

REACH,non-testing approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set

The objectives of REACH cannot be achieved under the current risk assessment approach. A change in mind set among all the relevant stakeholders is needed: risk assessment should move away from a labor-intensive and animal-consuming approach to intelligent and pragmatic testing, by combining exposure and hazard data effectively and trying to group chemicals (category approaches). The focus should be on reducing the overall uncertainties of 30,000 chemicals while acknowledging the existence of the uncertainty paradox: reducing uncertainty in the assessment of individual chemicals following the classical chemical-by-chemical approach as we have in previous decades will result in a prolongation of uncertainty for the entire group of 30,000 chemicals as a whole. With the first REACH registration deadline (2010) rapidly approaching, a mind set change is urgently needed. We can speed up the regulatory acceptance process, starting with the maximum use of currently available exposure and hazard data, tools and models. Optimal use should also be made of experimental exposure and hazard data generated under REACH. Only such an approach will make it possible to obtain a sufficient level of information within the time frame of REACH. A much more intensive dialogue between stakeholders is necessary.     

Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH)

During the last two decades, substantial efforts have been made towards the development and international acceptance of alternative methods to safety studies using laboratory animals. In the EU, challenging timelines for phasing out of many standard tests using laboratory animals were established in the seventh Amending Directive 2003/15/EC to Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC. In continuation of this policy, the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH) favours alternative methods to conventional in vivo testing, if validated and appropriate. Even alternative methods in the status of prevalidation or validation, but without scientific or regulatory acceptance may be used under certain conditions. Considerable progress in the establishment of alternative methods has been made in some fields, in particular with respect to methods predicting local toxic effects and genotoxicity. In more complex important fields of safety and risk assessment such as systemic single and repeated dose toxicity, toxicokinetics, sensitisation, reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, it is expected that the development and validation of in silico methods, testing batteries (in vitro and in silico) and tiered testing systems will have to overcome many scientific and regulatory obstacles which makes it extremely difficult to predict the outcome and the time needed. The main reasons are the complexity and limited knowledge of the biological processes involved on one hand and the long time frame until validation and regulatory acceptance of an alternative method on the other. New approaches in safety testing and evaluation using "Integrated Testing Strategies" (ITS) (including combinations of existing data, the use of chemical categories/grouping, in vitro tests and QSAR) that have not been validated or not gained wide acceptance in the scientific community and by regulatory authorities will need a thorough justification of their appropriateness for a given purpose. This requires the availability of knowledge and experience of experts in toxicology. The challenging deadlines for phasing out of in vivo tests in the Cosmetics Amending Directive 2003/15/EC appear unrealistic. Likewise, we expect that the application of validated alternative methods will only have a small or moderate impact on the reduction of in vivo tests under the regimen of REACH, provided that at least the same level of protection of human health as in the past is envisaged. As a consequence, under safety aspects, it appears wise to consider established in vivo tests to be indispensable as basic tools for hazard and risk assessment with respect to systemic single and repeated dose toxicity, sensitisation, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, especially regarding quantitative aspects of risk assessment such as NOAELs, LOAELs and health-related limit values derived from them. Based on the overall evaluation in this review, the authors are of the opinion that in the short- and mid-term, the strategy of the development of alternative methods should be more directed towards the refinement or reduction of in vivo tests. The lessons learnt during these efforts will provide a substantial contribution towards the replacement initiatives in the long-term.     

REACH exposure assessment of anticorrosive paint products--determination of exposure from application and service life to the aquatic environment

The European Community Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) introduced exposure scenarios describing safe use quantitatively, and enhancing the importance of scientific based exposure assessments. This paper presents methods to determine exposure from the airless spray application of anti-corrosive paint and leaching of painted articles submerged in seawater, to establish whether it is possible to test these exposures in a reproducible and feasible way. The paper also presents results from using the methods in order to assess how well the default values recommended under REACH coincide with the tested values and corresponding values available in literature. The methods used were feasible under laboratory conditions. The reproducibility of the application study was shown to be good and all analyses of the leaching showed concentrations below detection limit. More replicates will be required to validate the reproducibility of the growth inhibition tests. Measured values for the present overspray scenario were between, and the leaching values below, values from REACH guidelines and emission scenario documents. Further development of the methods is recommended.     

Risk assessment of local dermal effects and skin sensitisation under the EU Chemicals Regulation REACH: a proposal for a qualitative, exposure scenario specific, approach

Within the framework of REACH, an assessment regarding local dermal effects and skin sensitisation should be performed for substances. Quantitative hazard information for these effects is often not available. Furthermore, it is difficult to relate the way in which animals are exposed in dermal toxicity studies directly to dermal exposure in practice. In the absence of quantitative information, a qualitative assessment for dermal effects is the most reasonable option. The qualitative approach as proposed in the REACH guidance recommends only general risk management measures (RMM) for three categories with a low, moderate and high identified hazard, without specifying which RMM are needed for a specific exposure scenario. We propose to differentiate frequency of exposure based on differences in activities and to compare measured and estimated local skin exposure levels with rules of thumb for evaluation of control of risks per hazard category. For workers, specific RMM regimes are assigned to each combination of hazard category and process category (PROC). For consumers, a strategy in which RMM are arranged from product-integrated measures to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is presented. Our approach may be transferred into automated assessment tools like Chesar and CEFIC GES.     

A review of the toxicological and environmental hazards and risks of tetrahydrofuran

Abstract

We present in this paper a review of the toxicological and environmental hazards, exposures and risks of tetrahydrofuran (THF; CASRN 109-99-9). THF is a polar solvent and monomer that is easily absorbed by all routes of exposure. The acute toxicity of THF is low to moderate by all routes. Irreversible corrosive damage to the eye can result from direct contact. However, THF is neither a skin irritant, nor sensitizer. Studies in vitro and in vivo have shown that THF is not mutagenic. Chronic studies have found benign tumors in the kidneys of male rats and in the livers of female mice. These findings have been examined, and although a mode of action is not known, the weight of evidence suggests that these tumors are likely not relevant to human health, but instead secondary to rodent-specific modes of action. THF produces transient sedative effects in rats at high concentrations but no significant neurobehavioral changes or neuropathology in sub-chronic studies. There were no specific effects reported on reproduction or developmental toxicity in rats or mice, with non-specific developmental toxicity observed only in the presence of significant maternal toxicity. The log K_ow value for THF is less than 3, indicating a low potential for bioaccumulation. THF is inherently biodegradable, thus is not expected to be environmentally persistent. THF does not present an ecotoxicity hazard based on test results in fish, aquatic invertebrates and plants. Exposures to THF in the workplace, to consumers and via environmental releases were modeled and all found to fall below the derived toxicity thresholds.     

Does industry take the susceptible subpopulation of asthmatic individuals into consideration when setting derived no‐effect levels?

Asthma, a chronic respiratory disease, can be aggravated by exposure to certain chemical irritants. The objectives were first to investigate the extent to which experimental observations on asthmatic subjects are taken into consideration in connection with the registration process under the EU REACH regulation, and second, to determine whether asthmatics are provided adequate protection by the derived no‐effect levels (DNELs) for acute inhalation exposure. We identified substances for which experimental data on the pulmonary functions of asthmatics exposed to chemicals under controlled conditions are available. The effect concentrations were then compared with DNELs and other guideline and limit values. As of April 2015, only 2.6% of 269 classified irritants had available experimental data on asthmatics. Fourteen of the 22 identified substances with available data were fully registered under REACH and we retrieved 114 reliable studies related to these. Sixty‐three of these studies, involving nine of the 14 substances, were cited by the REACH registrants. However, only 17 of the 114 studies, involving four substances, were regarded as key studies. Furthermore, many of the DNELs for acute inhalation were higher than estimated effect levels for asthmatics, i.e., lowest observed adverse effect concentrations or no‐observed adverse effect concentrations, indicating low or no safety margin. We conclude that REACH registrants tend to disregard findings on asthmatics when deriving these DNELs. In addition, we found examples of DNELs, particularly among those derived for workers, which likely do not provide adequate protection for asthmatics. Copyright © 2016 The Authors Journal of Applied Toxicology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Narrow-and-sharp or broad-and-blunt--regulations of hazardous chemicals in consumer products in the European Union

Chemicals are incorporated into a vast number of consumer products, and it has been recognized that considerable exposures of humans and the environment to chemicals are due to diffuse emissions from everyday products. Different approaches to the management of risks concerning chemicals in products are discussed on the international arena, but no general strategy has yet been adopted. The aim of this study is to investigate how health and environmental risks associated with chemicals in consumer products are currently managed in European Union legislations, mainly by the Toys Directive, the RoHS Directive, and REACH. Significant differences were found between the risk reduction strategies in these legislations, including substance prioritization, type of restrictions and requirements, and information dissemination to consumers. REACH regulates chemicals in products to a limited extent, and via quite complicated processes. Product-specific rules are therefore useful supplements to REACH for regulating chemicals in products. The combined effects of the RoHS and WEEE directives seem to be effective in promoting substitution of substances identified as problematic in electrical and electronic equipment, and it is recommended that the possibility to develop similar systems should be considered also for other product categories.     

药品检定机构剧毒化学品库管理初探

目的 为食品药品检定工作提供安全、科学的后勤服务保障.方法 从药品检定机构的实际工作出发,对剧毒化学品库的管理模式进行探讨.结果与结论 形成了比较有效的安全管理规章制度和管控体系,提高了剧毒化学品库的管理水平.     

Alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.

The International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group on Safety suggested that under certain circumstances, data from alternative assays could be used in safety evaluation in place of a second bioassay. Several alternatives were discussed. Six of these models were evaluated in a collaborative effort under the auspices of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Standard protocols, pathology review, and statistical evaluations were developed. Twenty-one chemicals were evaluated, including genotoxic, nongenotoxic, carcinogenic, and noncarcinogenic chemicals. The models that were evaluated included the p53(+/-) heterozygous knockout mouse, the rasH2 transgenic mouse, the TgAC transgenic mouse (dermal and oral administration), the homozygous XPA knockout and the XPA/p53 knockout mouse models. Also evaluated were the neonatal mouse models and the Syrian Hamster Embryo (SHE) transformation assay. The results of this comprehensive study suggest that some of these models might be useful in hazard identification if used in conjunction with information from other sources in a weight of evidence, integrated analysis approach to risk assessment.     

Illustrative case using the RISK21 roadmap and matrix: prioritization for evaluation of chemicals found in drinking water

The HESI-led RISK21 effort has developed a framework supporting the use of twenty-first century technology in obtaining and using information for chemical risk assessment. This framework represents a problem formulation-based, exposure-driven, tiered data acquisition approach that leads to an informed decision on human health safety to be made when sufficient evidence is available. It provides a transparent and consistent approach to evaluate information in order to maximize the ability of assessments to inform decisions and to optimize the use of resources. To demonstrate the application of the framework’s roadmap and matrix, this case study evaluates a large number of chemicals that could be present in drinking water. The focus is to prioritize which of these should be considered for human health risk as individual contaminants. The example evaluates 20 potential drinking water contaminants, using the tiered RISK21 approach in combination with graphical representation of information at each step, using the RISK21 matrix. Utilizing the framework, 11 of the 20 chemicals were assigned low priority based on available exposure data alone, which demonstrated that exposure was extremely low. The remaining nine chemicals were further evaluated, using refined estimates of toxicity based on readily available data, with three deemed high priority for further evaluation. In the present case study, it was determined that the greatest value of additional information would be from improved exposure models and not from additional hazard characterization.     

Carcinogen Risk Assessment in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

This is a narrative account of the origins and development of carcinogen risk assessment in the U.S. EPA, which pioneered the field. It began in an era of high hopes that the regulation of carcinogens in the environment would make a major reduction in the heavy public health burden of cancer. The immediate cause for the development of carcinogen risk assessment was the need to respond to heavy criticism that the EPA was not using science in an unbiased way to defend its regulation of important pesticides as carcinogens. The formulation of the initial assessment guidelines is described as well as the rationale behind the assessment procedures that were developed by the EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group. The issue of whether the original hopes of reducing cancer has been realized is discussed. Recent developments in molecular carcinogenesis point to the possibility of a revised view of the role of environmental carcinogens at low levels of exposure from that of causing cancerde novo to an acceleration of the development of cancer that results from heritable genetic defects. It is suggested that advances in carcinogen risk assessment will mainly depend on a better understanding of the causes and mechanisms of cancer in humans at the molecular level.     

Strategic biomonitoring initiatives: moving the science forward.

Biomonitoring programs in the United States and Europe demonstrate the vast array of data that are publicly available for the evaluation of exposure trends, identification of susceptible populations, detection of emerging chemical risks, the conduct of epidemiology studies, and evaluation of risk reduction strategies. To cultivate international discussion on these issues, the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute convened a scientific session at its annual meeting in January 2006 on "Integration of Biomonitoring Exposure Data into the Risk Assessment Process." This Forum paper presents perspectives from session speakers on the biomonitoring activities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Research Council Committee on Human Biomonitoring for Environmental Toxicants, the German Commission on Human Biomonitoring, and the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute Biomonitoring Technical Committee. Speakers noted that better estimates of biological concentrations of substances in the tissues of human populations can be combined with other exposure indices, as well as epidemiological and toxicologic data, to improve risk estimates. With this type of combined data, the potential also exists to define exposure levels at which hazard and risk are of minimal concern. Limitations in interpreting biomonitoring data were discussed, including the need for different criteria for applying biomonitoring data for exposure assessment, risk assessment, risk management, or disease prevention purposes. As efforts and resources are expended to improve the ability to apply biomonitoring exposure data in the risk assessment process, it is equally important to communicate the significance of such data to the public.     

药品检验所差错报告书情况分析及风险控制的探讨

目的：降低实验室差错报告书发生机率,提高风险控制能力,提高实验室质量管理水平。方法：对我所近3年差错报告书情况进行统计分析,识别关键风险点,提出控制风险的建议和措施。结果：差错主要在人工录入、合同评审、检验过程中等环节引入。结论：通过差错引入情况分析,加强实验室关键风险点识别和控制,有效防止差错再次出现,提升检验报告书质量,增强实验室的公信力和权威性。     

中药注射剂生产企业如何构建风险管理体系

随着中药注射剂(TCMI)药害事件的不断发生,其安全性问题引发了社会的担忧,因此企业实行风险管理势在必行.本文以企业的风险管理经验为例,介绍中药注射剂生产企业应如何构建风险管理体系,如何在以ICH Q9推荐的风险管理模板为指导下,将中药注射剂这一高风险品种的风险降到最低,切实保证药品的质量安全.