Search

Due to the relative scarcity of long-term toxicity data, assessment factors for extrapolation from relatively short to chronic exposures have an important role in the risk assessment of chemicals. A recent REACH guidance document includes recommended default assessment factors that cover subacute-subchronic, subchronic-chronic, and subacute-chronic extrapolations. The recommended assessment factors are smaller than in most previous proposals, since they are calibrated to achieve central estimates (50th percentile of the target distribution) rather than a higher percentile such as the 95th, as has been more common. These assessment factors are nevertheless presented as representing a "widely agreed level of conservatism", a statement that may lead to misunderstandings of what is achieved by using them in a risk assessment. Assessment factors have been based on evidence from animal studies with different designs, in particular with focus on different endpoints. Our re-analysis of experimental data shows that using mortality as an endpoint leads to smaller assessment factors than if the factors are derived from corresponding ratios for non-lethal toxicity.

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.

In this paper it is claimed that the health risk assessment process is influenced by (at least) four general factors, namely: the regulatory framework, the quality and availability of scientific data, general risk assessment principles, and case-by-case assumptions. Furthermore, the scientific basis of risk assessment relies on three overall types of methods for data generation: standardized animal experiments, epidemiology, and non-standardized mechanism data. In this paper, the use of the different types of data for risk assessment purposes are analyzed in the light of the factors claimed to influence the risk assessment process. It is concluded that the availability of pre-defined criteria for the interpretation and evaluation of data for regulatory health risk assessment purposes need to be further developed. Especially with the implementation of the new European chemicals legislation REACH.

The European Commission has decided on harmonized classifications for a large number of individual chemicals according to its own directive for classification and labeling of dangerous substances. We have compared the harmonized classifications for acute oral toxicity to the acute oral toxicity data available in the RTECS database. Of the 992 substances eligible for this comparison, 15% were assigned a too low danger class and 8% a too high danger class according to the RTECS data. Due to insufficient transparency-scientific documentations of the classification decisions are not available-the causes of this discrepancy can only be hypothesized. We propose that the scientific motivations of future classifications be published and that the apparent over- and underclassifications in the present system be either explained or rectified, according to what are the facts in the matter.