Cargando…

A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment

Uncertainty factors (UFs) are used to account for uncertainties and variability when setting exposure limits or guidance values. Starting from a proposal of a single UF of 100 to extrapolate from an animal NOAEL to a human acceptable exposure, the aspects of uncertainty and number of UFs have divers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johanson, Gunnar, Moto, Tshepo Paulsen, Schenk, Linda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36017531
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jat.4386
_version_ 1785022337765081088
author Johanson, Gunnar
Moto, Tshepo Paulsen
Schenk, Linda
author_facet Johanson, Gunnar
Moto, Tshepo Paulsen
Schenk, Linda
author_sort Johanson, Gunnar
collection PubMed
description Uncertainty factors (UFs) are used to account for uncertainties and variability when setting exposure limits or guidance values. Starting from a proposal of a single UF of 100 to extrapolate from an animal NOAEL to a human acceptable exposure, the aspects of uncertainty and number of UFs have diversified and today there are several risk assessment guidelines that contain schemes of default UFs of varying complexity. In the present work, we scoped the scientific literature on default UFs to map developments regarding recommendations and evaluations of these. We identified 91 publications making recommendations for one or several UFs and 55 publications evaluating UFs without making explicit recommendations about numerical values; these were published between 1954 and 2021. The 2000s was the decade with the largest number of publications, interspecies differences and intraspecies variability being the most frequent topics. The academic sector has been the most active (76 out of 146 publications). Authors from the private sector more often presented UF recommendations, but differences between sectors regarding size of recommendations were not statistically significant. The empirical underpinning of the reviewed recommendations ranges from four to 462 chemicals, that is, relatively low numbers compared with the range of chemicals these default UFs are expected to cover. The recommended UFs have remained remarkably constant, with merely a slight decrease over time. Although chemical specific UFs are preferable, the widespread use of default UFs warrants further attention regarding their empirical and normative basis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10087398
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100873982023-04-12 A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment Johanson, Gunnar Moto, Tshepo Paulsen Schenk, Linda J Appl Toxicol Review Articles Uncertainty factors (UFs) are used to account for uncertainties and variability when setting exposure limits or guidance values. Starting from a proposal of a single UF of 100 to extrapolate from an animal NOAEL to a human acceptable exposure, the aspects of uncertainty and number of UFs have diversified and today there are several risk assessment guidelines that contain schemes of default UFs of varying complexity. In the present work, we scoped the scientific literature on default UFs to map developments regarding recommendations and evaluations of these. We identified 91 publications making recommendations for one or several UFs and 55 publications evaluating UFs without making explicit recommendations about numerical values; these were published between 1954 and 2021. The 2000s was the decade with the largest number of publications, interspecies differences and intraspecies variability being the most frequent topics. The academic sector has been the most active (76 out of 146 publications). Authors from the private sector more often presented UF recommendations, but differences between sectors regarding size of recommendations were not statistically significant. The empirical underpinning of the reviewed recommendations ranges from four to 462 chemicals, that is, relatively low numbers compared with the range of chemicals these default UFs are expected to cover. The recommended UFs have remained remarkably constant, with merely a slight decrease over time. Although chemical specific UFs are preferable, the widespread use of default UFs warrants further attention regarding their empirical and normative basis. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-13 2023-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10087398/ /pubmed/36017531 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jat.4386 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Toxicology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Review Articles
Johanson, Gunnar
Moto, Tshepo Paulsen
Schenk, Linda
A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment
title A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment
title_full A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment
title_fullStr A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment
title_full_unstemmed A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment
title_short A scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment
title_sort scoping review of evaluations of and recommendations for default uncertainty factors in human health risk assessment
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36017531
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jat.4386
work_keys_str_mv AT johansongunnar ascopingreviewofevaluationsofandrecommendationsfordefaultuncertaintyfactorsinhumanhealthriskassessment
AT mototshepopaulsen ascopingreviewofevaluationsofandrecommendationsfordefaultuncertaintyfactorsinhumanhealthriskassessment
AT schenklinda ascopingreviewofevaluationsofandrecommendationsfordefaultuncertaintyfactorsinhumanhealthriskassessment
AT johansongunnar scopingreviewofevaluationsofandrecommendationsfordefaultuncertaintyfactorsinhumanhealthriskassessment
AT mototshepopaulsen scopingreviewofevaluationsofandrecommendationsfordefaultuncertaintyfactorsinhumanhealthriskassessment
AT schenklinda scopingreviewofevaluationsofandrecommendationsfordefaultuncertaintyfactorsinhumanhealthriskassessment