Evaluation of the U.S. EPA/OSWER Preliminary Remediation Goal for Perchlorate in Groundwater: Focus on Exposure to Nursing Infants

BACKGROUND: Perchlorate is a common contaminant of drinking water and food. It competes with iodide for uptake into the thyroid, thus interfering with thyroid hormone production. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) set a groundwater preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of 24.5 μg/L to prevent exposure of pregnant women that would affect the fetus. This does not account for the greater exposure that is possible in nursing infants or for the relative source contribution (RSC), a factor normally used to lower the PRG due to nonwater exposures. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to assess whether the OSWER PRG protects infants against exposures from breast-feeding, and to evaluate the perchlorate RSC. METHODS: We used Monte Carlo analysis to simulate nursing infant exposures associated with the OSWER PRG when combined with background perchlorate. RESULTS: The PRG can lead to a 7-fold increase in breast milk concentration, causing 90% of nursing infants to exceed the reference dose (RfD) (average exceedance, 2.8-fold). Drinking-water perchlorate must be < 6.9 μg/L to keep the median, and < 1.3 μg/L to keep the 90th-percentile nursing infant exposure below the RfD. This is 3.6- to 19-fold below the PRG. Analysis of biomonitoring data suggests an RSC of 0.7 for pregnant women and of 0.2 for nursing infants. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that the RfD itself needs to be reevaluated because of hormonal effects in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: The OSWER PRG for perchlorate can be improved by considering infant exposures, by incorporating an RSC, and by being responsive to any changes in the RfD resulting from the new CDC data

State-of-the-Science Workshop Report: Issues and Approaches in Low-Dose–Response Extrapolation for Environmental Health Risk Assessment

Low-dose extrapolation model selection for evaluating the health effects of environmental pollutants is a key component of the risk assessment process. At a workshop held in Baltimore, Maryland, on 23–24 April 2007, sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, a multidisciplinary group of experts reviewed the state of the science regarding low-dose extrapolation modeling and its application in environmental health risk assessments. Participants identified discussion topics based on a literature review, which included examples for which human responses to ambient exposures have been extensively characterized for cancer and/or noncancer outcomes. Topics included the need for formalized approaches and criteria to assess the evidence for mode of action (MOA), the use of human versus animal data, the use of MOA information in biologically based models, and the implications of interindividual variability, background disease processes, and background exposures in threshold versus nonthreshold model choice. Participants recommended approaches that differ from current practice for extrapolating high-dose animal data to low-dose human exposures, including categorical approaches for integrating information on MOA, statistical approaches such as model averaging, and inference-based models that explicitly consider uncertainty and interindividual variability

Meeting Report: Moving Upstream—Evaluating Adverse Upstream End Points for Improved Risk Assessment and Decision-Making

Background Assessing adverse effects from environmental chemical exposure is integral to public health policies. Toxicology assays identifying early biological changes from chemical exposure are increasing our ability to evaluate links between early biological disturbances and subsequent overt downstream effects. A workshop was held to consider how the resulting data inform consideration of an “adverse effect” in the context of hazard identification and risk assessment. Objectives Our objective here is to review what is known about the relationships between chemical exposure, early biological effects (upstream events), and later overt effects (downstream events) through three case studies (thyroid hormone disruption, antiandrogen effects, immune system disruption) and to consider how to evaluate hazard and risk when early biological effect data are available. Discussion Each case study presents data on the toxicity pathways linking early biological perturbations with downstream overt effects. Case studies also emphasize several factors that can influence risk of overt disease as a result from early biological perturbations, including background chemical exposures, underlying individual biological processes, and disease susceptibility. Certain effects resulting from exposure during periods of sensitivity may be irreversible. A chemical can act through multiple modes of action, resulting in similar or different overt effects. Conclusions For certain classes of early perturbations, sufficient information on the disease process is known, so hazard and quantitative risk assessment can proceed using information on upstream biological perturbations. Upstream data will support improved approaches for considering developmental stage, background exposures, disease status, and other factors important to assessing hazard and risk for the whole population

Role of smoking in low birth weight

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of smoking on low birth weight (LBW). STUDY DESIGN: From Massachusetts for 1998, 79,904 birth certificates were reviewed. Birth weight, gestational age, plurality and maternal race were analyzed in relation to the mother\u27s smoking status during the pregnancy. The etiologic fraction (EF) was calculated for smoking and LBW for the group as a whole as well as for various subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 11.7% of women acknowledged smoking during pregnancy. The overall LBW rate was 6.83%. The relative risk (RR) of LBW among smokers was 1.58. For all births the EF for smoking was 6.4% (95% CI: 5.4-7.3). For singleton pregnancies it was 10.9% (95% CI: 9.6-12.1) (14% for singleton whites and 7.2 for singleton blacks). At term, the EF of smoking on LBW was 13.4% (95% CI: 11.5-15.3), with an EF of 16.7% (95% CI: 14.5-18.7) for term singletons (21.4% among whites and 14.6% among blacks). Among very LBW infants, smoking accounted for 1.7% (95% CI:--0.5-3.8) of the outcome (5.8% among singletons). When stratifying for the effect of smoking, the rate of LBW was 6.38% among nonsmokers, 9.5% (RR 1.48, 1.38-1.61) among light smokers, 11.67% (RR 1.82, 1.63-2.05) among moderate smokers and 11.72% (RR 1.84, 1.33-2.54) among heavy smokers. Sixty percent of the overall population effect of smoking on LBW was in the category of light smokers. CONCLUSION: The amount of LBW attributable to smoking was 6.4% in this sample. Among those who smoked, LBW was 58% more likely than among nonsmokers, and 60% of the overall population effect of smoking on LBW was noted among light smokers

Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment

A key element of risk assessment is accounting for the full range of variability in response to environmental exposures. Default dose-response methods typically assume a 10-fold difference in response to chemical exposures between average (healthy) and susceptible humans, despite evidence of wider variability. Experts and authoritative bodies support using advanced techniques to better account for human variability due to factors such as in utero or early life exposure and exposure to multiple environmental, social, and economic stressors.This review describes: 1) sources of human variability and susceptibility in dose-response assessment, 2) existing US frameworks for addressing response variability in risk assessment; 3) key scientific inadequacies necessitating updated methods; 4) improved approaches and opportunities for better use of science; and 5) specific and quantitative recommendations to address evidence and policy needs.Current default adjustment factors do not sufficiently capture human variability in dose-response and thus are inadequate to protect the entire population. Susceptible groups are not appropriately protected under current regulatory guidelines. Emerging tools and data sources that better account for human variability and susceptibility include probabilistic methods, genetically diverse in vivo and in vitro models, and the use of human data to capture underlying risk and/or assess combined effects from chemical and non-chemical stressors.We recommend using updated methods and data to improve consideration of human variability and susceptibility in risk assessment, including the use of increased default human variability factors and separate adjustment factors for capturing age/life stage of development and exposure to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. Updated methods would result in greater transparency and protection for susceptible groups, including children, infants, people who are pregnant or nursing, people with disabilities, and those burdened by additional environmental exposures and/or social factors such as poverty and racism

Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment

Abstract A key element of risk assessment is accounting for the full range of variability in response to environmental exposures. Default dose-response methods typically assume a 10-fold difference in response to chemical exposures between average (healthy) and susceptible humans, despite evidence of wider variability. Experts and authoritative bodies support using advanced techniques to better account for human variability due to factors such as in utero or early life exposure and exposure to multiple environmental, social, and economic stressors. This review describes: 1) sources of human variability and susceptibility in dose-response assessment, 2) existing US frameworks for addressing response variability in risk assessment; 3) key scientific inadequacies necessitating updated methods; 4) improved approaches and opportunities for better use of science; and 5) specific and quantitative recommendations to address evidence and policy needs. Current default adjustment factors do not sufficiently capture human variability in dose-response and thus are inadequate to protect the entire population. Susceptible groups are not appropriately protected under current regulatory guidelines. Emerging tools and data sources that better account for human variability and susceptibility include probabilistic methods, genetically diverse in vivo and in vitro models, and the use of human data to capture underlying risk and/or assess combined effects from chemical and non-chemical stressors. We recommend using updated methods and data to improve consideration of human variability and susceptibility in risk assessment, including the use of increased default human variability factors and separate adjustment factors for capturing age/life stage of development and exposure to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. Updated methods would result in greater transparency and protection for susceptible groups, including children, infants, people who are pregnant or nursing, people with disabilities, and those burdened by additional environmental exposures and/or social factors such as poverty and racism

Meeting report: moving upstream-evaluating adverse upstream end points for improved risk assessment and decision-making.

BackgroundAssessing adverse effects from environmental chemical exposure is integral to public health policies. Toxicology assays identifying early biological changes from chemical exposure are increasing our ability to evaluate links between early biological disturbances and subsequent overt downstream effects. A workshop was held to consider how the resulting data inform consideration of an "adverse effect" in the context of hazard identification and risk assessment.ObjectivesOur objective here is to review what is known about the relationships between chemical exposure, early biological effects (upstream events), and later overt effects (downstream events) through three case studies (thyroid hormone disruption, antiandrogen effects, immune system disruption) and to consider how to evaluate hazard and risk when early biological effect data are available.DiscussionEach case study presents data on the toxicity pathways linking early biological perturbations with downstream overt effects. Case studies also emphasize several factors that can influence risk of overt disease as a result from early biological perturbations, including background chemical exposures, underlying individual biological processes, and disease susceptibility. Certain effects resulting from exposure during periods of sensitivity may be irreversible. A chemical can act through multiple modes of action, resulting in similar or different overt effects.ConclusionsFor certain classes of early perturbations, sufficient information on the disease process is known, so hazard and quantitative risk assessment can proceed using information on upstream biological perturbations. Upstream data will support improved approaches for considering developmental stage, background exposures, disease status, and other factors important to assessing hazard and risk for the whole population