1 The “Straw Man” System for Defining the RfD as a Risk-Specific Dose Making Use of Empirical Distributions Dale Hattis, Meghan Lynch, Sue Greco Clark.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 SESSION on Risk Characterization. Session 5-2 Risk Characterization David Miller Chemist (USPHS) Health Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs.
Advertisements

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Toxicity Values Update Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting March 27, 2014 C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S. Deputy Director Office.
Regulatory Toxicology James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Age-Related Differences in Susceptibility to Carcinogenesis—Toward an Improved Analysis of Data on Age-Related Differences in Cancer Sensitivity in the.
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment and Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Risks from Early-Life Exposures March 29, 2005 Hugh A. Barton,
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment 1 Integrated probabilistic risk assessment Bas Bokkers National Institute for Public Health and.
What role should probabilistic sensitivity analysis play in SMC decision making? Andrew Briggs, DPhil University of Oxford.
Approaches to Data Acquisition The LCA depends upon data acquisition Qualitative vs. Quantitative –While some quantitative analysis is appropriate, inappropriate.
Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation: A Risk Characterization Challenge Mary A. Fox, PhD, MPH Linda C. Abbott, PhD USDA Office of Risk Assessment.
CropLife America & RISE 2014 Spring Conference Arlington, VA Finding Common Ground in the Pesticide Risk Assessment Process Bruce K. Hope, Ph.D.
Module 8: Risk Assessment. 2 Module Objectives  Define the purpose of Superfund risk assessment  Define the four components of the human health risk.
Sources of Uncertainty and Current Practice for Addressing Them: Toxicological Perspective David A. Bussard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The views.
Multiple Linear Regression Model
Understanding the relevance of climate model simulations to informing policy: An example of the application of MAGICC to greenhouse gas mitigation policy.
1 Issues in Harmonizing Methods for Risk Assessment Kenny S. Crump Louisiana Tech University
Types of Evaluation.
FAO/WHO CODEX TRAINING PACKAGE
1 D r a f t Life Cycle Assessment A product-oriented method for sustainability analysis UNEP LCA Training Kit Module k – Uncertainty in LCA.
TCEQ/NUATRC Air Toxics Workshop: Session V – Human Health Effects Nathan Pechacek, M.S. Toxicology Section Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Environmental Risk Analysis
Lynn H. Pottenger, PhD, DABT The Dow Chemical Company
Food Advisory Committee Meeting December 16 and 17, 2014 Questions to the Committee Suzanne C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, DABT Senior Advisory for Toxicology Center.
Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) Approach to Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens David H. Phillips* COC Chairman Descriptive vs. Quantitative.
Learning Objectives Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sample Size Determination CHAPTER Eleven.
Analysis and Visualization Approaches to Assess UDU Capability Presented at MBSW May 2015 Jeff Hofer, Adam Rauk 1.
Basic Business Statistics, 11e © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Chap 8-1 Confidence Interval Estimation.
Copyright © 2010 Lumina Decision Systems, Inc. Monte Carlo Simulation Analytica User Group Modeling Uncertainty Series #3 13 May 2010 Lonnie Chrisman,
Charge Question 5-1 Comment Summary for HHCB Peer Review Panel Meeting January 9, 2014.
SIMULATION USING CRYSTAL BALL. WHAT CRYSTAL BALL DOES? Crystal ball extends the forecasting capabilities of spreadsheet model and provide the information.
Review and Validation of ISAT Performance Levels for 2006 and Beyond MetriTech, Inc. Champaign, IL MetriTech, Inc. Champaign, IL.
Chapter 15 Environmental Health, Pollution and Toxicology.
Engineering Economic Analysis Canadian Edition
Juan Alguacil, MD Huelva University Brussels, 26 June 2012 Limits on Occupational Exposure Limits for Carcinogens 8th Seminar on workers’ protection &
1 Hierarchical Models for Quantifying Uncertainty in Human Health Risk/Safety Assessment Ralph L. Kodell, Ph.D. Department of Biostatistics University.
Module 3 Risk Analysis and its Components. Risk Analysis ● WTO SPS agreement puts emphasis on sound science ● Risk analysis = integrated mechanism to.
June 8, 2004Seafood: Assessing the Benefits and Risks1 of 17 Assessing and Managing the Risks Associated With Eating Seafood Don Schaffner, Ph.D. Professor.
1.State your research hypothesis in the form of a relation between two variables. 2. Find a statistic to summarize your sample data and convert the above.
Determining Risks to Background Arsenic Using a Margin – of – Exposure Approach Presentation at Society of Risk Analysis, New England Chapter Barbara D.
Quantitative Project Risk Analysis 1 Intaver Institute Inc. 303, 6707, Elbow Drive S.W., Calgary AB Canada T2V 0E5
Limits to Statistical Theory Bootstrap analysis ESM April 2006.
Calculating Risk of Cost Using Monte Carlo Simulation with Fuzzy Parameters in Civil Engineering Michał Bętkowski Andrzej Pownuk Silesian University of.
5-1 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary © 2009 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. May 28, 2009 Inventory # Chapter 5 Six Sigma.
Chapter 2 Using Science to Address Environmental Problems.
Risk Assessment.
United Nations Workshop on Revision 3 of Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses and Evaluation of Census Data, Amman 19 – 23.
Air Toxics Risk Assessment: Traditional versus New Approaches Mark Saperstein BP Product Stewardship Group.
Environmental Risk Analysis Chapter 6 © 2007 Thomson Learning/South-WesternCallan and Thomas, Environmental Economics and Management, 4e.
RISK DUE TO AIR POLLUTANTS
Lecture 3 Types of Probability Distributions Dr Peter Wheale.
Matrix Models for Population Management & Conservation March 2014 Lecture 10 Uncertainty, Process Variance, and Retrospective Perturbation Analysis.
Perspective on the current state-of-knowledge of mode of action as it relates to the dose response assessment of cancer and noncancer toxicity Jennifer.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Environmental Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment and Information for SRP July 28, 2009 Reeder.
HEX-Tox paper reading Tue Hye Young Choi.
Acute Toxicity Studies Single dose - rat, mouse (5/sex/dose), dog, monkey (1/sex/dose) 14 day observation In-life observations (body wt., food consumption,
1 Life Cycle Assessment A product-oriented method for sustainability analysis UNEP LCA Training Kit Module k – Uncertainty in LCA.
1 Risk Assessment for Air Toxics: The 4 Basic Steps NESCAUM Health Effects Workshop Bordentown, NJ July 30, 2008.
1 Alternatives to Pollutant-by-Pollutant Dose-Response Estimation Dale Hattis* and Meghan Lynch # *George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University #
Theoretical distributions: the Normal distribution.
CHAPTER 5 Occupational Exposure Limits and Assessment of Workplace Chemical Risks.
1 Beyond Science and Decisions: From Problem Formulation to Dose-Response - Framework.
Uncertainty Analysis in Emission Inventories
for Overall Prognosis Workshop Cochrane Colloquium, Seoul
BAE 5333 Applied Water Resources Statistics
Evaluating Cumulative Impacts: The Value of Epidemiology
Monte Carlo Simulation Managing uncertainty in complex environments.
Professor S K Dubey,VSM Amity School of Business
5 Pharmacodynamics.
Simulation: Sensitivity, Bootstrap, and Power
Oliver Kroner, Lynne Haber, Rick Hertzberg TERA
Evaluating Cumulative Impacts: The Value of Epidemiology
Presentation transcript:

1 The “Straw Man” System for Defining the RfD as a Risk-Specific Dose Making Use of Empirical Distributions Dale Hattis, Meghan Lynch, Sue Greco Clark University, Abt Associates Inc. Alliance for Risk Assessment Workshop III Beyond Science and Decisions Falls Church, VA May 4, 2011

2 Basic Ideas Behind “Straw Man” System Characterize uncertainty in the RfD inputs using information from analogous data, e.g., – POD distribution based on fits to underlying dose-response data – UF S distribution based on studies having both subchronic and chronic information) Using empirical data as the basis for these uncertainties is an improvement over the use of traditional uncertainty factors (e.g., UF s = 10) Defining the RfD as a risk-specific dose (less than x incidence of harm with z confidence) has been recommended by the NRC in Science and Decisions

3 Steps in the Straw Man Approach 1. Estimate an animal ED 50 by fitting dose-response models to the original toxicological data. 2. Apply a subchronic-to-chronic uncertainty factor distribution (UF s ) to transform the subchronic dose that affects 50% of the lab animal populations to a chronic dose that would be expected affect 50% of the animals. 3. Apply the animal-to-human uncertainty factor distribution (UF A ) to convert the estimated animal ED50’s to human ED50’s. 4. Apply a database uncertainty factor distribution (D) to represent deficiencies in the toxicological datasets (different depending on whether repro or chronic toxicity studies are missing). 5. Apply an interindividual uncertainty factor distribution to account for uncertainties in the extent of susceptibility differences across humans, derived from human studies of analogous chemicals to produce separate distributions of human pharmacokinetic (GSD PK ) and pharmacodynamic (GSD PD ) variability. Use the combined GSD PK and GSD PD to assess risks as a function of dose, using the probit model. 6. Combine input from Steps 1 though 5 into a Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate a distribution of Doses corresponding to a given level of risk (P response ).

4 Straw Man Approach in Functional Form Distribution of doses at which a probability of response is expected. RfD defined as 5 th pct dose corresponding to 1 in 100,000 increase in risk. Distribution of risks corresponding to a given dose. Can summarize mean/95 th pct risk levels corresponding to a particular dose.  = Standard normal cumulative distribution. Hats represent distributions

5 How does Straw Man compare to BMDS? Case Study Summary Results Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) – Log-probit model provided a good fit to the D-R data – RfC estimated using Traditional and BMDS approaches similar, due to similar estimated POD – Straw Man RfC 3-fold lower – Risks at low doses estimated by Straw Man model higher than those estimated by BMDS, which were 0 at dose range of interest 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene (TCB) – No BMDS models provided a good fit to the D-R data due to high incidence of kidney lesions in controls – POD estimated by Traditional/IRIS and BMDS different IRIS considered the severity of the lesions, resulting in a higher POD – BMDS RfD < Straw Man RfD < Traditional RfD – Straw Man model estimated higher risks at low doses, and over a wider range of dose values, compared to BMDS

6 Getting the “Straw Man” framework solidified Updating and improving the distributions – Ensuring sensitive subpopulations are included in the interindividual variability terms (GSD PK, GSD PD ) – Incorporating measurement error in the distributions Expanding the model – Accounting for background interactions – Explore use of susceptibility distributions other than log-normal, and assumption of independence for distributions User-friendliness and transparency – Updated methods paper – Updated “Straw Man” modeling platform