Introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor UFL in risk assessment
The methodology for using uncertainty factors in health risk assessment has been developed for several decades. A default value is usually applied for the uncertainty factor UF _L , which is used to extrapolate from LOAEL (lowest observed adverse effect level) to NAEL (no adverse effect level). Here...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
IOP Publishing
2012-01-01
|
| Series: | Environmental Research Letters |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034036 |
| _version_ | 1797748527398387712 |
|---|---|
| author | Jinling Xue Yun Lu Natalia Velasquez Ruozhen Yu Hongying Hu Zhengtao Liu Wei Meng |
| author_facet | Jinling Xue Yun Lu Natalia Velasquez Ruozhen Yu Hongying Hu Zhengtao Liu Wei Meng |
| author_sort | Jinling Xue |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The methodology for using uncertainty factors in health risk assessment has been developed for several decades. A default value is usually applied for the uncertainty factor UF _L , which is used to extrapolate from LOAEL (lowest observed adverse effect level) to NAEL (no adverse effect level). Here, we have developed a new method that establishes a linear relationship between UF _L and the additional risk level at LOAEL based on the dose–response information, which represents a very important factor that should be carefully considered. This linear formula makes it possible to select UF _L properly in the additional risk range from 5.3% to 16.2%. Also the results remind us that the default value 10 may not be conservative enough when the additional risk level at LOAEL exceeds 16.2%. Furthermore, this novel method not only provides a flexible UF _L instead of the traditional default value, but also can ensure a conservative estimation of the UF _L with fewer errors, and avoid the benchmark response selection involved in the benchmark dose method. These advantages can improve the estimation of the extrapolation starting point in the risk assessment. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T16:06:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e83676f0a1d045029113063c29bf6a87 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-9326 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T16:06:04Z |
| publishDate | 2012-01-01 |
| publisher | IOP Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Environmental Research Letters |
| spelling | doaj.art-e83676f0a1d045029113063c29bf6a872023-08-09T14:21:58ZengIOP PublishingEnvironmental Research Letters1748-93262012-01-017303403610.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034036Introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor UFL in risk assessmentJinling Xue0Yun Lu1Natalia Velasquez2Ruozhen Yu3Hongying Hu4Zhengtao Liu5Wei Meng6State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, Tsinghua University , Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of ChinaState Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, Tsinghua University , Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of ChinaState Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, Tsinghua University , Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of ChinaChinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences , Beijing 100012, People’s Republic of ChinaState Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, Tsinghua University , Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of ChinaChinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences , Beijing 100012, People’s Republic of ChinaChinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences , Beijing 100012, People’s Republic of ChinaThe methodology for using uncertainty factors in health risk assessment has been developed for several decades. A default value is usually applied for the uncertainty factor UF _L , which is used to extrapolate from LOAEL (lowest observed adverse effect level) to NAEL (no adverse effect level). Here, we have developed a new method that establishes a linear relationship between UF _L and the additional risk level at LOAEL based on the dose–response information, which represents a very important factor that should be carefully considered. This linear formula makes it possible to select UF _L properly in the additional risk range from 5.3% to 16.2%. Also the results remind us that the default value 10 may not be conservative enough when the additional risk level at LOAEL exceeds 16.2%. Furthermore, this novel method not only provides a flexible UF _L instead of the traditional default value, but also can ensure a conservative estimation of the UF _L with fewer errors, and avoid the benchmark response selection involved in the benchmark dose method. These advantages can improve the estimation of the extrapolation starting point in the risk assessment.https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/03403662p12uncertainty factor UFLdose–responseNOAELLOAELBMD |
| spellingShingle | Jinling Xue Yun Lu Natalia Velasquez Ruozhen Yu Hongying Hu Zhengtao Liu Wei Meng Introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor UFL in risk assessment Environmental Research Letters 62p12 uncertainty factor UFL dose–response NOAEL LOAEL BMD |
| title | Introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor UFL in risk assessment |
| title_full | Introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor UFL in risk assessment |
| title_fullStr | Introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor UFL in risk assessment |
| title_full_unstemmed | Introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor UFL in risk assessment |
| title_short | Introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor UFL in risk assessment |
| title_sort | introduction of risk size in the determination of uncertainty factor ufl in risk assessment |
| topic | 62p12 uncertainty factor UFL dose–response NOAEL LOAEL BMD |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034036 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jinlingxue introductionofrisksizeinthedeterminationofuncertaintyfactoruflinriskassessment AT yunlu introductionofrisksizeinthedeterminationofuncertaintyfactoruflinriskassessment AT nataliavelasquez introductionofrisksizeinthedeterminationofuncertaintyfactoruflinriskassessment AT ruozhenyu introductionofrisksizeinthedeterminationofuncertaintyfactoruflinriskassessment AT hongyinghu introductionofrisksizeinthedeterminationofuncertaintyfactoruflinriskassessment AT zhengtaoliu introductionofrisksizeinthedeterminationofuncertaintyfactoruflinriskassessment AT weimeng introductionofrisksizeinthedeterminationofuncertaintyfactoruflinriskassessment |