Slide background

Risk Assessment for Carcinogenic Effects Tables Dose Response

ID 4666 | | Visite: 3005 | Documenti Sicurezza EntiPermalink:

Risk Assessment for Carcinogenic Effects

Table Dose Response Assessment Tables

Notizia aggiornata al 24.09.2017

The information below presents tabulated dose-response assessments that the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) uses for risk assessments of hazardous air pollutants. Two separate tables are provided.

Table 1 presents values for long-term (chronic) inhalation and oral exposures;

Table 2 presents values for short-term (acute) inhalation exposures.

It is important to note that only for the purpose of these tables that the compound categories use the CAS number for the element. However, all compounds having that element in their chemical structure are included in the compound category.

EPA's first carcinogen risk assessment guidelines [1], published in 1986, were the product of nearly two decades of experience and scientific consensus building. EPA has since gained considerable experience in applying cancer risk assessment approaches. Concurrently, the science of risk assessment and toxicological testing has continued to evolve, and EPA has had to address situations not explicitly discussed in the 1986 guidelines, e.g., children's risk assessment. The update of EPA's carcinogen risk assessment guidelines in 2005 consolidated the Agency's experience, providing more comprehensive and transparent guidance on topics not fully developed in the original guidelines, and providing flexibility to accommodate anticipated advances in the science.

During the time between 1996 and 2005, EPA applied the principles and procedures of the draft revised guidelines on a case-by-case basis for new hazard identifications and dose-response assessments using interim draft guidelines that represented the evolution of risk assessment methods rather than a dramatic shift in methodology. Since 2005, EPA has applied the new 2005 guidelines which reflect EPA's accumulated experience and advances in our knowledge on cancer assessment. On the other hand, assessments for many substances that were prepared under the 1986 guidelines continue to be valid. Therefore, the dose-response assessments of carcinogens reflect a mixture of the application of 1986 guidelines and the more recent guidelines.

Hazard Identification for Carcinogenic Effects. EPA's guidelines recognize three broad categories of data: (1) human data (primarily epidemiological); (2) results of long-term experimental animal bioassays; and (3) supporting data, including a variety of short-term tests for genotoxicity and other relevant properties, pharmacokinetic and metabolic studies, and structure-activity relationships. In hazard identification of carcinogens under the guidelines, human data, animal data, and supporting evidence are combined to characterize the weight-of-evidence (WOE) regarding the agent's potential as a human carcinogen. The current guidelines, finalized in 2005, recommend expressing WOE by narrative statements rather than only hierarchical categories, and expressing them separately for the oral and inhalation routes. The general categories recognized by the 2005 guidelines are [2]:

  • Carcinogenic to Humans
  • Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans
  • Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential
  • Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential
  • Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans

Under the 1986 guidelines, this WOE was summarized as fitting one of several hierarchic categories [1]:

Group A - Carcinogenic to Humans: Agents with adequate human data to demonstrate the causal association of the agent with human cancer (typically epidemiologic data).

Group B - Probably Carcinogenic to Humans: Agents with sufficient evidence (i.e., indicative of a causal relationship) from animal bioassay data, but either limited human evidence (i.e., indicative of a possible causal relationship, but not exclusive of alternative explanations; Group B1), or with little or no human data (Group B2).

Group C - Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans: Agents with limited animal evidence and little or no human data.

Group D - Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity: Agents without adequate data either to support or refute human carcinogenicity.

Group E - Evidence of Non-carcinogenicity for Humans: Agents that show no evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in different species or in both adequate epidemiologic and animal studies.

For each HAP that has been assessed for carcinogenicity under either set of guidelines, Table 1 (PDF) (8pp, 42k) presents the category label specified by the most recent assessment (which may be via the current or past guidelines). At some point in the future, the table may also include excerpts of narrative WOEs. These WOE categories express the relative level of certainty that these agents may cause cancer in humans. The categories specifically do not connote relative levels of hazard or degree of conservatism applied in developing a dose-response assessment. For example, a substance in group C (possible human carcinogen), under the 1986 guidelines, may impart a greater cancer risk to more people than another substance in group A (known human carcinogen), yet there is a greater certainty with regard to the risk associated with the latter. EPA's WOE classifications are focused on the amount and quality of evidence regarding whether or not a substance is carcinogenic to humans, not on the level of risk a substance might present. Dose-Response Assessment for Carcinogens. Since the publication of EPA's original cancer guidelines in 1986, considerable new knowledge has been developed regarding the processes of chemical carcinogenesis and the evaluation of human cancer risk. The 2005 guidelines [2] recognize both linear and nonlinear modes of action for carcinogens. When assessing the dose-response relationship under the guidelines, cancer data in the observable range are analyzed using a common dose-response model regardless of mode of action. The method of extrapolation to lower doses from the point of departure may vary depending on whether the available data indicate a linear or nonlinear mode of action.

Under the guidelines, linear extrapolation is appropriate when the evidence supports the mode of action of gene mutation due to direct DNA reactivity or another mode of action that is thought to be linear in the low dose region. A linear mode of action will also be the approach when available evidence is not sufficient to support a nonlinear extrapolation procedure, even in the absence of evidence of DNA reactivity. Nonlinear methods are to be used if there is sufficient evidence to support a nonlinear mode of action.

For linear carcinogens, EPA's current process of estimating cancer risk is based on the unit risk estimate (URE) for inhalation, and the carcinogenic potency slope (CPS) for ingestion. The URE represents the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent over a lifetime at a concentration of 1 µg/m3 in air. The interpretation of the URE would be as follows: if the URE = 1.5 x 10-6 µg/m3, no more than 1.5 excess tumors are expected to develop per 1,000,000 people if exposed all day, every day for a lifetime to a concentration of 1 µg of the chemical per cubic meter of air. The CPS is an upper bound, usually approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime oral exposure to an agent. This estimate, usually expressed in units of proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg/day, is generally reserved for use in the low-dose region of the dose-response relationship, that is, for exposures corresponding to risks less than 1 in 100. The URE and CPS are plausible upper-bound estimates of the risk (i.e., the actual risk is likely to be lower, but may be greater). However, because the URE and CPS reflect unquantifiable assumptions about effects at low doses, their upper bounds are not true statistical confidence limits. The tabulated UREs and CPSs were developed by EPA and the California EPA, and were selected for use by a priority system.

1. U.S. EPA. 1986. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. 51 FR 33992-34003.
2. U.S. EPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. 70 FR 17765-17817

Fonte: EPA

Scarica questo file (Table 2. Acute Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments 18 Sept 2014.pdf)Table 2. Acute Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments
EPA Sept 18, 2014
EN231 kB666
Scarica questo file (Table 1. Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values 9 May 2014.pdf)Table 1. Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values 9 May 2014
EPA May 9, 2014
EN40 kB798

Tags: Sicurezza lavoro Rischio chimico

Articoli correlati

Ultimi archiviati Sicurezza

Intesa Lavoro e Istruzione per ampliare coperture Inail agli studenti
Gen 27, 2023 41

Intesa Lavoro e Istruzione per ampliare coperture Inail agli studenti

Intesa Lavoro e Istruzione per ampliare coperture Inail agli studenti ID 18843 | 27.01.2023 / Comunicato Stampa MLPS ​Verso l'ampliamento della tutela infortunistica degli studenti. In occasione del secondo appuntamento del tavolo tecnico sulla sicurezza sul lavoro, il Ministro del Lavoro e delle… Leggi tutto
Covid 19   Contagi sul lavoro denunciati all INAIL 31 Dicembre 2022
Gen 26, 2023 30

Covid-19 | Contagi sul lavoro denunciati all’INAIL: 31 Dicembre 2022

Covid-19 | Contagi sul lavoro denunciati all’INAIL: 31 Dicembre 2022 ID 18786 | 26.01.2023 31esimo report nazionale elaborato dalla Consulenza statistico attuariale Inail e la versione aggiornata delle schede di approfondimento regionali. L’anno appena concluso pesa per il 37,2% sul totale delle… Leggi tutto
Gen 25, 2023 75

Linee guida del 20 febbraio 2014 della Conferenza Stato-Regioni

Linee guida del 20 febbraio 2014 della Conferenza Stato-Regioni ID 18781 | 25.01.2023 Linee guida per la disciplina per il contratto di apprendistato professionalizzante o contratto di mestiere L'accordo - sottoscritto in data 20 febbraio 2014 - ha previsto alcune modifiche al percorso formativo… Leggi tutto
Gen 25, 2023 101

Decreto interministeriale 12 ottobre 2015

Decreto interministeriale 12 ottobre 2015 ID 18774 | 25.01.2023 Definizione degli standard formativi dell'apprendistato e criteri generali per la realizzazione dei percorsi di apprendistato, in attuazione dell'articolo 46, comma 1, del decreto legislativo 15 giugno 2015, n. 81. (GU n.296 del… Leggi tutto
Gen 25, 2023 114

Circolare MLPS n. 12 del 6 giugno 2022

Circolare MLPS n. 12 del 6 giugno 2022 ID 18773 | 25.01.2023 Circolare MLPS n. 12 del 6 giugno 2022 - Contratto di apprendistato di primo livello, ai sensi dell’articolo 43 del decreto legislativo 15 giugno 2015, n. 81, e del decreto interministeriale 12 ottobre 2015. Il Ministero del Lavoro, con… Leggi tutto
Gen 25, 2023 64

Messaggio INPS del 10 aprile 2019 n. 1478

Messaggio INPS del 10 aprile 2019 n. 1478 ID 18771 | 25.01.2023 Messaggio INPS del 10 aprile 2019 n. 1478 - Rapporti di apprendistato. Trasformazione del contratto di apprendistato di primo livello in contratto di apprendistato professionalizzante ai sensi dell’articolo 43, comma 9, del D.lgs n.… Leggi tutto
Gen 25, 2023 74

Circolare INPS n. 108 del 14 Novembre 2018

Circolare INPS n. 108 del 14 Novembre 2018 ID 18770 | 25.01.2023 Circolare INPS n. 108/2018 Rapporti di apprendistato. Assetto del regime contributivo a seguito della integrazione delle misure di agevolazione introdotte nel corso degli ultimi anni. Istruzioni contabili. Variazioni al piano dei… Leggi tutto
Gen 25, 2023 85

Messaggio INPS n. 2243 del 31.05.2017

Messaggio INPS n. 2243 del 31.05.2017 ID 18769 | 25.01.2023 Messaggio INPS n. 2243 del 31.05.2017 - Assunzione in apprendistato professionalizzante, senza limiti di età, di lavoratori beneficiari di indennità di mobilità ovvero di un trattamento di disoccupazione Con il messaggio n. 2243 del… Leggi tutto

Più letti Sicurezza