Replacing the Default Values of 10 With Data-Derived Values: A Comparison of Two Different Data-Derived Uncertainty Factors for Boron

Abstract

A “safe” or sub-threshold dose is often estimated for oral toxicity of substances in order to protect humans from adverse health effects. This dose is referred to by several terms: reference dose (RfD), tolerable daily intake (TDI), and acceptable daily intake (ADI). Similarly, tolerable concentration (TC), and reference concentration (RfC) are commonly used terms for a “safe” concentration for inhalation. The process of deriving these doses generally involves identifying a no observed, or lowest observed adverse effect level (NOAEL or LOAEL) in animals, or humans, and application of uncertainty factors to account for the extrapolation from laboratory animals to humans and/or from an average human to a sensitive human. Public health agencies have begun to consider using a data derived approach, which uses available toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data in the determination of uncertainty factors, rather than relying on the standard default values. Recently two different tolerable daily intake risk values were derived by two different World Health Organization (WHO) work groups. The International Programme on Chemical Safety, and the Working Group on Chemical Substances in Drinking Water both used the approach developed by Renwick (1993); however, the two groups interpreted and used the available data differently. The result was a difference of over twofold in the total uncertainty factor used. This review compares and contrasts the two approaches used by these WHO work groups.