Derivation of no significant risk levels for three lower acrylates: Conclusions and recommendations from an expert panel.

A panel of toxicology, mode of action (MOA), and cancer risk assessment experts was engaged to derive no-significant-risk-levels (NSRLs) for three lower acrylates: methyl acrylate (MA), ethyl acrylate (EA), and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2EHA) using the best available science, data, and methods. The review was structured as a five-round, modified Delphi format, a systematic process for collecting independent and deliberative input from panel members, and it included several procedural elements to reduce potential sources of bias and groupthink. Input from the panel for key decisions in the dose-response assessments resulted in NSRL values of 530 μg/day (330-800 μg/day), 640 μg/day (280-670 μg/day), and 1700 μg/day (1300-2700 μg/day) for MA, EA, and 2EHA, respectively.

Cancer weight of evidence for three lower acrylates: Conclusions and recommendations from an expert panel.

An international panel of experts was engaged to assess the cancer weight of evidence (WOE) for three lower acrylates: methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate. The review was structured as a three-round, modified Delphi format, a systematic process for collecting independent and deliberative input from panel members, and it included procedural elements to reduce bias and groupthink. Based upon the available science, the panel concluded: (1) The MOA for point of contact tumors observed in rodent cancer bioassays that is best supported by available data involves increased cell replication by cytotoxicity and regenerative proliferation; (2) The WOE supports a cancer classification of "Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" a conclusion that is more in line with an IARC classification of Group 3 rather than Group 2 B; (3) Quantitative cancer potency values based on rodent tumor data are not required for these chemicals; and (4) Human health risk assessment for these chemicals should instead rely on non-cancer, precursor endpoints observed at the point of contact (e.

Is the 90-day dog study necessary for pesticide toxicity testing?

When registering a new pesticide, 90-day oral toxicity studies performed with both rodent and non-rodent species, typically rats and dogs, are part of a standard battery of animal tests required in most countries for human health risk assessment (RA). This analysis set out to determine the need for the 90-day dog study in RA by reviewing data from 195 pesticides evaluated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) from 1998 through 2021. The dog study was used in RA for only 42 pesticides, mostly to set the point of departure (POD) for shorter-term non-dietary pesticide exposures.

A new approach to the classification of carcinogenicity.

Concern over substances that may cause cancer has led to various classification schemes to recognize carcinogenic threats and provide a basis to manage those threats. The least useful schemes have a binary choice that declares a substance carcinogenic or not. This overly simplistic approach ignores the complexity of cancer causation by considering neither how the substance causes cancer, nor the potency of that mode of action.

The codification of hazard and its impact on the hazard versus risk controversy.

The long running controversy about the relative merits of hazard-based versus risk-based approaches has been investigated. There are three levels of hazard codification: level 1 divides chemicals into dichotomous bands of hazardous and non-hazardous; level 2 divides chemicals into bands of hazard based on severity and/or potency; and level 3 places each chemical on a continuum of hazard based on severity and/or potency. Any system which imposes compartments onto a continuum will give rise to issues at the boundaries, especially with only two compartments.