| Autor: |
Doe, John E., Boobis, Alan R., Cohen, Samuel M., Dellarco, Vicki L., Fenner-Crisp, Penelope A., Moretto, Angelo, Pastoor, Timothy P., Schoeny, Rita S., Seed, Jennifer G., Wolf, Douglas C. |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Archives of Toxicology; Nov2021, Vol. 95 Issue 11, p3611-3621, 11p |
| Abstrakt: |
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. Level 1 schemes are only justifiable if there is no variation in severity, or potency or if there is no threshold. This is the assumption implicit in GHS/EU classification for carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity. However, this assumption has been challenged. Codification level 2 hazard assessments offer a range of choices and reduce the built-in conflict inherent in the level 1 process. Level 3 assessments allow a full range of choices between the extremes and reduce the built-in conflict even more. The underlying reason for the controversy between hazard and risk is the use of level 1 hazard codification schemes in situations where there are ranges of severity and potency which require the use of level 2 or level 3 hazard codification. There is not a major difference between level 2 and level 3 codification, and they can both be used to select appropriate risk management options. Existing level 1 codification schemes should be reviewed and developed into level 2 schemes where appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink