Abstract
This chapter provides four hypothetical case study examples of risk assessment as they apply to (1) policy, (2) development of a reference dose concentration, (3) exposure assessment and (4) analysis of a parasiticide case study. The case study examples are not necessarily comprehensive of all risk assessment questions and considerations a risk assessor will evaluate. The examples are meant to provide the opportunity for the student to understand the application of risk assessment through case study approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Can you provide a scientific basis for the selection of the highest dose used in these studies? Hint: think about the dose of the final product that is used!
- 2.
Student challenge: why would this be so? What do micronucleus tests actually measure? What are some of the key assumptions made when micronucleus tests are used to detect mutagens that non-clastogenic at low doses?
- 3.
Student challenge: what is meant by “cumulative skin irritant”? How does this differ from an acute skin irritant or a skin corrosive?
- 4.
Student challenge: since this product will be used topically and the only likely occupational exposure will also be dermal exposure, can you think of a reason as to why an oral dose response assessment and oral risk assessment is being performed?
- 5.
Student challenge: why is it so difficult to obtain accurate information regarding the shape of mutagenesis dose response curves at very low dose levels? Hint: read about the mega-experiments for mutagenesis and carcinogenesis.
References
2002/95/ EC Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Official Journal of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:174:0088:0110:en:pdf
Arias PA (2001) Brominated flame retardants—an overview. The Second International Workshop on Brominated Flame Retardants, Stockholm
ATSDR (2010) Agency for toxic substances and disease registry. Toxicological profile for Ethylene Glycol and propylene glycol. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA
Birnbaum LS, Staskal DF (2004) Brominated flame retardants: cause for concern? Environ Health Perspect 112(1):9–17
Dagani MJ, Barda HJ, Benya TJ, Sanders DC (2002) Bromine compounds. In: Ullmann’s enclyclopedia of industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim. doi:10.1002/14356007.a04_405
Gilbert SG (2005) Public health and the precautionary principle. University of Washington School of Public Health & Community Medicine. Viewpoint
Snellings WM, Corley RA, McMartin KE, Kirman CR, Bobst SM (2013) Oral reference dose for Ethylene Glycol based on oxalate crystal-induced renal tubule degeneration as the critical effect. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 65(2):229–241
Swaen GMH (2006) A framework for using epidemiological data for risk assessment. Hum Exp Toxicol 25:147–155
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bobst, S., Torres, J., Cope, R. (2015). Case Studies Chapter. In: Torres, J., Bobst, S. (eds) Toxicological Risk Assessment for Beginners. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12751-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12751-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12750-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12751-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)