General Toxicology Takehome final Part A In general, exposure to a chemical and actually being harmed by it are two different

t things. Often, chemicals are only toxic if absorbed under sufficient quantities and conditions. Risk assessment aims to connect these two concepts. Risk assessment is the process by which scientists can determine the likelihood and severity of adverse effects that caused by certain levels of exposure. The process of risk assessment for any single chemical is four-fold: hazard identification, toxicology, exposure evaluation, and finally, risk characterization. The first step, hazard identification, looks at the chemicals physical properties, structure, as well as literature regarding similar compounds (if any) to find whether the chemical even has the potential to harm humans. For example, this first step would find that a chemical such as water is quite innocuous, while something like petroleum might be a cause for more concern. The next step, toxicology, establishes the relationship between exposure to the chemical and the potential adverse effects. How much or how little exposure is needed to cause the adverse effect? What is the NOAEL, or highest dose that does not elicit an adverse effect? What is the LOAEL, or the lowest dose that does elicit an adverse effect? What dose (ED50) is required to cause a 50% response? These metrics help identify a threshold exposure level, below which there is no reasonable expectation of adverse effect, and above which an adverse effect is expected. The third step, exposure evaluation, aims to see whether the chemicals normal exposure rate to humans is above or below the threshold discovered in the second step. This step is important because it applies the laboratory findings to the real world: a chemical might be extremely toxic at a very high exposure level, but this information is moot if such an exposure level is never encountered in real life. Factors such as duration of exposure, concentration of exposure, and the populations of people exposed are directly considered here, with special attention often paid to populations who are genetically more susceptible to the chemical. And finally, the fourth step, risk characterization, serves to quantify the level of risk into numbers that can be compared to one another. This can be either absolute (e.g. # of cases per year), or relative (# of cases per 100,000 people). Another entirely different approach is to use point estimates, which is the ratio between the exposure concentration and the NOAEL; a ratio less than one signifies no risk, while a ratio higher than one signifies risk. The key difference between risk assessment and risk management is that the former is purely a metric and a recommendation of action from a pure health standpoint, while the latter is an ultimate course of action that requires consideration of economic, ethical, social, and political factors as will. For this reason, risk management can sometimes take very different directions than the risk assessment would suggest. For instance, risk assessment indicates cigarettes should definitely be removed from the market. But is removing cigarettes really feasible? In the off chance that you manage to circumvent the tobacco company lobbying efforts and ban cigarettes, what will all the people working in the tobacco industry do? And what about all the smokers already addicted to cigarettes; is there an safer alternative for them? For that reason, even though we know cigarettes to cause cancer and heart disease, the US Government has made a major move against cigarettes on the market.

Part B. Hazard Identification: Clearly, the toxicant has the potential to cause significant toxicity. In this case, it is acute renal failure; elevated serum creatinine and lowered urine output are both indicative of acute renal failure. Toxicology: According to the data given, the NOAEL level for this toxicant is around 10 micrograms/ml. At and below this exposure level, serum creatinine and urine output show no significant deviation relative to the control. Exposure evaluation: It is provided that normal human exposure is 0.1 micrograms/ml. This is two orders of magnitude below the NOAEL exposure level. Risk characterization: Using point estimation, the exposure concentration/NOAEL concentration yields a ratio of 1/100, which is a good deal less than 1. This means there is relatively little risk of this chemical causing adverse effects. The chemical does not present a risk to human health at the projected human exposure level.