Permissible concentrations of chemicals in air and water derived from RTECS entries: a "rash" chemical scoring system.

Many chemicals are of concern to human health, but only a few have epidemiologically derived risk estimates. About 45,000 chemicals are listed in RTECS, most of which have had some testing in subhuman models. RTECS entries range from cellular effects through organoleptic damage to lethality, with many pathological endpoints listed, including mutagenic changes, irritation, teratogenesis, cancer, mortality, etc. However, it is difficult to extend any biological test results to human risk assessments. If the results are extended, the degree of validity is highly uncertain. This paper describes a logical basis for using the entire complex spectrum of test results to evaluate the overall toxicological potency of a chemical to be assayed (i.e., an interviewing chemical) and describes how to derive tentative, permissible concentrations in air and water for any particular chemical for which no regulatory guidance exists. This approach has been tested for 16 reference chemicals discussed in NIOSH Criteria Documents, EPA-CAG reports, etc. The evaluations are uncomplicated, but occasionally it is difficult to match RTECS entries for two different chemicals. Difficult comparisons may require some familiarity with experimental design and the toxicological literature. One important product of this novel approach is that a distribution or array of potency values is obtained for any chemical evaluated. This distribution reflects many uncertainties stemming from low statistical power, experimental design, pharmacological processes, interspecies variability, dose rate, biological effect monitored, route of treatment, etc. The array of relative values for a particular chemical reflects many different biological and physical conditions. The distribution of the array helps to index a composite toxicological profile for many different biological effects resulting from numerous treatment protocols. To minimize the effect of extreme sensitivity of certain (perhaps novel) biological test models, possible errors in the RTECS data-base, and possible human pharmacological insensitivity to a particular chemical and/or a particular route of administration, we consider the interquartile range (i.e., the central 50%) of the array of relative potency values between two chemicals being compared as a practical measure of uncertainty. Thus, the range in response derived from variability in relative potency should be useful in addressing the range of response in man as estimated from extrapolations of test data.