Determining “safe” levels of exposure: The validity of the use of 10X safety factors

The current guideline for risk assessment of chemicals having a toxic end point routinely uses the reference dose (RfD) approach based on uncertainty factors of 10. With this method the quality of individual risk assessment varies among chemicals, often resulting in either an over‐ or under‐estimation of adverse health risk. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate whether the magnitude of the 10X uncertainty factors have scientific merit against data from published experimental studies. A compilation and comparison of ratios between LOAEL/NOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level/No Observed Adverse Effect Level), subchronic/chronic, and animal/human values were made. The results of the present investigation revealed that the use of default factors could be over‐conservative or unprotective. More reasonable estimates of the risk to human health would result in a reduction of unnecessary, and expensive over‐regulation. In addition to the LOAEL to NOAEL, and subchronic to chronic ratios, the adequacy of uncertainty factors for animal to human extrapolations were examined. Although a 10‐fold uncertainty factor (UF) is most commonly used in the risk assessment process, an examination of the literature for the compounds presented here suggests that the use of different values is scientifically justifiable.