Table 1.
Illustrations of upper boundsa of effect at NOAELs related to 10 substances evaluated previously by JMPR or EFSA
| Substance (source +year) | Endpoint | Quantal data | Continuous data | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper bound extra risk (%)b | Upper bound percent change (%)c | |||
| Thiodicarb (JMPR, 2000) | Splenic extramedullary haematopoiesis | 21 | http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v00pr09.htm | |
| Carbaryl (JMPR, 2001) | Vascular tumours | 15 | http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/2001pr02.htm | |
| Spinosad (JMPR, 2001) | Thyroid epithelial cell vacuolation | 2.7 | http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/2001pr12.htm | |
| Flutolanil (JMPR, 2002) | Erythrocyte volume fraction | 9 | http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/2002pr07.htm | |
| Haemoglobin concentration | 9.7 | |||
| Mean corpuscular haemoglobin | 3 | |||
| Decreased cellular elements in the spleen | 30 | |||
| Metalaxyl (JMPR, 2002) | Serum alkaline phosphatase activity | 260 | http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/2002pr09.htm | |
| Serum AST | 100 | |||
| Cyprodinil (JMPR, 2003) | Spongiosis hepatis | 5.1 | http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v2003pr03.htm | |
| Famoxadone (JMPR, 2003) | Cataracts | 29 | http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v2003pr05.htm | |
| Microscopic lenticular degeneration | 29 | |||
| Tributyltin (EFSA, 2004) | Testis weight | 9.1 | http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620762916.htm | |
| Fumonisin (EFSA, 2005) | Nephrosis | 8.6 | http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620807204.htm | |
| Deoxynivalenol (EFSA, 2004) | Body weight | 10.5 | http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620763160.htm | |
| Ethyl lauroyl arginate (EFSA, 2007) | White blood cell counts | 23 | http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178622334379.htm |
a
As calculated by the Scientific Committee.
b
Two‐sided 90%‐confidence interval for extra risk was calculated by the likelihood profile method.
c
Two‐sided 90% confidence interval was calculated for the difference on log‐scale, and then transformed back, resulting in the confidence interval for per cent change (see Slob (2002) for further statistical assumptions).