Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288:reg:11:p8
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 11 (pt 8/9)
Character Range: 2285962–2289556

respect to oral exposures, the more recent review by WHO (2011) is considered appropriate (and most current) and adequately protective of the most critical health effects. The threshold value recommended is considered adequately protective of hypersensitivity responses that may be associated with oral (and dermal) exposures.
With respect to inhalation exposures a number of evaluations are available that consider LOAELs/NOAELs that are similar, with the application of different uncertainty factors. It is recommended that the evaluation provided by EA (2009b) be adopted, where the lower threshold value of 0.02 µg/m3 is adopted, and is consistent with guidelines derived using a non-threshold approach (at an excess lifetime cancer risk level of 1 in 100,000).

    11.4.3     Recommendation
On the basis of the discussion above, the following toxicity reference values (TRVs) have been adopted for nickel in the derivation of HILs:

11.5          Calculated HILs
On the basis of the above, the following HILs have been derived for nickel (refer to Appendix B for equations used to calculate the HILs and Appendix C for calculations):
HIL Scenario            HIL (mg/kg)                      Percentage Contribution from Exposure Pathways
Ingestion of Soil/Dust  Ingestion of Home-grown Produce  Dermal Absorption of Soil/Dust                  Inhalation (dust)
Residential A           400                              55                                              26                 4   15
Residential B           1200                             42                                              --                 11  47
Recreational C          1200                             80                                              --                 11  9
Commercial D            6000                             30                                              --                 11  59

-- Pathway not included in derivation of HIL

11.6          References
ATSDR 1997, Toxicological Profile for Nickel. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
ATSDR 2005, Toxicological Profile for Nickel, US Department of Health and Human Services, ATSDR, available from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp.asp?id=245&tid=44.
DEC 2003, Ambient Air Quality Research Project (1996-2001), Internal working paper no. 4, Ambient concentrations of heavy metals in NSW, Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW).EA 2009a, Soil Guideline Values for Nickel in soil, Science report SC05021/Nickel SGV, 2009.
EA 2009b, Contaminants of soil: updated collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans, Nickel, Science report: SC050021/TOX8, May 2009.
EPAQS 2008, Consultation on guidelines for metals and metalloids in ambient air for the protection of human health, May 2008, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, London, UK.
FSANZ 2008, The 22nd Australian Total Diet Study, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.
Health Canada 1994, Nickel and its compounds, Priority Substances List Assessment Report.
IARC 2012, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 100. Part C: A Review of Human Carcinogens: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts, World Health Organization and International Agency for Research on Cancer. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100C/mono100C-6.pdf.
IARC 1999, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Chromium, Nickel and Welding. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer 49, Lyons,