Words Matter in Toxicology and Risk Assessment as They Impact Risk Communication

Clicks: 1
ID: 317300
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #122 of 123 articles by views in toxicological sciences : an official journal of the society of toxicology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 123 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Clear, consistent language is essential in toxicology and risk assessment because terminology directly affects risk communication and understanding. The original concept of a “No Harm Dose of Reasonable Certainty” (NHDoRC) for an amount of chemical to which people can be exposed without detrimental effects is a plain language expression that clearly describes regulatory intent. However, the subsequent introduction and use of many related technical terms, such as NOAEL, BMD, RP and PoD, with almost the same meaning, can confuse non-experts and even scientists working in different regulatory entities. Similarly, ADI, RfD, TDI, MRL, HBGV and RV are all different abbreviations used in toxicology and risk assessment to describe the “acceptable” human dose in the context of food, water, and environmental chemicals. Likewise, the frequent use of terms such as margin of exposure (MoE) and margin of safety (MoS) interchangeably further complicates communication, as they are mathematically (and toxicologically) quite different. NOAEL and BMD10 are sometimes used interchangeably, but they usually represent two different points on the dose-response curve. Because of the many complications in the terminology used in risk assessment, a committee should be established to harmonize terminology across agencies and the wider risk assessment community, including industry and academia. The recommendations from such a committee would improve clarity, transparency, regulatory efficiency, and public trust in chemical risk assessment.
Reference Key
openalex_W7164862607 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Curtis D. Klaassen
Journal toxicological sciences : an official journal of the society of toxicology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/toxsci/kfag074
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfag074
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.