Compliance Versus Risk in Assessing Occupational Exposures

Assessments of occupational exposures to chemicals are generally based upon the practice of compliance testing in which the probability of compliance is related to the exceedance [γ, the likelihood that any measurement would exceed an occupational exposure limit (OEL)] and the number of measurements obtained. On the other hand, workers’ chronic health risks generally depend upon cumulative lifetime exposures which are not directly related to the probability of compliance. In this paper we define the probability of “overexposure” (θ) as the likelihood that individual risk (a function of cumulative exposure) exceeds the risk inherent in the OEL (a function of the OEL and duration of exposure). We regard θ as a relevant measure of individual risk for chemicals, such as carcinogens, which produce chronic effects after long-term exposures but not necessarily for acutely-toxic substances which can produce effects relatively quickly. We apply a random-effects model to data from 179 groups of workers, exposed to a variety of chemical agents, and obtain parameter estimates for the group mean exposure and the within- and between-worker components of variance. These estimates are then combined with OELs to generate estimates of γ and θ. We show that compliance testing can significantly underestimate the health risk when sample sizes are small. That is, there can be large probabilities of compliance with typical sample sizes, despite the fact that large proportions of the working population have individual risks greater than the risk inherent in the OEL. We demonstrate further that, because the relationship between θ and γ depends upon the within- and between-worker components of variance, it cannot be assumed a priori that exceedance is a conservative surrogate for overexposure. Thus, we conclude that assessment practices which focus upon either compliance or exceedance are problematic and recommend that employers evaluate exposures relative to the probabilities of overexposure.     

Peak Exposures in Epidemiologic Studies and Cancer Risks: Considerations for Regulatory Risk Assessment

We review approaches for characterizing “peak” exposures in epidemiologic studies and methods for incorporating peak exposure metrics in dose–response assessments that contribute to risk assessment. The focus was on potential etiologic relations between environmental chemical exposures and cancer risks. We searched the epidemiologic literature on environmental chemicals classified as carcinogens in which cancer risks were described in relation to “peak” exposures. These articles were evaluated to identify some of the challenges associated with defining and describing cancer risks in relation to peak exposures. We found that definitions of peak exposure varied considerably across studies. Of nine chemical agents included in our review of peak exposure, six had epidemiologic data used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in dose–response assessments to derive inhalation unit risk values. These were benzene, formaldehyde, styrene, trichloroethylene, acrylonitrile, and ethylene oxide. All derived unit risks relied on cumulative exposure for dose–response estimation and none, to our knowledge, considered peak exposure metrics. This is not surprising, given the historical linear no‐threshold default model (generally based on cumulative exposure) used in regulatory risk assessments. With newly proposed US EPA rule language, fuller consideration of alternative exposure and dose–response metrics will be supported. “Peak” exposure has not been consistently defined and rarely has been evaluated in epidemiologic studies of cancer risks. We recommend developing uniform definitions of “peak” exposure to facilitate fuller evaluation of dose response for environmental chemicals and cancer risks, especially where mechanistic understanding indicates that the dose response is unlikely linear and that short‐term high‐intensity exposures increase risk.     

Interindividual Variation in Source-Specific Doses is a Determinant of Health Impacts of Combined Chemical Exposures

All individuals are exposed to multiple chemicals from multiple sources. These combined exposures are a concern because they may cause adverse effects that would not occur from an exposure recieved from any single source. Studies of combined chemical exposures, however, have found that the risks posed by such combined exposures are almost always driven by exposures from a few chemicals and sources and frequently by a single chemical from a single source. Here, a series of computer simulations of combined exposures are used to investigate when multiple sources of chemicals drive the largest risks in a population and when a single chemical from a single source is responsible for the largest risks. The analysis found that combined exposures drive the largest risks when the interindividual variation of source-specific doses is small, moderate-to-high correlations occur between the source-specific doses, and the number of sources affecting an individual varies across individuals. These findings can be used to identify sources with the greatest potential to cause combined exposures of concern.     

Quantifying Cancer Risk from Radiation

Complex statistical models fitted to data from studies of atomic bomb survivors are used to estimate the human health effects of ionizing radiation exposures. We describe and illustrate an approach to estimate population risks from ionizing radiation exposure that relaxes many assumptions about radiation‐related mortality. The approach draws on developments in methods for causal inference. The results offer a different way to quantify radiation's effects and show that conventional estimates of the population burden of excess cancer at high radiation doses are driven strongly by projecting outside the range of current data. Summary results obtained using the proposed approach are similar in magnitude to those obtained using conventional methods, although estimates of radiation‐related excess cancers differ for many age, sex, and dose groups. At low doses relevant to typical exposures, the strength of evidence in data is surprisingly weak. Statements regarding human health effects at low doses rely strongly on the use of modeling assumptions.     

Characterizing Risk for Cumulative Risk Assessments

In assessing environmental health risks, the risk characterization step synthesizes information gathered in evaluating exposures to stressors together with dose–response relationships, characteristics of the exposed population, and external environmental conditions. This article summarizes key steps of a cumulative risk assessment (CRA) followed by a discussion of considerations for characterizing cumulative risks. Cumulative risk characterizations differ considerably from single chemical‐ or single source‐based risk characterization. CRAs typically focus on a specific population instead of a pollutant or pollutant source and should include an evaluation of all relevant sources contributing to the exposures in the population and other factors that influence dose–response relationships. Second, CRAs may include influential environmental and population‐specific conditions, involving multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors. Third, a CRA could examine multiple health effects, reflecting joint toxicity and the potential for toxicological interactions. Fourth, the complexities often necessitate simplifying methods, including judgment‐based and semi‐quantitative indices that collapse disparate data into numerical scores. Fifth, because of the higher dimensionality and potentially large number of interactions, information needed to quantify risk is typically incomplete, necessitating an uncertainty analysis. Three approaches that could be used for characterizing risks in a CRA are presented: the multiroute hazard index, stressor grouping by exposure and toxicity, and indices for screening multiple factors and conditions. Other key roles of the risk characterization in CRAs are also described, mainly the translational aspect of including a characterization summary for lay readers (in addition to the technical analysis), and placing the results in the context of the likely risk‐based decisions.     

Bounding Analysis of Drinking Water Health Risks from a Spill of Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Water

A bounding risk assessment is presented that evaluates possible human health risk from a hypothetical scenario involving a 10,000‐gallon release of flowback water from horizontal fracturing of Marcellus Shale. The water is assumed to be spilled on the ground, infiltrates into groundwater that is a source of drinking water, and an adult and child located downgradient drink the groundwater. Key uncertainties in estimating risk are given explicit quantitative treatment using Monte Carlo analysis. Chemicals that contribute significantly to estimated health risks are identified, as are key uncertainties and variables to which risk estimates are sensitive. The results show that hypothetical exposure via drinking water impacted by chemicals in Marcellus Shale flowback water, assumed to be spilled onto the ground surface, results in predicted bounds between 10⁻¹⁰ and 10⁻⁶ (for both adult and child receptors) for excess lifetime cancer risk. Cumulative hazard indices (HI_CUMULATIVE) resulting from these hypothetical exposures have predicted bounds (5th to 95th percentile) between 0.02 and 35 for assumed adult receptors and 0.1 and 146 for assumed child receptors. Predicted health risks are dominated by noncancer endpoints related to ingestion of barium and lithium in impacted groundwater. Hazard indices above unity are largely related to exposure to lithium. Salinity taste thresholds are likely to be exceeded before drinking water exposures result in adverse health effects. The findings provide focus for policy discussions concerning flowback water risk management. They also indicate ways to improve the ability to estimate health risks from drinking water impacted by a flowback water spill (i.e., reducing uncertainty).     

A Bayesian Semiparametric Model for Radiation Dose‐Response Estimation

In evaluating the risk of exposure to health hazards, characterizing the dose‐response relationship and estimating acceptable exposure levels are the primary goals. In analyses of health risks associated with exposure to ionizing radiation, while there is a clear agreement that moderate to high radiation doses cause harmful effects in humans, little has been known about the possible biological effects at low doses, for example, below 0.1 Gy, which is the dose range relevant to most radiation exposures of concern today. A conventional approach to radiation dose‐response estimation based on simple parametric forms, such as the linear nonthreshold model, can be misleading in evaluating the risk and, in particular, its uncertainty at low doses. As an alternative approach, we consider a Bayesian semiparametric model that has a connected piece‐wise‐linear dose‐response function with prior distributions having an autoregressive structure among the random slope coefficients defined over closely spaced dose categories. With a simulation study and application to analysis of cancer incidence data among Japanese atomic bomb survivors, we show that this approach can produce smooth and flexible dose‐response estimation while reasonably handling the risk uncertainty at low doses and elsewhere. With relatively few assumptions and modeling options to be made by the analyst, the method can be particularly useful in assessing risks associated with low‐dose radiation exposures.     

Comparative Risk and Policy Analysis in Environmental Health

There is increasing interest in the integration of quantitative risk analysis with benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness methods to evaluate environmental health policy making and perform comparative analyses. However, the combined use of these methods has revealed deficiencies in the available methods, and the lack of useful analytical frameworks currently constrains the utility of comparative risk and policy analyses. A principal issue in integrating risk and economic analysis is the lack of common performance metrics, particularly when conducting comparative analyses of regulations with disparate health endpoints (e.g., cancer and noncancer effects or risk-benefit analysis) and quantitative estimation of cumulative risk, whether from exposure to single agents with multiple health impacts or from exposure to mixtures. We propose a general quantitative framework and examine assumptions required for performing analyses of health risks and policies. We review existing and proposed risk and health-impact metrics for evaluating policies designed to protect public health from environmental exposures, and identify their strengths and weaknesses with respect to their use in a general comparative risk and policy analysis framework. Case studies are presented to demonstrate applications of this framework with risk-benefit and air pollution risk analyses. Through this analysis, we hope to generate discussions regarding the data requirements, analytical approaches, and assumptions required for general models to be used in comparative risk and policy analysis.     

Cancer Risk Estimation of Genotoxic Chemicals Based on Target Dose and a Multiplicative Model

A mechanistic model and associated procedures are proposed for cancer risk assessment of genotoxic chemicals. As previously shown for ionizing radiation, a linear multiplicative model was found to be compatible with published experimental data for ethylene oxide, acrylamide, and butadiene. The validity of this model was anticipated in view of the multiplicative interaction of mutation with inherited and acquired growth-promoting conditions. Concurrent analysis led to rejection of an additive model (i.e. the model commonly applied for cancer risk assessment). A reanalysis of data for radiogenic cancer in mouse, dog and man shows that the relative risk coefficient is approximately the same (0.4 to 0.5 percent per rad) for tumours induced in the three species.Doses in vivo, defined as the time-integrated concentrations of ultimate mutagens, expressed in millimol × kg^–1 × h (mMh) are, like radiation doses given in Gy or rad, proportional to frequencies of potentially mutagenic events. The radiation dose equivalents of chemical doses are, calculated by multiplying chemical doses (in mMh) with the relative genotoxic potencies (in rad × mMh^–1) determined in vitro. In this way the relative cancer incidence increments in rats and mice exposed to ethylene oxide were shown to be about 0.4 percent per rad-equivalent, in agreement with the data for radiogenic cancer.Our analyses suggest that values of the relative risk coefficients for genotoxic chemicals are independent of species and that relative cancer risks determined in animal tests apply also to humans. If reliable animal test data are not available, cancer risks may be estimated by the relative potency. In both cases exposure dose/target dose relationships, the latter via macromolecule adducts, should be determined.     

Consideration of Background Exposures in the Management of Hazardous Waste Sites: A New Approach to Risk Assessment

The current approach to health risk assessment of toxic waste sites in the U.S. may lead to considerable expenditure of resources without any meaningful reduction in population exposure. Risk assessment methods used generally ignore background exposures and consider only incremental risk estimates for maximally exposed individuals. Such risk estimates do not address true public health risks to which background exposures also contribute. The purpose of this paper is to recommend a new approach to risk assessment and risk management concerning toxic waste sites. Under this new approach, which we have called public health risk assessment, chemical substances would be classified into a level of concern based on the potential health risks associated with typical national and regional background exposures. Site assessment would then be based on the level of concern for the particular pollutants involved and the potential contribution of site contaminants to typical background human exposures. While various problems can be foreseen with this approach, the key advantage is that resources would be allocated to reduce the most important sources of human exposure, and site remediation decisions could be simplified by focussing on exposure assessment rather than questionable risk extrapolations.     

Regulating Chemicals—From Risks to Riskiness

Under current European Union legislation, action to restrict the production and use of a chemical is only justified if there is evidence that the chemical poses a risk to human health or the environment. Risk is understood as being a matter of the magnitude and probability of specifiable harms. An examination of how risks from chemicals are assessed shows the process to be fraught with uncertainty, with the result that evidence that commands agreement as to whether a chemical poses a risk or not is often not available. Hence the frequent disputes as to whether restrictions on chemicals are justified. Rather than trying to assess the risks from a chemical, I suggest that we should aim to assess how risky a chemical is in a more everyday sense, where riskiness is a matter of the possibility of harm. Risky chemicals are those where, given our state of knowledge, it is possible that they cause harm. I discuss four things that make a chemical more risky: (1) its capacity to cause harm; (2) its novelty; (3) its persistence; and (4) its mobility. Regulation of chemicals should aim to reduce the production and use of risky chemicals by requiring that the least risky substance or method is always used for any particular purpose. Any use of risky substances should be justifiable in terms of the public benefits of that use.     

Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs: part 2--Noncancer effects.

In Part 1 of this article we developed an approach for the calculation of cancer effect measures for life cycle assessment (LCA). In this article, we propose and evaluate the method for the screening of noncancer toxicological health effects. This approach draws on the noncancer health risk assessment concept of benchmark dose, while noting important differences with regulatory applications in the objectives of an LCA study. We adopt the centraltendency estimate of the toxicological effect dose inducing a 10% response over background, ED10, to provide a consistent point of departure for default linear low-dose response estimates (betaED10). This explicit estimation of low-dose risks, while necessary in LCA, is in marked contrast to many traditional procedures for noncancer assessments. For pragmatic reasons, mechanistic thresholds and nonlinear low-dose response curves were not implemented in the presented framework. In essence, for the comparative needs of LCA, we propose that one initially screens alternative activities or products on the degree to which the associated chemical emissions erode their margins of exposure, which may or may not be manifested as increases in disease incidence. We illustrate the method here by deriving the betaED10 slope factors from bioassay data for 12 chemicals and outline some of the possibilities for extrapolation from other more readily available measures, such as the no observable adverse effect levels (NOAEL), avoiding uncertainty factors that lead to inconsistent degrees of conservatism from chemical to chemical. These extrapolations facilitated the initial calculation of slope factors for an additional 403 compounds; ranging from 10(-6) to 10(3) (risk per mg/kg-day dose). The potential consequences of the effects are taken into account in a preliminary approach by combining the betaED10 with the severity measure disability adjusted life years (DALY), providing a screening-level estimate of the potential consequences associated with exposures, integrated over time and space, to a given mass of chemical released into the environment for use in LCA.     

A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Risks of Human Disease Following Exposure to Pathogens

Currently, risk assessments of the potential human health effects associated with exposure to pathogens are utilizing the conceptual framework that was developed to assess risks associated with chemical exposures. However, the applicability of the chemical framework is problematic due to many issues that are unique to assessing risks associated with pathogens. These include, but are not limited to, an assessment of pathogen/host interactions, consideration of secondary spread, consideration of short- and long-term immunity, and an assessment of conditions that allow the microorganism to propagate. To address this concern, a working group was convened to develop a conceptual framework to assess the risks of human disease associated with exposure to pathogenic microorganisms. The framework that was developed consists of three phases: problem formulation, analysis (which includes characterization of exposure and human health effects), and risk characterization. The framework emphasizes the dynamic and iterative nature of the risk assessment process, and allows wide latitude for planning and conducting risk assessments in diverse situations, each based on the common principles discussed in the framework.     

Assessing Cancer Risks from Short-Term Exposures in Children

For the vast majority of chemicals that have cancer potency estimates on IRIS, the underlying database is deficient with respect to early-life exposures. This data gap has prevented derivation of cancer potency factors that are relevant to this time period, and so assessments may not fully address children's risks. This article provides a review of juvenile animal bioassay data in comparison to adult animal data for a broad array of carcinogens. This comparison indicates that short-term exposures in early life are likely to yield a greater tumor response than short-term exposures in adults, but similar tumor response when compared to long-term exposures in adults. This evidence is brought into a risk assessment context by proposing an approach that: (1) does not prorate children's exposures over the entire life span or mix them with exposures that occur at other ages; (2) applies the cancer slope factor from adult animal or human epidemiology studies to the children's exposure dose to calculate the cancer risk associated with the early-life period; and (3) adds the cancer risk for young children to that for older children/adults to yield a total lifetime cancer risk. The proposed approach allows for the unique exposure and pharmacokinetic factors associated with young children to be fully weighted in the cancer risk assessment. It is very similar to the approach currently used by U.S. EPA for vinyl chloride. The current analysis finds that the database of early life and adult cancer bioassays supports extension of this approach from vinyl chloride to other carcinogens of diverse mode of action. This approach should be enhanced by early-life data specific to the particular carcinogen under analysis whenever possible.     

Health Risks of Energy Systems

Health risks from fossil, renewable and nuclear reference energy systems are estimated following a detailed impact pathway approach. Using a set of appropriate air quality models and exposure-effect functions derived from the recent epidemiological literature, a methodological framework for risk assessment has been established and consistently applied across the different energy systems, including the analysis of consequences from a major nuclear accident. A wide range of health impacts resulting from increased air pollution and ionizing radiation is quantified, and the transferability of results derived from specific power plants to a more general context is discussed.     

Computerized Estimates of Potential Occupational Health Risk Due to Chemical Exposure

Estimating the potential health risk encountered by workers due to their exposure to various chemicals is enormously complex, since many chemicals may be involved and each may have multiple toxic effects. As an aid to this estimation process, a computer program, or model, which computes index numbers expressing the relative health risk of occupational groups due to their potential chemical exposures was developed at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This model considers an inventory of the chemicals to which specific occupational groups are potentially exposed, the published information regarding the toxic effects of each chemical, and the conditions of occupational exposure. The system then develops indices of potential occupational group health risk by considering weighted combinations of eight distinct health effects. No direct comparison with external occupational risk indices is currently possible, but internal testing of the model reveals no obvious inconsistencies.     

Computerized Estimates of Potential Occupational Health Risk Due to Chemical Exposure

Estimating the potential health risk encountered by workers due to their exposure to various chemicals is enormously complex, since many chemicals be involved and each may have multiple toxic effects. As an aid to this estimation process, a computer program, or model, which computes index numbers expressing the relative health risk of occupational groups due to their potential chemical exposures was developed at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This model considers an inventory of the chemicals to which specific occupational groups are potentially exposed, the published information regarding the toxic effects of each chemical, and the conditions of occupational exposure. The system then develops indices of potential occupational group health risk by considering weighted combinations of eight distinct health effects. No direct comparison with external occupational risk indices is currently possible, but internal testing of the model reveals no obvious inconsistencies.     

Advances on a Decision Analytic Approach to Exposure-Based Chemical Prioritization

The volume and variety of manufactured chemicals is increasing, although little is known about the risks associated with the frequency and extent of human exposure to most chemicals. The EPA and the recent signing of the Lautenberg Act have both signaled the need for high-throughput methods to characterize and screen chemicals based on exposure potential, such that more comprehensive toxicity research can be informed. Prior work of Mitchell et al. using multicriteria decision analysis tools to prioritize chemicals for further research is enhanced here, resulting in a high-level chemical prioritization tool for risk-based screening. Reliable exposure information is a key gap in currently available engineering analytics to support predictive environmental and health risk assessments. An elicitation with 32 experts informed relative prioritization of risks from chemical properties and human use factors, and the values for each chemical associated with each metric were approximated with data from EPA's CP_CAT database. Three different versions of the model were evaluated using distinct weight profiles, resulting in three different ranked chemical prioritizations with only a small degree of variation across weight profiles. Future work will aim to include greater input from human factors experts and better define qualitative metrics.     

Which Paradigm for Managing the Risk of Ionizing Radiation?

This article tackles the problem of controversies expressed by experts in the field of estimating and managing ionizing radiation risks. We analyze the paradigms that were conceived on this subject, in particular the studies carried out by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), as well as the papers stating either that the effect of low doses is relatively weak or, on the contrary, relatively serious. Uncertainties, which taint the risk estimations, assume a particular importance because they are at the origin of the request for expert and value judgments and represent the critical point of the discussions on the ionizing radiation risks. Our study allows us to look further into the problem of the paradigm's formation, uncertainties, and expert and value judgments, and provides areas for consideration that may contribute to a better understanding of certain gridlocks in the decision-making process, as regards to environmental, health, and energy policies.     

Do Interactions Between Environmental Chemicals and the Human Microbiome Need to Be Considered in Risk Assessments?

One of the most dynamic and fruitful areas of current health‐related research concerns the various roles of the human microbiome in disease. Evidence is accumulating that interactions between substances in the environment and the microbiome can affect risks of disease, in both beneficial and adverse ways. Although most of the research has concerned the roles of diet and certain pharmaceutical agents, there is increasing interest in the possible roles of environmental chemicals. Chemical risk assessment has, to date, not included consideration of the influence of the microbiome. We suggest that failure to consider the possible roles of the microbiome could lead to significant error in risk assessment results. Our purpose in this commentary is to summarize some of the evidence supporting our hypothesis and to urge the risk assessment community to begin considering and influencing how results from microbiome‐related research could be incorporated into chemical risk assessments. An additional emphasis in our commentary concerns the distinct possibility that research on chemical–microbiome interactions will also reduce some of the significant uncertainties that accompany current risk assessments. Of particular interest is evidence suggesting that the microbiome has an influence on variability in disease risk across populations and (of particular interest to chemical risk) in animal and human responses to chemical exposure. The possible explanatory power of the microbiome regarding sources of variability could reduce what might be the most significant source of uncertainty in chemical risk assessment.