Assessing Uncertainty in Simulation-Based Maritime Risk Assessment

Recent work in the assessment of risk in maritime transportation systems has used simulation-based probabilistic risk assessment techniques. In the Prince William Sound and Washington State Ferries risk assessments, the studies' recommendations were backed up by estimates of their impact made using such techniques and all recommendations were implemented. However, the level of uncertainty about these estimates was not available, leaving the decisionmakers unsure whether the evidence was sufficient to assess specific risks and benefits. The first step toward assessing the impact of uncertainty in maritime risk assessments is to model the uncertainty in the simulation models used. In this article, a study of the impact of proposed ferry service expansions in San Francisco Bay is used as a case study to demonstrate the use of Bayesian simulation techniques to propagate uncertainty throughout the analysis. The conclusions drawn in the original study are shown, in this case, to be robust to the inherent uncertainties. The main intellectual merit of this work is the development of Bayesian simulation technique to model uncertainty in the assessment of maritime risk. However, Bayesian simulations have been implemented only as theoretical demonstrations. Their use in a large, complex system may be considered state of the art in the field of computational sciences.     

Sensitivity Analysis of a Two‐Dimensional Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment: Keeping Variability and Uncertainty Separated

The aim of quantitative microbiological risk assessment is to estimate the risk of illness caused by the presence of a pathogen in a food type, and to study the impact of interventions. Because of inherent variability and uncertainty, risk assessments are generally conducted stochastically, and if possible it is advised to characterize variability separately from uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis allows to indicate to which of the input variables the outcome of a quantitative microbiological risk assessment is most sensitive. Although a number of methods exist to apply sensitivity analysis to a risk assessment with probabilistic input variables (such as contamination, storage temperature, storage duration, etc.), it is challenging to perform sensitivity analysis in the case where a risk assessment includes a separate characterization of variability and uncertainty of input variables. A procedure is proposed that focuses on the relation between risk estimates obtained by Monte Carlo simulation and the location of pseudo‐randomly sampled input variables within the uncertainty and variability distributions. Within this procedure, two methods are used—that is, an ANOVA‐like model and Sobol sensitivity indices—to obtain and compare the impact of variability and of uncertainty of all input variables, and of model uncertainty and scenario uncertainty. As a case study, this methodology is applied to a risk assessment to estimate the risk of contracting listeriosis due to consumption of deli meats.     

Mlonte Carlo Techniques for Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis in Public Health Risk Assessments

Most public health risk assessments assume and combine a series of average, conservative, and worst-case values to derive a conservative point estimate of risk. This procedure has major limitations. This paper demonstrates a new methodology for extended uncertainty analyses in public health risk assessments using Monte Carlo techniques. The extended method begins as do some conventional methods--with the preparation of a spreadsheet to estimate exposure and risk. This method, however, continues by modeling key inputs as random variables described by probability density functions (PDFs). Overall, the technique provides a quantitative way to estimate the probability distributions for exposure and health risks within the validity of the model used. As an example, this paper presents a simplified case study for children playing in soils contaminated with benzene and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).     

Quantifying Uncertainty in a Risk Assessment Using Human Data

A call for risk assessment approaches that better characterize and quantify uncertainty has been made by the scientific and regulatory community. This paper responds to that call by demonstrating a distributional approach that draws upon human data to derive potency estimates and to identify and quantify important sources of uncertainty. The approach is rooted in the science of decision analysis and employs an influence diagram, a decision tree, probabilistic weights, and a distribution of point estimates of carcinogenic potency. Its results estimate the likelihood of different carcinogenic risks (potencies) for a chemical under a specific scenario. For this exercise, human data on formaldehyde were employed to demonstrate the approach. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the relative impact of specific levels and alternatives on the potency distribution. The resulting potency estimates are compared with the results of an exercise using animal data on formaldehyde. The paper demonstrates that distributional risk assessment is readily adapted to situations in which epidemiologic data serve as the basis for potency estimates. Strengths and weaknesses of the distributional approach are discussed. Areas for further application and research are recommended.     

Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust

Some analysts suggest that discussing uncertainties in health risk assessments might reduce citizens'perceptions of risk and increase their respect for the risk-assessing agency. We tested this assumption with simulated news stories varying simple displays of uncertainty (e.g., a range of risk estimates, with and without graphics). Subjects from Eugene, Oregon, read one story each, and then answered a questionnaire. Three studies tested between 180 and 272 subjects each. Two focus groups obtained more detailed responses to these stories. The results suggested that (1) people are unfamiliar with uncertainty in risk assessments and in science; (2) people may recognize uncertainty when it is presented simply; (3) graphics may help people recognize uncertainty; (4) reactions to the environmental problems in the stories seemed affected less by presentation of uncertainty than by general risk attitudes and perceptions; (5) agency discussion of uncertainty in risk estimates may signal agency honesty and agency incompetence for some people; and (6) people seem to see lower risk estimates (10^-6, as opposed to 10^-3) as less credible. These findings, if confirmed, would have important implications for risk communication.     

A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty in Seismic Risk Assessment

A better understanding of the uncertainty that exists in models used for seismic risk assessment is critical to improving risk-based decisions pertaining to earthquake safety. Current models estimating the probability of collapse of a building do not consider comprehensively the nature and impact of uncertainty. This article presents a model framework to enhance seismic risk assessment and thus gives decisionmakers a fuller understanding of the nature and limitations of the estimates. This can help ensure that risks are not over- or underestimated and the value of acquiring accurate data is appreciated fully. The methodology presented provides a novel treatment of uncertainties in input variables, their propagation through the model, and their effect on the results. The study presents ranges of possible annual collapse probabilities for different case studies on buildings in different parts of the world, exposed to different levels of seismicity, and with different vulnerabilities. A global sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the significance of uncertain variables. Two key outcomes are (1) that the uncertainty in ground-motion conversion equations has the largest effect on the uncertainty in the calculation of annual collapse probability; and (2) the vulnerability of a building appears to have an effect on the range of annual collapse probabilities produced, i.e., the level of uncertainty in the estimate of annual collapse probability, with less vulnerable buildings having a smaller uncertainty.     

Variability in PAH-DNA Adduct Measurements in Peripheral Mononuclear Cells: Implications for Quantitative Cancer Risk Assessment

Biomarkers such as DNA adducts have significant potential to improve quantitative risk assessment by characterizing individual differences in metabolism of genotoxins and DNA repair and accounting for some of the factors that could affect interindividual variation in cancer risk. Inherent uncertainty in laboratory measurements and within-person variability of DNA adduct levels over time are putatively unrelated to cancer risk and should be subtracted from observed variation to better estimate interindividual variability of response to carcinogen exposure. A total of 41 volunteers, both smokers and nonsmokers, were asked to provide a peripheral blood sample every 3 weeks for several months in order to specifically assess intraindividual variability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-DNA adduct levels. The intraindividual variance in PAH-DNA adduct levels, together with measurement uncertainty (laboratory variability and unaccounted for differences in exposure), constituted roughly 30% of the overall variance. An estimated 70% of the total variance was contributed by interindividual variability and is probably representative of the true biologic variability of response to carcinogenic exposure in lymphocytes. The estimated interindividual variability in DNA damage after subtracting intraindividual variability and measurement uncertainty was 24-fold. Inter-individual variance was higher (52-fold) in persons who constitutively lack the Glutathione S-Transferase M1 (GSTM1) gene which is important in the detoxification pathway of PAH. Risk assessment models that do not consider the variability of susceptibility to DNA damage following carcinogen exposure may underestimate risks to the general population, especially for those people who are most vulnerable.     

Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis in Assessment of the Thyroid Cancer Risk Related to Chernobyl Fallout in Eastern France

The increase in the thyroid cancer incidence in France observed over the last 20 years has raised public concern about its association with the 1986 nuclear power plant accident at Chernobyl. At the request of French authorities, a first study sought to quantify the possible risk of thyroid cancer associated with the Chernobyl fallout in France. This study suffered from two limitations. The first involved the lack of knowledge of spontaneous thyroid cancer incidence rates (in the absence of exposure), which was especially necessary to take their trends into account for projections over time; the second was the failure to consider the uncertainties. The aim of this article is to enhance the initial thyroid cancer risk assessment for the period 1991-2007 in the area of France most exposed to the fallout (i.e., eastern France) and thereby mitigate these limitations. We consider the changes over time in the incidence of spontaneous thyroid cancer and conduct both uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. The number of spontaneous thyroid cancers was estimated from French cancer registries on the basis of two scenarios: one with a constant incidence, the other using the trend observed. Thyroid doses were estimated from all available data about contamination in France from Chernobyl fallout. Results from a 1995 pooled analysis published by Ron et al. were used to determine the dose-response relation. Depending on the scenario, the number of spontaneous thyroid cancer cases ranges from 894 (90% CI: 869-920) to 1,716 (90% CI: 1,691-1,741). The number of excess thyroid cancer cases predicted ranges from 5 (90% UI: 1-15) to 63 (90% UI: 12-180). All of the assumptions underlying the thyroid cancer risk assessment are discussed.     

Concerns,Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment

In the analysis of the risk associated to rare events that may lead to catastrophic consequences with large uncertainty, it is questionable that the knowledge and information available for the analysis can be reflected properly by probabilities. Approaches other than purely probabilistic have been suggested, for example, using interval probabilities, possibilistic measures, or qualitative methods. In this article, we look into the problem and identify a number of issues that are foundational for its treatment. The foundational issues addressed reflect on the position that “probability is perfect” and take into open consideration the need for an extended framework for risk assessment that reflects the separation that practically exists between analyst and decisionmaker.     

Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication

In the past decade, the use of probabilistic risk analysis techniques to quantitatively address variability and uncertainty in risks increased in popularity as recommended by the 1994 National Research Council that wrote Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, for example, the U.S. EPA supported the development of tools that produce distributions of risk demonstrating the variability and/or uncertainty in the results. This paradigm shift away from the use of point estimates creates new challenges for risk managers, who now struggle with decisions about how to use distributions in decision making. The challenges for risk communication, however, have only been minimally explored. This presentation uses the case studies of variability in the risks of dying on the ground from a crashing airplane and from the deployment of motor vehicle airbags to demonstrate how better characterization of variability and uncertainty in the risk assessment lead to better risk communication. Analogies to food safety and environmental risks are also discussed. This presentation demonstrates that probabilistic risk assessment has an impact on both risk management and risk communication, and highlights remaining research issues associated with using improved sensitivity and uncertainty analyses in risk assessment.     

Integrated Uncertainty Analysis for Ambient Pollutant Health Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Ozone Mortality Risk

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses health risk assessment to help inform its decisions in setting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's standard approach is to make epidemiologically‐based risk estimates based on a single statistical model selected from the scientific literature, called the “core” model. The uncertainty presented for “core” risk estimates reflects only the statistical uncertainty associated with that one model's concentration‐response function parameter estimate(s). However, epidemiologically‐based risk estimates are also subject to “model uncertainty,” which is a lack of knowledge about which of many plausible model specifications and data sets best reflects the true relationship between health and ambient pollutant concentrations. In 2002, a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) committee recommended that model uncertainty be integrated into EPA's standard risk analysis approach. This article discusses how model uncertainty can be taken into account with an integrated uncertainty analysis (IUA) of health risk estimates. It provides an illustrative numerical example based on risk of premature death from respiratory mortality due to long‐term exposures to ambient ozone, which is a health risk considered in the 2015 ozone NAAQS decision. This example demonstrates that use of IUA to quantitatively incorporate key model uncertainties into risk estimates produces a substantially altered understanding of the potential public health gain of a NAAQS policy decision, and that IUA can also produce more helpful insights to guide that decision, such as evidence of decreasing incremental health gains from progressive tightening of a NAAQS.     

Uncertainty Assessment in the Quantification of Risk Rates of Occupational Accidents

Occupational risk rates per hour of exposure have been quantified for 63 occupational accident types for the Dutch working population. Data were obtained from the analysis of more than 9,000 accidents that occurred over a period of six years in the Netherlands and resulted in three types of reportable consequences under Dutch law: (a) fatal injury, (b) permanent injury, and (c) serious recoverable injury requiring at least one day of hospitalization. A Bayesian uncertainty assessment on the value of the risk rates has been performed. Annual risks for each of the 63 occupational accident types have been calculated, including the variability in the annual exposure of the working population to the corresponding hazards. The suitability of three risk measures—individual risk rates, individual annual risk, and number of accidents—is examined and discussed.     

Sensitivity Analysis, Monte Carlo Risk Analysis, and Bayesian Uncertainty Assessment

Standard statistical methods understate the uncertainty one should attach to effect estimates obtained from observational data. Among the methods used to address this problem are sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo risk analysis (MCRA), and Bayesian uncertainty assessment. Estimates from MCRAs have been presented as if they were valid frequentist or Bayesian results, but examples show that they need not be either in actual applications. It is concluded that both sensitivity analyses and MCRA should begin with the same type of prior specification effort as Bayesian analysis.     

Uncertainty Distribution Associated with Estimating a Proportion in Microbial Risk Assessment

The uncertainty associated with estimates should be taken into account in quantitative risk assessment. Each input's uncertainty can be characterized through a probabilistic distribution for use under Monte Carlo simulations. In this study, the sampling uncertainty associated with estimating a low proportion on the basis of a small sample size was considered. A common application in microbial risk assessment is the estimation of a prevalence, proportion of contaminated food products, on the basis of few tested units. Three Bayesian approaches (based on beta(0, 0), beta(1/2, 1/2), and beta(l, 1)) and one frequentist approach (based on the frequentist confidence distribution) were compared and evaluated on the basis of simulations. For small samples, we demonstrated some differences between the four tested methods. We concluded that the better method depends on the true proportion of contaminated products, which is by definition unknown in common practice. When no prior information is available, we recommend the beta (1/2, 1/2) prior or the confidence distribution. To illustrate the importance of these differences, the four methods were used in an applied example. We performed two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the proportion of cold smoked salmon packs contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes, one dimension representing within-factory uncertainty, modeled by each of the four studied methods, and the other dimension representing variability between companies.     

Bayesian Treatment of Model Uncertainty for Partially Applicable Models

This article discusses how analyst's or expert's beliefs on the credibility and quality of models can be assessed and incorporated into the uncertainty assessment of an unknown of interest. The proposed methodology is a specialization of the Bayesian framework for the assessment of model uncertainty presented in an earlier paper. This formalism treats models as sources of information in assessing the uncertainty of an unknown, and it allows the use of predictions from multiple models as well as experimental validation data about the models’ performances. In this article, the methodology is extended to incorporate additional types of information about the model, namely, subjective information in terms of credibility of the model and its applicability when it is used outside its intended domain of application. An example in the context of fire risk modeling is also provided.     

Modeling Logistic Performance in Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment

In quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA), food safety in the food chain is modeled and simulated. In general, prevalences, concentrations, and numbers of microorganisms in media are investigated in the different steps from farm to fork. The underlying rates and conditions (such as storage times, temperatures, gas conditions, and their distributions) are determined. However, the logistic chain with its queues (storages, shelves) and mechanisms for ordering products is usually not taken into account. As a consequence, storage times—mutually dependent in successive steps in the chain—cannot be described adequately. This may have a great impact on the tails of risk distributions. Because food safety risks are generally very small, it is crucial to model the tails of (underlying) distributions as accurately as possible. Logistic performance can be modeled by describing the underlying planning and scheduling mechanisms in discrete-event modeling. This is common practice in operations research, specifically in supply chain management. In this article, we present the application of discrete-event modeling in the context of a QMRA for  Listeria monocytogenes  in fresh-cut iceberg lettuce. We show the potential value of discrete-event modeling in QMRA by calculating logistic interventions (modifications in the logistic chain) and determining their significance with respect to food safety.     

The Impact of Portfolio Location Uncertainty on Probabilistic Seismic Risk Analysis

Probabilistic seismic risk analysis is a well‐established method in the insurance industry for modeling portfolio losses from earthquake events. In this context, precise exposure locations are often unknown. However, so far, location uncertainty has not been in the focus of a large amount of research. In this article, we propose a novel framework for treatment of location uncertainty. As a case study, a large number of synthetic portfolios resembling typical real‐world cases were created. We investigate the effect of portfolio characteristics such as value distribution, portfolio size, or proportion of risk items with unknown coordinates on the variability of loss frequency estimations. The results indicate that due to loss aggregation effects and spatial hazard variability, location uncertainty in isolation and in conjunction with ground motion uncertainty can induce significant variability to probabilistic loss results, especially for portfolios with a small number of risks. After quantifying its effect, we conclude that location uncertainty should not be neglected when assessing probabilistic seismic risk, but should be treated stochastically and the resulting variability should be visualized and interpreted carefully.     

Quantitative Risk Assessment for Developmental Neurotoxic Effects

Developmental neurotoxicity concerns the adverse health effects of exogenous agents acting on neurodevelopment. Because human brain development is a delicate process involving many cellular events, the developing fetus is rather susceptible to compounds that can alter the structure and function of the brain. Today, there is clear evidence that early exposure to many neurotoxicants can severely damage the developing nervous system. Although in recent years, there has been much attention given to model development and risk assessment procedures for developmental toxicants, the area of developmental neurotoxicity has been largely ignored. Here, we consider the problem of risk estimation for developmental neurotoxicants from animal bioassay data. Since most responses from developmental neurotoxicity experiments are nonquantal in nature, an adverse health effect will be defined as a response that occurs with very small probability in unexposed animals. Using a two-stage hierarchical normal dose-response model, upper confidence limits on the excess risk due to a given level of added exposure are derived. Equivalently, the model is used to obtain lower confidence limits on dose for a small negligible level of risk. Our method is based on the asymptotic distribution of the likelihood ratio statistic (cf. Crump, 1995). An example is used to provide further illustration.     

Uncertainty and Variability Analysis in Multiplicative Risk Models

Currently, there is a trend away from the use of single (often conservative) estimates of risk to summarize the results of risk analyses in favor of stochastic methods which provide a more complete characterization of risk. The use of such stochastic methods leads to a distribution of possible values of risk, taking into account both uncertainty and variability in all of the factors affecting risk. In this article, we propose a general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability for use in the commonly encountered case of multiplicative risk models, in which risk may be expressed as a product of two or more risk factors. Our analytical methods facilitate the evaluation of overall uncertainty and variability in risk assessment, as well as the contributions of individual risk factors to both uncertainty and variability which is cumbersome using Monte Carlo methods. The use of these methods is illustrated in the analysis of potential cancer risks due to the ingestion of radon in drinking water.