Approaches for Integrated Risk Assessment

Recognizing the need to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of risk assessments globally, the World Health Organization's International Programme on Chemical Safety, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Commission, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development developed a collaborative partnership to foster integration of assessment approaches used to evaluate human health and ecological risks. The objectives of this effort included: improving understanding of the benefits of integration, identifying obstacles to the integration process, and engaging key agencies, organizations, and scientific societies to promote integration. A framework with supporting documentation was developed to describe an approach for integration. Four case studies were constructed to illustrate how integrated risk assessments might be conducted for chemical and nonchemical stressors. The concepts and approaches developed in the project were evaluated in an international workshop. The goal of this effort was international acceptance of guidance for integrated risk assessment.     

Integrated Risk Assessment — Results from an International Workshop

The World Health Organization's International Programme on Chemical Safety and international partners have developed a framework for integrated assessment of human health and ecological risks and four case studies. An international workshop was convened to consider how ecological and health risk assessments might be integrated, the benefits of and obstacles to integration, and the research and mechanisms needed to facilitate implementation of integrated risk assessment. Using the case studies, workshop participants identified a number of opportunities to integrate the assessment process. Improved assessment quality, efficiency, and predictive capability were considered to be principal benefits of integration. Obstacles to acceptance and implementation of integrated risk assessment included the disciplinary and organizational barriers between ecological and health disciplines. A variety of mechanisms were offered to overcome these obstacles. Research recommendations included harmonization of exposure characterization and surveillance methods and models, development of common risk endpoints across taxa, improved understanding of mechanisms of effect at multiple scales of biological organization, and development of methods to facilitate comparison of risks among endpoints.     

The Fox River Risk Assessment Teaching Tool

In 1999 and 2000, two environmental consulting companies independently prepared risk assessments of the Lower Fox River waste site in Wisconsin. Because the two assessments produced somewhat different risk characterizations, the Association for Environmental Health & Sciences was asked by the site's Potentially Responsible Party to form a peer review panel to critique and compare the two assessments. The panel found interesting differences between the two risk assessments and recommended that their observations, together with the two risk assessments, be made available as a Teaching Tool for persons interested in conducting human and ecological risk assessments. An accompanying CD contains these and other materials useful for teaching purposes.     

Harmonization: Developing Consistent Guidelines for Applying Mode of Action and Dosimetry Information to Cancer and Noncancer Risk Assessment

The 1983 book, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, recommended developing consistent inference guidelines for cancer risk assessment. Over the last 15 years, extensive guidance have been provided for hazard assessment for cancer and other endpoints. However, as noted in several recent reports, much less progress has occurred in developing consistent guidelines for quantitative dose response assessment methodologies. This paper proposes an approach for dose response assessment guided by consideration of mode of action (pharmacodynamics) and tissue dosimetry (pharmacokinetics). As articulated here, this systematic process involves eight steps in which available information is integrated, leading first to quantitative analyses of dose response behaviors in the test species followed by quantitative analyses of relevant human exposures. The process should be equally appropriate for both cancer and noncancer endpoints. The eight steps describe the necessary procedures for incorporating mechanistic data and provide multiple options based upon the mode of action by which the chemical causes the toxicity. Given the range of issues involved in developing such a procedure, we have simply sketched the process, focusing on major approaches for using toxicological data and on major options; many details remain to be filled in. However, consistent with the revised carcinogen risk assessment guidance (USEPA, 1996c), we propose a process that would ultimately utilize biologically based or chemical specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models as the backbone of these analyses. In the nearer term, these approaches will be combined with analysis of data using more empirical models including options intended for use in the absence of detailed information. A major emphasis in developing any harmonized process is distinguishing policy decisions from those decisions that are affected by the quality and quantity of toxicological data. Identification of data limitations also identifies areas where further study should reduce uncertainty in the final risk evaluations. A flexible dose response assessment procedure is needed to insure that sound toxicological study results are appropriately used to influence risk management decision-making and to encourage the conduct of toxicological studies oriented toward application for dose response assessments.     

The Concept of Data Utility in Health Risk Assessment: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective

Human and ecological health risk assessments and the decisions that stem from them require the acquisition and analysis of data. In agencies that are responsible for health risk decision-making, data (and/or opinions/judgments) are obtained from sources such as scientific literature, analytical and process measurements, expert elicitation, inspection findings, and public and private research institutions. Although the particulars of conducting health risk assessments of given disciplines may be dramatically different, a common concern is the subjective nature of judging data utility. Often risk assessors are limited to available data that may not be completely appropriate to address the question being asked. Data utility refers to the ability of available data to support a risk-based decision for a particular risk assessment. This article familiarizes the audience with the concept of data utility and is intended to raise the awareness of data collectors (e.g., researchers), risk assessors, and risk managers to data utility issues in health risk assessments so data collection and use will be improved. In order to emphasize the cross-cutting nature of data utility, the discussion has not been organized into a classical partitioning of risk assessment concerns as being either human health- or ecological health-oriented, as per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Program.     

Human Health Risk Assessment: Required Reading

Over the past 30 years, risk assessment has developed into a scientific discipline. It is critical that the next generation of risk assessors understand the history of our field, and recognize the numerous successes and failures that have taken place. This short Perspective identifies and describes specific books, monographs, and reports that are required reading for any nascent risk assessor.     

Finding fault with health risk assessment: A typology for risk assessment criticism

Although systematic, quantitative assessment of environmental health risks is a staple of regulatory decision-making, complaints regarding its perceived failures and shortcomings are an intrinsic feature of the policy landscape. In this article, we (a) catalog the classic criticisms of conventional health risk assessment, (b) create a typology that orders the critiques according to their focus on either input errors or output biases, and (c) identify selected allegations that fall within each category. We also note that the risk assessment–risk management paradigm has evolved over the past several decades, partially in accordance with the general direction and spirit of these classic critiques. The debate continues today along familiar lines invoking the traditional critiques and rebuttals outlined here.     

生态风险评价方法述评

生态风险是由环境的自然变化或人类活动引起的生态系统组成、结构的改变而导致系统功能损失的可能性。生态风险评价是定量预测各种风险源对生态系统产生风险的或然性以及评估该风险可接受程度的方法体系,因而是生态环境风险管理与决策的定量依据。在介绍了生态风险概念的基础上,按照风险源性质的分类标准将生态风险划分为化学污染类风险源、生态事件类风险源、复合类风险源3类,并分别论述了3类生态风险对应评价方法的特点与发展的方向。另外,针对生态风险评价研究的现状,讨论了我国生态风险研究的优先领域,包括建立急性、慢性毒理数据库,构建外来生物入侵风险评价标准等,同时,建议将综合概率统计学、复杂系统理论与遥感技术等手段引入生态风险评价方法中,以进一步提高风险评价结果在生态风险管理中的有效性。     

水生动物进口风险评估综述

随着全球水产养殖业的发展,水产动物活体或水产品贸易日益频繁,不可避免地给进口国带来病原风险,造成疾病引入和传播,甚至生物入侵,严重危害水产养殖业的发展。水生动物进口风险评估(IRA),是指从别国或地区进口水生动物活体包括其受精卵、稚鱼、幼鱼、苗种、成体以及商品等的风险分析。风险分析是指对风险事件进行科学、透明、系统分析的一个过程,它由危害识别、风险评估、风险交流和风险管理4个部分构成。目前,常用的风险评估方法有定性风险评估、半定量风险评估和定量风险评估3种。定性风险评估具有灵活性强、适用范围广、易掌握的特点,能够综合各种资料、数据和信息,尤其适合初次风险评估,但容易受评估人员主观因素的影响。定量风险评估可避免主观因素的影响,评估结果准确、可靠,但需要收集大量数据,工作量巨大,评估成本也很高。通常,定性评估结果若能够提供很好的防范措施,则不必进行定量评估。将外来水生病原阻止在引进之初远比引入后根除更加容易。因此,开展水生动物进口风险评估对于阻止水生动物疾病传播和水生态环境破坏具有重要意义,同时也可为各国进行水产贸易提供参考。     

Extrapolation in Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments: Proceedings of a Symposium

A symposium was conducted in April 1998 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) to explore issues of extrapolation in human health and ecological risk assessments. Over the course of three and one half days, leading health and ecology experts presented and discussed research methods and approaches for extrapolating data among taxa and across levels of biological organization, through time, and across spatial scales. The intended result of this symposium was enhanced interaction among a diverse array of scientists, policymakers, and risk assessors to promote identification of approaches for reducing the uncertainties of extrapolation in risk assessment.     

Distribution of Daily Breathing Rates For Use in California's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessments

Data were combined from a study measuring breathing rates at various activities and two activity pattern studies to generate breathing rate distributions for children and adults. The children and adult breathing rate distributions were combined using a Monte Carlo technique to generate a breathing rate distribution for a lifetime spanning ages 0 to 70. The children's breathing rate distribution has a mean, standard deviation, median and 95^th percentile of 452, 67.7, 441, and 581 L/kg-day, respectively. The adult breathing rate distribution has a mean, standard deviation, median and 95^th percentile of 232, 64.6, 209, and 381 L/kg-day, respectively. The simulated 70-year distribution has a mean, standard deviation, median and 95^th percentile of 271, 57.9, 253, and 393 L/kg-day, respectively. The adult breathing rate distribution is based on 24-hour recall activity data that would not necessarily capture average activity patterns and therefore breathing rates. We utilized the human energy expenditure literature to validate the breathing rate distribution. We conclude that the breathing rate distribution is reasonable for chronic long-term risk assessment in California's Air Toxics Hot Spots program.     

区域生态风险评价的关键问题与展望

区域生态风险评价具有多风险因子、多风险受体、多评价终点、强调不确定性因素以及空间异质性的特点,它与传统的生态风险评价在风险源、胁迫因子和评价尺度上具有明显区别。尝试建立了一个基于陆地生态系统的区域生态风险评价框架,同时针对目前区域生态风险评价的研究现状,指出不确定性分析、尺度外推难、评价指标不统一、评价标准不统一、风险因子筛选及优先排序、区域内污染物复合、水生过渡到陆生生态系统风险评价、特殊的人为因素等是目前区域生态风险评价存在的关键问题及难点所在,并提出解决这些问题可能所需的工具、手段和理论方法突破。最后指出区域生态风险观测与数据采集加工、区域生态风险指标体系的统一与整合、区域生态风险评价方法论、区域生态风险的空间分布特征与表达以及区域生态风险评价反馈与管理机制5个方面是区域生态风险评价未来的研究重点。     

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT: TASKS AND OBLIGATIONS

Synthesizing, characterizing, and communicating the risk science information used in environmental decision-making depends in the first instance on the nature and quality of the technical analysis. At the same time, other important features of the risk analysis, features that require special attention to provide context for the analysis as a whole, are frequently overlooked in practice or in presentation. Now, as the field expands to meet new challenges and to include new participants, all practitioners — government, academics, industry, and interest groups — must give renewed emphasis to certain hall marks of sound risk assessment: identifying incomplete information and its influence on the risk assessment process, articulating alternative assumptions and the scientific or policy reasons for choices made among alternatives, describing process considerations and limitations as well as numerical results, and fully informing decision makers, the press, and the interested public. The resulting greater clarity and transparency in the scientific analyses that under lie environmental decision making can enhance credibility and public confidence in the scientific foundation for those decisions.     

Types of Integration in Risk Assessment and Management,And Why They Are Needed

Risk-based decision making requires that the decision makers and stakeholders are informed of all risks that are potentially significant and relevant to the decision. The International Programme on Chemical Safety of the World Health Organization has developed a framework for integrating the assessment of human health and ecological risks. However, other types of integration are needed to support particular environmental decisions. They are integration of exposure and effects, of multiple chemicals and other hazardous agents, of multiple routes of exposure, of multiple endpoints, multiple receptors, multiple spatial and temporal scales, a product's life cycle, management alternatives, and socioeconomics with risk assessment. Inclusion of all these factors in an integrated assessment could lead to paralysis by analysis. Therefore, it is important that assessors be cognizant of the decision process and that decision makers and those who will influence the decision (stakeholders) be involved in planning the assessment to ensure that the degree of integration is necessary and sufficient.