Exposure Estimation and Interpretation of Occupational Risk: Enhanced Information for the Occupational Risk Manager

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

Volumn 12, Issue , 2015, Pages S99-S111

  Waters, Martha ^a   McKernan, Lauralynn ^a   Maier, Andrew ^b   Jayjock, Michael ^c   Schaeffer, Val ^d   Brosseau, Lisa ^e  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Jayjock and Asociates LLC   (United States)

^d Occupational Safety and Health Administration   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

dose response relationship; environmental variability; exposure estimation; exposure sampling; hazard quotient; overexposure

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS; DOSE RESPONSE; HUMAN; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84947557873     PISSN: 15459624     EISSN: 15459632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1084421     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Bullock, W.H, J.S. Ignacio.: A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2006.
2. Aitchison, J, J.A.C. Brown.: The Lognormal Distribution with Special Reference to its Uses in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957.
3. Rappaport, S.M, L.L. Kupper.: Quantitative Exposure Assessment. Raleigh, NC: Lulu Press, 2008.
4. Jayjock, M., G. Ramachandran., S. Arnold, E. Dederick.: Uncertainty. In Mathematical Models for Estimating Occupational Exposure to Chemicals, C.B. Keil., C.E. Simmons, T. Anthony. (eds.). Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2009. Chapter 10.
5. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS).: Uncertainty and Data Quality in Exposure Assessment. Harmonization Project Document No. 6. Geneva: World Health Organization. (2008).
6. OHagan, A., C.E. Buck., A. Daneshkhah. et al.: Uncertain Judgments: Eliciting Experts Probabilities. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2006.
7. Logan, P.W., G. Ramachandran., J.R. Mulhausen., S. Banerjee, P. Hewett.: Desktop study of occupational exposure judgments: Do education and experience influence accuracy J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 8 (12): 746-758 (2011).
8. Vadali, M., G. Ramachandran, S. Banerjee.: Effect of training, education, professional experience, and need for cognition on accuracy of exposure assessment decision-making. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 56 (3): 292-304 (2012).
9. Vadali, M., G. Ramachandran., J.R. Mulhausen, S. Banerjee.: Effect of training on exposure judgment accuracy of industrial hygienists. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 9 (4): 242-256 (2012).
10. Nicas, M., B.P. Simmons, R.C. Spear.: Environmental versus analytical variability in exposure measurements. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 52 (12): 553-557 (1991).
11. Jayjock, M.: Modeling Inhalation exposure. In The Occupational Environment: Its Evaluation, Control, and Management, D. Anna. (ed.). Falls Church, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2012. Chapter 10.
12. Reinke, P., M. Jayjock, M. Nicas.: Well-mixed rooms with changing conditions. In Mathematical Models for Estimating Occupational Exposure to Chemicals, C. Keil., C.E. Simmons, T. Anthony. (eds.). Fairfax, VA: Amer Industrial Hygiene Association, 2009.
13. Keil, C.B., C.E. Simmons, T.R. Anthony.: Mathematical Models for Estimating Occupational Exposure to Chemicals, 2nd Ed. Fairfax VA: AIHA Press, 2009.
14. Meyer, M, J. Booker.: Selecting from Dispersion Measures in Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide. San Diego: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1991.
15. Cullen, A.C, H.C. Frey.: Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment: A Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 1999.
16. Nicas, M, M. Jayjock.: Uncertainty in exposure estimates made by modeling versus monitoring. AIHA J.: 63 (3): 275-283 (2002).
17. Jayjock, M.A.: Uncertainty analysis in the estimation of exposure. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 58 (5): 380-382 (1997).
18. Kerre, E.E.: The impact of fuzzy set theory on contemporary mathematics. Appl. Comput. Math. 10 (1): 20-34 (2011).
19. Baudrit, C, D. Dubois.: Joint propagation and exploitation of probabilistic and possibilistic information in risk assessment. J. Latex Class. 1 (11): 1-13 (2002).
20. Huang, G., N. Sae-Lim., L. Liu, Z. Chen.: An interval-parameter fuzzy-stochastic programming approach for municipal solid waste management and planning. Environ. Model. Assess. 6 (4): 271-283 (2001).
21. Dahab, M., Y. Lee, I. Bogardi.: A rule-based fuzzy-set approach to risk analysis of nitrate-contaminated groundwater. Water Sci. Technol. 30 (7): 45-52 (1994).
22. Donald, S. and T.J. Ross.: Use of fuzzy logic and similarity measures in the risk management of hazardous waste sites. 376-382 (1996).
23. Liu, L., S. Cheng, H. Guo.: A simulation-assessment modeling approach for analyzing environmental risks of groundwater contamination at waste landfill sites. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 10 (2): 373-388 (2004).
24. Ferson, S, L.R. Ginzburg.: Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 54 (2): 133-144 (1996).
25. Ferson, S, S. Donald.: Probability bounds analysis. In Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, A. Mosleh. and R. Bari. (eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag, 1998. pp. 1203-1208.
26. Tucker, W.T, S. Ferson.: Probability Bounds Analysis in Environmental Risk Assessment. Setauket, NY: Applied Biomathematics, 2003.
27. Ramachandran, G, J.H. Vincent.: A Bayesian approach to retrospective exposure assessment. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 14 (8): 547-557 (1999).
28. Hewett, P., P. Logan., J. Mulhausen., G. Ramachandran, S. Banerjee.: Rating exposure control using Bayesian decision analysis. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 3 (10): 568-581 (2006).
29. Sottas, P., J. Lavoué., R. Bruzzi., D. Vernez., N. Charrière, P. Droz.: An empirical hierarchical Bayesian unification of occupational exposure assessment methods. Stat. Med. 28 (1): 75-93 (2009).
30. Leidel, N.A., K.A. Busch, J.R. Lynch.: Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, NIOSH Publication No. 77-173. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1977.
31. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).: OSHA Technical Manual. Directive TED 01-00-015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 2008.
32. Rappaport, S.M.: Assessment of long-term exposures to toxic substances in air. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 35 (1): 61-122 (1991).
33. Rappaport, S.M., H. Kromhout, E. Symanski.: Variation of exposure between workers in homogeneous exposure groups. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 54 (11): 654-662 (1993).
34. Rappaport, S.M., R.H. Lyles, L.L. Kupper.: An exposure-assessments strategy accounting for within-and between-worker sources of variability. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 39 (4): 469-495 (1995).
35. Rappaport, S.M., L.L. Kupper, Y.S. Lin.: On the importance of exposure variability to the doses of volatile organic compounds. Toxicol. Sci. 83 (2): 224-236 (2005).
36. Tornero-Velez, R., E. Symanski., H. Kromhout., R.C. Yu, S.M. Rappaport.: Compliance versus risk in assessing occupational exposures. Risk Anal. 17 (3): 279-292 (1997).
37. Kromhout, H.: Design of measurement strategies for workplace exposures. Occup. Environ. Med. 59 (5): 349-354 (2002).
38. Tielemans, E., L.L. Kupper., H. Kromhout., D. Heederik, R. Houba.: Individual-based and group-based occupational exposure assessment: some equations to evaluate different strategies. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 42 (2): 115-119 (1998).
39. Ogden, T, J. Lavoué.: 2011 William P. Yant Award Lecture: Testing compliance with occupational exposure limits: Development of the British-Dutch guidance. J. Occupat Environ. Hyg. 9 (4): D63-D70 (2012).
40. Tielemans, E., N. Warren., W. Fransman. et al.: Advanced REACH Tool (ART): overview of version 1.0 and research needs. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 55 (9): 949-956 (2011).
41. Schinkel, J., N. Warren., W. Fransman. et al.: Advanced REACH Tool (ART): calibration of the mechanistic model. J. Environ. Monit. 13 (5): 1374-1382 (2011).
42. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS).: Statistical Program for the Evaluation of Exposure Data (SPEED) (2012).
43. Drolet, D., T. Armstrong, M. Jayjock.: " Exposure Assessment Strategies Committee: IH MOD Excel Exposure Models Suite." Available at https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/VolunteerGroups/Documents/IHMOD-Korean-AIHA-MathModel209.xls.
44. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).: " Exposure Assessment Strategies Committee: IH STAT Excel Spreadsheeet Tool." Version 235. Available at https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/VolunteerGroups/Documents/EASC-IHSTAT-V235.xls.
45. Hewett, P.: IHDA for Bayesian decision analysis. http://www.oesh.com/software.php. 12. 27, Morgantown, WV: Exposure Solutions, Inc., 2011.
46. Lyles, R.H., L.L. Kupper, S.M. Rappaport.: A lognormal distribution-based exposure assessment method for unbalanced data. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 41 (1): 63-76 (1997).
47. Maier, A., R. Sussman., J. Mulhausen, R. Roy.: Characterizing the impacts of uncertainty and scientific judgment. Toxicologist 132 (1) (2013).
48. Wheeler, M.W., R. Park., A.J. Bailer, C. Whittaker.: Historical context and recent advances in exposure-response estimation for deriving occupational exposure limits. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12 (S1): S7-S17 (2015).
49. Dankovic, M., B. Naumann., M. Dourson, A. Maier.: The scientific basis of uncertainty factors used in setting occupational exposure limits. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12 (S1): S55-S68 (2015).
50. Jayjock, M.A., P.G. Lewis, J.R. Lynch.: Quantitative level of protection offered to workers by ACGIH threshold limit values occupational exposure limits. AIHAJ 62 (1): 4-11 (2001).
51. DeBord, D., L. Burgoon., S. Edwards. et al.: Systems biology and biomarkers of early effects for occupational exposure limit setting. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12 (S1): S41-S54 (2015).
52. Dourson, M.L., L.K. Teuschler., P.R. Durkin, W.M. Stiteler.: Categorical regression of toxicity data: A case study using aldicarb. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25 (2): 121-129 (1997).
53. Hertzberg, R.C, M.L. Dourson.: Using categorical regression instead of a NOAEL to characterize a toxicologist's judgment in noncancer risk assessment. 254-261 (1993).
54. Haber, L.T., J.S. Dollarhide., A. Maier, M.L. Dourson.: Noncancer risk assessment: principles and practice in environmental and occupational settings. In Patty's Toxicology, E. Bingham. and B. Bohrssen. (eds.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. p. 5.
55. Teuschler, L.K., M.L. Dourson., W.M. Stiteler., P. McClure, H. Tully.: Health risk above the reference dose for multiple chemicals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 30 (2 Pt 2): S19-26 (1999).
56. U.S. EPA.: CatReg Software Version 2.3 for Categorical Regression Analysis in Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012.
57. Baird, S.J., J.T. Cohen., J.D. Graham., A.I. Shlyakhter, J.S. Evans.: Noncancer risk assessment: A probabilistic alternative to current practice. Hum. Ecol. Risk 2 (1): 79-102 (1996).
58. Dourson, M.L, J.F. Stara.: Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 3 (3): 224-238 (1983).
59. Swartout, J.C., P.S. Price., M.L. Dourson., H.L. Carlson-Lynch, R.E. Keenan.: A probabilistic framework for the reference dose (probabilistic RfD). Risk Anal. 18 (3): 271-282 (1998).
60. National Research Council (NRC).: Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies 2009.
61. Price, P.S., R.E. Keenan., J.C. Swartout., C.A. Gillis., H. Carlson-Lynch, M.L. Dourson.: An approach for modeling noncancer dose responses with an emphasis on uncertainty. Risk Anal. 17 (4): 427-437 (1997).
62. Hattis, D., S. Baird, R. Goble.: A straw man proposal for a quantitative definition of the RfD. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 25 (4): 403-436 (2002).
63. Hattis, D, M. Lynch.: Empirically observed distributions of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability in humans-Implications for the derivation of single point component uncertainty factors providing equivalent protection as existing rfds. In Toxicokinetics and Risk Assessment, J.C. Lipscomb. and E.V. Ohanian. (eds.). New York: Informa Healthcare, 2007. pp. 69-93.
64. Ginsberg, G., D. Hattis., B. Sonawane. et al.: Evaluation of child/adult pharmacokinetic differences from a database derived from the therapeutic drug literature. Toxicol. Sci. 66 (2): 185-200 (2002).
65. National Research Council (NRC).: Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies 2007.
66. United States Environmental Protection Agency.: " NextGen: Risk Assessment." Available at: http://www.epa.gov/risk/nexgen/(2013).
67. Yokota, F, K.M. Thompson.: Value of information analysis in environmental health risk management decisions: past, present, and future. Risk Anal. 24 (3): 635-650 (2004).
68. Rappaport, S.M.: Assessing workplace exposures: turning to the past for guidance. Occup. Environ. Med. 66 (7): 429-430 (2009).
69. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).: Occupational Exposure Estimation. In Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Anonymous. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2009. Chapter R.14.
70. U.S. EPA.: Risk Characterization: Science Policy Council Handbook. EPA-100-B-00-002. Washington, DC: Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, 2000.
71. Nelson, D.I., F. Mirer, G. Bratt, and D.O. Anderson.: Risk Assessment in the Workplace. In The Occupational Environment: Its Evaluation, Control and Management. 2nd Edition, S.R. DiNardi (ed.). Fairfax, VA: AIHA Press, 2003. pp. 143-171.