Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

Korean Society of Environmental Health (한국환경보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Uncertainty Analysis and Application to Risk Assessment

위해성평가의 불확실도 분석과 활용방안 고찰

  • Jo, Areum (National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Kim, Taksoo (National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Seo, JungKwan (National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Yoon, Hyojung (National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Kim, Pilje (National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Choi, Kyunghee (National Institute of Environmental Research)
  • Received : 2015.10.13
  • Accepted : 2015.12.15
  • Published : 2015.12.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: Risk assessment is a tool for predicting and reducing uncertainty related to the effects of future activities. Probability approaches are the main elements in risk assessment, but confusion about the interpretation and use of assessment factors often undermines the message of the analyses. The aim of this study is to provide a guideline for systematic reduction plans regarding uncertainty in risk assessment. Methods: Articles and reports were collected online using the key words "uncertainty analysis" on risk assessment. Uncertainty analysis was conducted based on reports focusing on procedures for analysis methods by the World Health Organization (WHO) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In addition, case studies were performed in order to verify suggested methods qualitatively and quantitatively with exposure data, including measured data on toluene and styrene in residential spaces and multi-use facilities. Results: Based on an analysis of the data on uncertainty, three major factors including scenario, model, and parameters were identified as the main sources of uncertainty, and tiered approaches were determined. In the case study, the risk of toluene and styrene was evaluated and the most influential factors were also determined. Five reduction plans were presented: providing standard guidelines, using reliable exposure factors, possessing quality controls for analysis and scientific expertise, and introducing a peer review system. Conclusion: In this study, we established a method for reducing uncertainty by taking into account the major factors. Also, we showed a method for uncertainty analysis with tiered approaches. However, uncertainties are difficult to define because they are generated by many factors. Therefore, further studies are needed for the development of technical guidelines based on the representative scenario, model, and parameters developed in this study.

Keywords

References

  1. National Research Council. Risk assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the process. National Academy. Washington D.C, Press; 1983.
  2. Committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment. Variability and uncertainty in toxicology of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment. London. Press; 2007; 61-65.
  3. Korea Food & Drug Administration. Guidelines for risk assessment. 2011. p.27-56.
  4. National Institute of Toxicological Research. Guidance for human exposure assessement. 2007; 61-69.
  5. World Health Organization. Human exposure assessment, Environmental health criteria 214. Geneva, Press; 2000.
  6. US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for exposure assessment. Washington, DC, Press; 1992. p. 90-98.
  7. World Health Organization. International programme on chemical safety. Uncertainty and data quality in exposure assessment, Part 1: Guidance document on characterizing and communicating uncertainty in exposure assessment. Geneva, Press; 2008. p.15-66.
  8. US Environmental Protection Agency. Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume III - part A, process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. Available: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/RAGS3A/index.htm. [accessed 8 September].
  9. Roy, W.W. Methodology for chracterization of uncertainty in exposure assessments. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C. Press; 1985.
  10. Liu ZQ, Zhang YH, Li GH, Zhang X. Sensitivity of key factors and uncertainties in health risk assessment of benzene pollutant. J Environ Sci. 2007; 19: 1272-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(07)60208-3
  11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. Environmental Health Criteria 240. Available: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc240_front.pdf. [accessed 20 Nomemver].
  12. European Food Safety Authority. Guidance of the scientific committee on a request from EFSA related to uncertainties in dietary exposure assessment. Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/scdocs/doc/438.pdf. [accessed 10 October].
  13. US Environmental Protection Agency. Policy for use of probabilistic analysis in risk assessment, 1997. Available: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/probpol.pdf. [accessed 14 October].
  14. Kwon MH, Jang SK, Ryu JM, Seo SY, Won SR, Jung SJ et al. A study on management of major indoor air pollutants by house type in Korea(I): Indoor air pollution and health effects in residential apartment. National Institute of Environmental Research Press; 2009. 60-62.
  15. Kim YS, A study on public and small-scale facilities unregulated by Korean air act (I), Ministry of Environement Press; 2006. 197-201.
  16. US Environmental Protection Agency. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I Human health evaluation mannual(Part A). Chapter 6: Exposure assessment. Washington, DC, Press;1989. p. 2-40.
  17. Joo YS. Probabilistic risk assessment. Korea Food & Drug Administration press; 2013. p.28-39.
  18. Lee JH, Kim CK, Park JH, Park PS, Lee TW, Kim SH, et al. Multi-media and multi pathway aggregate risk assessment(II): Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and Formaldehyde. National Institute of Environmental Research Press;2012.
  19. Choi KH, Kim SK, Moon HB, Park JI, Kim KT. Multi-media and multi pathway aggregate risk assessment(III): Bisphenol A and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers. National Institute of Environmental Research Press; 2013
  20. Lee JH, Kim CK, Park JH, Jung JW, Kim SH, Seol HS, et al. Multi-media and multi pathway aggregate risk assessment(IV): Lean, Arsenic, and Cadmium. National Institute of Environmental Research Press; 2014
  21. US Environmental Protection Agency. Toxicological review of toluene(CAS No. 108-88-3). Available: http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0118tr.pdf. [accessed 27 January 2015].
  22. World Health Organization. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available: http://ww.monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol82/mono82-9.pdf. [assessed 27 November 2014].
  23. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated risk information system. Available: http://www. epa.gov/IRIS. [accessed 27 November 2014].
  24. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for styrene. Available: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp53.pdf. [accessed 23 January 2015].
  25. US Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure factors handbook, 2011, Avaliable: http://www.EPA/600/R-090-052F. [assessed 27 October 2014].
  26. Jang JY, Jo SN, Kim SY, Kim SJ, Jung HK. Korean exposure factors handbook. Ministry of Environment Press; 2007.
  27. US Environmental Protection Agency. Human health risk assessment protocol. Chapter 8: Interpreting uncertainty for human health risk assessment. Geneva: US Environmental Protection Agency press; 2005. p.1-8.
  28. Apeland A, Aven T, Nilsen T. Quantifying uncertainty under a predictive, epistemic approach to risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe. 2002; 75: 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00122-3
  29. Aven T, Zio E. Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliab Eng Syst Safe. 2011; 96: 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.001
  30. Bennett DH, James AL, McKone TE, Oldenburg CM. On uncertainty in redediation analysis: variance propagation from subsurface transport to exposure modeling. Reliab Eng Syst Safe. 1998; 62: 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00160-9
  31. Kalberlah F, Schneider K, Schuhmacher-Wolz U. Uncertainty in toxicological risk assessement for non-carcinogenic health effects. Regul Toxicol Pharm. 2003; 37: 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-2300(02)00032-6
  32. Moschandreas DJ, Karuchit S. Scenario-modelparameter: a new method of cumulative risk uncertainty analysis. Environ Int. 2002; 28: 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00025-9
  33. Sassi G, Vernai AM, Ruggeri B. Quantitative estimation of uncertainty in human risk analysis. J Hazard Mater. 2007; 145: 296-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.11.020
  34. Liu ZQ, Zhang YH, Li Gh, Zhang X. Sensitivity of key factors and uncertainties in health risk assessment of benzene pollutant. J Environ Sci. 2007; 19: 1272-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(07)60208-3
  35. Kim JC, Kim YS, Roh YM, Hong SC, Lee CM, Jun HJ. Health risk assessment of indoor HAPs in new apartments. J Environ Health Sci. 2007; 33:1-10.
  36. Lee JH, Kim CK, Park JH, Park PS, Lee TW, Kim SH, et al. Multi-media and multi pathway aggregate risk assessment(I): Toluene. National Institute of Environmental Research Press;2011.
  37. Gallagher SS, Rice GE, Scarano LJ, Teuschler LK, Bollweg G, Martin L. Cumulative risk assessment lessons learned: A review of case studies and issue papers. Chemosphere. 2015; 120: 697-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.10.030
  38. US Environmental Protection Agency. Human health evaluation manual, supplemental guidance: Standard default exposure factors. Washington, DC, Press;1991.
  39. Frey HC, Quantitative analysis of uncertainty and variability in environmental policy making. 1992, p: 57-60.