Environmental problem formulation

USEPA. Review of American Cyanamid Company s Probablistic Assessment of Chlorfenapyr and Request for Guidance on Problem Formulation. In FIFRA Science Advisory Panel Report, SAP99-05. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1999). Also available on the World Wide Web http //www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/1999/september/finalrpt.pdf. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1998) describes problem formulation as an iterative process with 4 main components integration of available information, definition of assessment endpoints, definition of conceptual model, and development of an analysis plan. These 4 components apply also to probabilistic assessments. In addition, it is useful to emphasize the importance of a 5th component dehnition of the assessment scenarios. The relationships between all 5 components are depicted in Figure 2.1. Note that the bidirectional arrows represent the interdependency of the different components and imply that they may need to be revised iteratively as the formulation of the problem is rehned. 

Profiling environmental chemicals by a defined set of biochemical and cellular assays raises important concerns about the means by which this information can be used to predict in vivo developmental toxicity and in broader terms the use of this HTS information for problem formulation steps in a lifestage-specific risk assessment. 

Currently, production of eflornithine has been stopped because of industrial policy and environmental problems it involves the use of Ereon (CHF2CI) as a reagent in its synthesis (Eigure 8.27). However, production of eflornithine may start again in order to supply the WHO. Another reason is that a topical formulation for the treatment of female hirsutism has recently been launched (Vaniqa). Its synthesis has recently been improved by using the selective catalytic reduction of the cyano group without any cyclization into lactam. ... 

Since risk analysis plays an important role in public policy decision making, efforts have been made to devise a means by which to identify, control, and communicate the risks imposed by agricultural biotechnology. A paradigm of environmental risk assessment was first introduced in the United States by Peterson and Arntzen in 2004. In this risk assessment, a number of assumptions and uncertainties were considered and presented. These include (1) problem formulation, (2) hazard identihcation, (3) dose-response relationships, (4) exposure assessment, and (5) risk characterization. Risk assessment of plant-made pharmaceuticals must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis because the plants used to produce proteins each have different risks associated with them. Many plant-derived biopharmaceuticals will challenge our ability to define an environmental hazard (Howard and Donnelly, 2004). For example, the expression of a bovine-specihc antigen produced in a potato plant and used orally in veterinary medicine would have a dramatically different set of criteria for assessment of risk than, as another example, the expression of a neutralizing nonspecihc oral antibody developed in maize to suppress Campylobacter jejuni in chickens (Peterson and Arntzen, 2004 Kirk et al., 2005). 

Risk assessors must be particularly sensitive to the potential for significantly higher exposures in areas of the world where hazardous environmental exposures are not sufficiently controlled. Compounding factors such as poverty, inadequate nutrition, and compromised health status must also be considered in problem formulation throughout the risk assessment process. 

Like most complex technical activities, a clear understanding of the problem that needs to be addressed will shape the work that follows and reduce the risk of wasted effort. We cannot assume that the problem formulation for a standard is self-explanatory. For example, which chemicals are priorities for standard development What are the regulatory or social drivers that require us to reduce risks to the environment Is a new standard actually the best way of achieving our environmental goals Are there any legal or political constraints on the approach (e.g., those illustrated in Figure 2.1) we can adopt Does past experience lead us to favor one approach over another ... 

If the consequences of setting a standard will have important environmental, economic, or social consequences, we envisage an approach in which a social and economic analysis forms part of the overall decision in conjunction with the scientific analysis. The two activities come together in an MCDA that seeks to integrate all the factors that will deliver the required level of environmental protection at an acceptable economic and social cost. If that cost can be defined during problem formulation, this will greatly facilitate the process because it puts limits on what is, and is not, permissible. 

One reason for the policy change was that Finland joined the European Union in 1995 and there were concerns that Finland, having advanced nuclear waste disposal programs, might be compelled to accept nuclear waste from other EU countries. Furthermore, the discussions in Russia concerning the policy for reception of foreign spent fuel and the environmental problems around the Mayak facilities affected the formulation of the Finnish policy. 

The six main objectives of the learning community are (1) to provide each student with both a theoretical, scientific and practical understanding of the nature and range of environmental problems (2) to help students develop critical thinking skills, writing skills, and laboratoiy skills necessary to the recognition, formulation, and assessment of environmental problems and proposed solutions ... 

The framework consists of three major phases (1) problem formulation, (2) analysis, and (3) risk characterization. Problem formulation is a planning and scoping process that establishes the goals, breadth, and focus of the risk assessment. Its end product is a conceptual model that identifies the environmental values to be protected (the assessment endpoints), the data needed, and the analyses to be used. 

Information compiled in the first stage of problem formulation is used to help select ecologically based endpoints that are relevant to decisions made about protecting the environment. An endpoint is a characteristic of an ecological component (e.g., increased mortality in fish) that may be affected by exposure to a stressor (Suter, 1990a). Two types of endpoints are distinguished in this report. Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be protected. Measurement endpoints are measurable responses to a stressor that are related to the valued characteristics chosen as the assessment endpoints (Suter, 1990a). 

Problem formulation. Within this process all available information about a contaminated site is collected including the nature of the contaminants and their sources, obvious effects and potential receptors as well as environmental recipients. Within this very first stage of the risk assessment procedure, an assessment endpoint has to be determined. Assessment endpoints are the expression of an environmental value (represented by an ecological entity) that is at risk, e.g. a distinct population that faces harm due to pollution. It has to be emphasised that toxicity-test endpoints or other measurement endpoints (in general, measured effects under test conditions) in most cases do not represent assessment endpoints (response of population or ecosystem in the field). Measurement endpoints should be representative for assessment endpoints or have a known relationship to the assessment endpoint allowing the extrapolation of data. 

Monoterpenes are widely used in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industry as active components of drugs and ingredients of artificial flavours and fragrances [1]. Camphene is converted to isobomeol and bomeol that are used in formulation of soaps, cosmetic perfumes and medicines, as well as in the industrial production of camphor [2], which is used as an odorant/flavorant in pharmaceutical, household and industrial products [7]. Traditionally, homogeneous catalysts, e.g sulphuric acid, are used, but the effluent disposal leads to environmental problems and economical inconveniences. These problems can be overcome by the use of solid acid catalysts. USY zeolite [3], heteropolyacids [4,5] and sulfonic acid surface-functionalised silica [6] have also been used for the camphene hydration. 

Developing an objective assessment of the hazard that copper poses to humans and the environment depends on an intimate understanding of the bioavailability. Bioavailability, which is defined as the extent to which the metal is taken up by the organism upon exposure, depends on the species of the metal or metallo complex and/or how easily it can be transformed to a more or less bioavailable species. The key components of the environmental risk assessment paradigms include problem formulation, analysis (which includes both exposure and effects analysis) and risk characterization (WHO 1998). 

Raybould, A. 2006. Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5 1-7. 

Lubricants are often formulated with additives to enhance the properties for some specific application. The synthetic lubricants may be produced by homogenous catalysts, such as BF3 or AICI3. The homogeneous process has several significant drawbacks, the catalysts are toxic and corrosive, requiring an expensive separation procedure, formation of noticeable amounts of by-product as well as recovery and disposal of the catalyst residues, which can cause environmental problems. 

On the negative side, as always with nonaqueous formulations, are the environmental problems associated with organic solvents. 

This method enables the residues to be effectively re-utUized by producing therefrom molded articles which can be used in a variety of fields. As being biodegradable, the molded article also permits an easy disposal without creating an environmental problem. Some Formulations are shown in Table 10.8. 

---