Risk assessment frequency evaluation

The quantitative dose-response assessment involves two different challenges, namely to determine the relationship between doses and the frequency of cases of cancer (i.e., potency evaluation), and to determine what statistical risk is tolerable or acceptable. This section gives a very short overview of some general aspects related to the quantitative dose-response assessment. The currently used approach by the WHO, the US-EPA, and the EU, as well as new approaches for the risk assessment of compounds that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic, are presented in Sections 6.3 and 6.4, respectively. 

An exposure assessment is the quantitative or qualitative evaluation of the amount of a substance that humans come into contact with and includes consideration of the intensity, frequency and duration of contact, the route of exposure (e.g., dermal, oral, or respiratory), rates (chemical intake or uptake rates), the resulting amount that actually crosses the boundary (a dose), and the amount absorbed (internal dose). Depending on the purpose of an exposure assessment, the numerical output may be an estimate of the intensity, rate, duration, and frequency of contact exposure or dose (the resulting amount that actually crosses the boundary). For risk assessments of chemical substances based on dose-response relationships, the output usually includes an estimate of dose (WHO/IPCS 1999). 

Hazard identification is the process of collecting and evaluating information on the effects of an agent on animal or human health and well-being. In most cases, this involves a careful assessment of the adverse effects and what is the most sensitive population. The dose-response assessment involves evaluation of the relationship between dose and adverse effect. Typically, an effort is made to determine the lowest dose or exposure at which an effect is observed. A comparison is often made between animal data and any human data that might be available. Next is exposure assessment, in which an evaluation of the likely exposure to any given population is assessed. Important parameters include the dose, duration, frequency, and route of exposure. The final step is risk characterization, in which all the above information is synthesized and a judgment made on what is an acceptable level of human exposure. In the simplest terms, risk is the product of two factors hazard and exposure (i.e. hazard x exposure = risk). In real risk assessments, all hazards may not be known and exposure is often difficult to quantify precisely. As a result, the calculated risk may not accurately reflect the real risk. The accuracy of a risk assessment is no better than the data and assumptions upon which it is based. 

The application of human data in risk assessment for children has been detailed in a number of publications (USEPA, 1991 Richter-Reichhelm et al., 2002 IPCS, 2005 Kimmel et al., 2006). In general, the risk assessor should evaluate each human study for its power and potential bias. The power of the study is the study s ability to detect an effect. It is dependent on the size of the study population, the frequency of the effect or the exposure in the population, and the level of risk to be identified. The greater the population size and the effect or exposure frequency, the greater the power of the study. In studies of low power, it is generally not possible to establish the lack of an association between an exposure and an effect, and even positive findings may be difficult to support. Metaanalysis, which combines populations from different studies, may increase the power of the overall database, but the potential for the combination of dissimilar populations must be considered in any risk assessment. 

Risk The predicted or actual frequency of occurrence of adverse effects caused by chemical substances that may cause harm under a set of conditions Risk assessment A process that evaluates the probability that harm will occur in a given set of conditions... 

In the risk assessment, some steps are not well described. For example, subchronic toxicity studies and not chronic toxicity studies are used in the risk assessment. Exposure duration and frequency considerations are not discussed. Route-to-route extrapolation is considered acceptable implicitly, without further evaluation of the various issues involved. The rationale for using a dermal absorption default of 10 %, in the absence of data is also not discussed. 

This model has a straightforward structure and is simple to use. It is based on studies carried out in part for the specific purpose of model development. However, not all of the required information is publicly available. The databases are not described at the study level the exposure data are only available in classes, although more detailed information is available on request. The choice of the statistics is not discussed. In the risk-assessment approach, some steps are not clearly presented. Sub-chronic toxicity studies, and not chronic toxicity studies, are used in the risk assessment. Exposure duration and frequency considerations are not discussed. Route-to-route extrapolation is considered acceptable implicitly, without further evaluation of the various issues involved. The rationale for using a dermal absorption default of 10 %, in the absence of data, is not discussed. 

Positive effects seen in either humans or animals will normally justify classification. Evidence from animal studies is usually much more reliable than evidence from human exposure. However, in cases where evidence is available from both sources, and there is conflict between the results, the quality and reliability of the evidence from both sources must be assessed in order to resolve the question of classification on a case-by-case basis. Normally, human data are not generated in controlled experiments with volunteers for the purpose of hazard classification but rather as part of risk assessment to confirm lack of effects seen in animal tests. Consequently, positive human data on contact sensitization are usually derived from case-control or other, less defined studies. Evaluation of human data must therefore be carried out with caution as the frequency of cases reflect, in addition to the inherent properties of the substances, factors such as the exposure situation, bioavailability, individual predisposition and preventive measures taken. Negative human data should not normally be used to negate positive results from animal studies. 

Recommendation 4. The quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for each chemical demilitarization site should be iterative. Actual chemical events should be used routinely to test the completeness of the QRA, which should be routinely utilized to hypothesize the frequency and consequences of chemical events. The Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization and the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command should use the QRAs to evaluate measures to control future chemical events. The Army should also consider using QRAs to examine scenarios associated with sabotage, terrorism, and war. 

CPQRA A chemical process quantitative risk analysis is the process of hazard identification followed by numerical evaluation of incident consequences and frequencies, and their combination into an overall measure of risk when apphed to the chemical process industry. It is particularly applicable to episodic events. It differs from, but is related to, a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), a quantitative tool used in the nuclear industry. 

Safety of machinery—Human physical performance—Part 5 Risk assessment for repetitive handling at high frequency ISO/DIS 11226 1999-02-00 Ergonomics—Evaluation of working postures ISO/DIS 11228-1 1998-08-00... 

The applicability in risk assessment and acceptability is that for low-frequency events the probability estimate is not based on a large number of trials and the public evaluation may well be more conditioned on how bad the outcome might be, with little regard for arguments as to how likely it is [p. 12],... 

As far as methods for risk assessment at workplace are concerned. Risk Assessment Matrix method is the most popnlar one. Risk estimation entails evaluating both the severity and frequency of hazardous events. 

Risk assessment of nuclear power plants is based on evaluation of core damage frequency (CDF). Thus we consider 1st and 2nd task category. Task category 1 defines all initiating events, which damage the reactor core. Task category 2 is focused to assess initiating events occurrence probability and to assess safety related systems malfunction probability. 

In this paper, risk is defined as usual, i.e., it is a combination of the frequency F of an (undesired) event and its consequence C. This definition follows the ISO standards in risk management terminology in general (ISO 2002) as well as specifically in the Code (ISO 2005). The Code references to the management standard in all terms related to risk, i.e., risk, risk analysis, risk assessment, risk evaluation, andriskmanagement. 

The sequences of events that may lead to vessel failure and their frequencies are determined from probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) analyses. The pressure, temperature and heat transfer coefficient time histories at the vessel inner surface are determined from thermal hydraulic analyses for the events identified by the PRA analyses. These time histories are used together with probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) analysis to calculate the conditional probability of RPV failure. Discussion of the methodology used to perform the PRA analyses and define the transient events and associated frequencies, and the thermal hydraulic analyses used to define the event pressure and temperature time histories are outside the scope of this chapter. Consequently, the remainder of this chapter focuses on the PFM evaluation assumptions and procedures. 

---