Risk, quantification limitations

The definitions of method detection and quantification limits should be reliable and applicable to a variety of extraction procedures and analytical methods. The issue is of particular importance to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and also pesticide regulatory and health agencies around the world in risk assessment. The critical question central to risk assessment is assessing the risk posed to a human being from the consumption of foods treated with pesticides, when the amount of the residue present in the food product is reported nondetect (ND) or no detectable residues . 

Some of the limitations associated with risk quantification are discussed below. 

As remains to be shown, there are serious differences in the risk level of various areas of life and work. Government standardization must aim for reduction and uniformity within the range of possibilities which have their limits in economics and the state of knowledge. On the basis of risk quantification the following strategies for government standardization are possible and they can also be linked ... 

Disadvantages Sample loss sample discrimination poor in trace analysis and direct quantification Limited choice of applicable solvent Experimentally difficult risk of column contamination... 

Because most research effort in the human reliability domain has focused on the quantification of error probabilities, a large number of techniques exist. However, a relatively small number of these techniques have actually been applied in practical risk assessments, and even fewer have been used in the CPI. For this reason, in this section only three techniques will be described in detail. More extensive reviews are available from other sources (e.g., Kirwan et al., 1988 Kirwan, 1990 Meister, 1984). Following a brief description of each technique, a case study will be provided to illustrate the application of the technique in practice. As emphasized in the early part of this chapter, quantification has to be preceded by a rigorous qualitative analysis in order to ensure that all errors with significant consequences are identified. If the qualitative analysis is incomplete, then quanhfication will be inaccurate. It is also important to be aware of the limitations of the accuracy of the data generally available... 

Today, when a pesticide with no detectable residues is registered for use, a Tolerance or maximum residue limit (MRL) is established at the lowest concentration level at which the method was validated. However, for risk assessment purposes it would be wrong to use this number in calculating the risk posed to humans by exposure to the pesticide from the consumption of the food product. This would be assuming that the amount of the pesticide present in all food products treated with the pesticide and for which no detectable residues were found is just less than the lowest level of method validation (LLMV). The assumption is wrong, but there is no better way of performing a risk assessment calculation unless the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) of the method were clearly defined in a uniformly acceptable manner. 

Epidemiological and Human Dosimetry Studies. There are studies on the adverse effects of acrylonitrile in humans. These studies link acrylonitrile exposure and lung cancer. It has also been suggested that acrylonitrile may have the potential to cause prostate cancer. Many of the studies have major limitations including insufficient quantification of exposure, short follow-up, small study population, and inadequate evaluation of confounding associations. Additional studies would be useful in clarifying the cancer risk and estimating the exposure levels that lead to these effects. 

This Report culminates in the presentation of the principles and framework for a comprehensive and risk-based hazardous waste classification system. NCRP does not propose a particular implementation of the proposed classification system (e.g., a particular quantification in terms of limits on concentrations of hazardous substances in each waste class) this is most appropriately left to governmental policy organizations. The relationship of the proposed risk-based waste classification system to existing regulations is discussed in Section 7.2. 

The basic framework for the waste classification system developed in this Report is depicted in Figure 6.1. Starting with the objectives that the classification system should apply to any waste that contains radionuclides or hazardous chemicals and that all such waste should be classified based on risks to the public posed by its hazardous constituents, the fundamental principle of the proposed system is that hazardous waste should be classified in relation to disposal systems (technologies) that are expected to be generally acceptable in protecting public health. This principle leads to the definitions of three classes of waste, and to quantification of the boundaries of the different waste classes based on considerations of risks that arise from different methods of disposal. The boundaries normally would be specified in terms of limits on concentrations of hazardous substances. At the present time, nearly all hazardous and nonhazardous wastes are intended for disposal in a near-surface facility or a geologic repository, and these are the two types of disposal systems assumed in classifying waste. The three waste classes and their relationship to acceptable disposal systems are described in more detail in Section 6.2. 

The extent of accommodation and characterization of uncertainty in exposure assessment must necessarily be balanced against similar considerations with respect to hazard, since the outcome of any risk assessment is a function of comparison of the two. If, for example, there is limited information to inform quantitatively on hazard and, as a result, a need to rely on defaults, there is limited benefit to be gained in developing the exposure analysis such that any increase in certainty is cancelled by uncertainties of greater magnitude associated with quantification of critical hazard, as a basis for a complete risk assessment. 

The objective of qualitative characterization of uncertainty includes transparency in identifying key sources of uncertainty as an aid to risk managers who may need to make decisions in the absence of extensive data sets for substances with limited information—a prerequisite to quantification of uncertainty for substances with more extensive data. 

In contrast to most of the other core battery CNS tests, the rotarod is mainly unidirectional, detecting principally the capacity of substances to decrease neuromuscular coordination. This is not a serious limitation in that the risk factor evaluated is whether the test substance causes impairment. When used in conjunction with locomotor activity tests, the rotarod test provides a useful quantification of the margin of safety between doses of test substances which alter spontaneous activity and those which disturb motor function. 

The limits of quantification of the selected priority pollutants are comparable to or somewhat higher than the limits found for natural sediments. The limits can be reduced by increasing the amount of sample introduced into the GC or the GC/MS system. However, no comprehensive clean-up is undertaken prior to sample introduction into the GC/MS. Due to the high number of coextractives generally observed there is always a risk of contaminating the GC/MS system. Increased sample introduction is therefore not recommended. 

The above phases show the necessity of identifying the hazard to people and environment, the quantification of the possibility to occur such hazards, the magnitude of the events, and then it is necessary to establish the limits of risk acceptability. 

Following IV suspension or inhalation administration, mometasone furoate was detected in the plasma for up to 8 hours, with a half-life of 4 to 6 hours (Table 33.5) and an oral bioavailability of less than 1%. It is extensively metabolized with less than 10% of the administered dose recovered in the urine unchanged (108). Among the polar metabolites ( 80%) and their conjugates (42%) that were recovered were 6(3-hydroxymometasone furoate and its 21-hydroxy metabolite. In contrast, following intranasal administration, its plasma concentrations were below the limit of quantification, and the systemic bioavailability by this route was estimated to be less than 1 %. The majority of the intranasal dose for mometasone furoate is deposited in the nasal mucosa and swallowed without absorption in the Gl tract until eliminated in the feces (approximately 50-90% of the intranasal dose is recovered in the feces). That portion of the intranasal dose that was absorbed was extensively metabolized. These results indicate that inhaled mometasone furoate has negligible systemic bioavailability and is extensively metabolized, with reduced risk for causing systemic adrenal suppression effects. 

Although the quantification of risk provides invaluable insights, particularly with regard to the prioritization of resources, it does have limitations. 

These constraints, however, apply independently of the source of the input data, either QSARs or experiments. Therefore, within the framework available, the comparison of risk assessments for the different scenarios demonstrate positively that QSAR estimates and exposure modelling can be useful for environmental risk assessments. If the established validation criteria and limitations are considered, the reliability of the QSAR data and the accuracy of the modelling mostly correspond to the variability in the underlying experimental data. Special care has to be taken to obtain representative data sets, such as accounting for the toxicity to all relevant species in an aquatic community. As long as the wide variety of data required for quantitative risk assessments are not available from experimental sources, QSARs remain a tool for providing estimates of the exposure-relevant properties of chemicals and the toxicity of the compounds towards various species, thus allowing a more reliable quantification of the potential hazards and risks from environmental contaminants. 

Based on the results of the hazard analysis, the accidents posing the greatest risk involve direct exposure to radiation (workers) and airborne releases of radioactive material (the public). Accident analysis entails the formal quantification of a limited subset of accidents as design basis accidents (DBAs). These accidents are to represent a complete set of bounding conditions as noted in DOE 5480.23 (DOE 1994a). Further, as stated in DOE-STD-3009-94,... 

Quahtative risk assessments also have their limitations - these are well-known. Without quantification it is difficult to discern what is important and what can be removed from further evaluation. The semi-quantitative approach recognizes this by seeking a balance between the different types of methods. 

---