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

REFERENCES

• Bullock, W.H., and J.S. Ignacio: A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Aitchison, J., and J.A.C. Brown: The Lognormal Distribution with Special Reference to its Uses in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957.
   Google Scholar
• Rappaport, S.M., and L.L. Kupper: Quantitative Exposure Assessment. Raleigh, NC: Lulu Press, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Jayjock, M., G. Ramachandran, S. Arnold, and E. Dederick: Uncertainty. In Mathematical Models for Estimating Occupational Exposure to Chemicals, C.B. Keil, C.E. Simmons, and T. Anthony (eds.). Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2009. Chapter 10.
   Google Scholar
• International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS): Uncertainty and Data Quality in Exposure Assessment. Harmonization Project Document No. 6. Geneva: World Health Organization. (2008).
   Google Scholar
• O’Hagan, A., C.E. Buck, A. Daneshkhah et al.: Uncertain Judgments: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Logan, P.W., G. Ramachandran, J.R. Mulhausen, S. Banerjee, and P. Hewett: Desktop study of occupational exposure judgments: Do education and experience influence accuracy? J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 8(12):746–758 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vadali, M., G. Ramachandran, and 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).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vadali, M., G. Ramachandran, J.R. Mulhausen, and S. Banerjee: Effect of training on exposure judgment accuracy of industrial hygienists. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 9(4):242–256 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicas, M., B.P. Simmons, and R.C. Spear: Environmental versus analytical variability in exposure measurements. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 52(12):553–557 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Reinke, P., M. Jayjock, and M. Nicas: Well-mixed rooms with changing conditions. In Mathematical Models for Estimating Occupational Exposure to Chemicals, C. Keil, C.E. Simmons, and T. Anthony (eds.). Fairfax, VA: Amer Industrial Hygiene Association, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Keil, C.B., C.E. Simmons, and T.R. Anthony: Mathematical Models for Estimating Occupational Exposure to Chemicals, 2nd Ed. Fairfax VA: AIHA Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, M., and J. Booker: Selecting from Dispersion Measures in Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide. San Diego: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, A.C., and 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.
   Google Scholar
• Nicas, M., and M. Jayjock: Uncertainty in exposure estimates made by modeling versus monitoring. AIHA J.: 63(3):275–283 (2002).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayjock, M.A.: Uncertainty analysis in the estimation of exposure. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 58(5):380–382 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerre, E.E.: The impact of fuzzy set theory on contemporary mathematics. Appl. Comput. Math. 10(1):20–34 (2011).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baudrit, C., and D. Dubois: Joint propagation and exploitation of probabilistic and possibilistic information in risk assessment. J. Latex Class. 1(11):1–13 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Huang, G., N. Sae-Lim, L. Liu, and Z. Chen: An interval-parameter fuzzy-stochastic programming approach for municipal solid waste management and planning. Environ. Model. Assess. 6(4):271–283 (2001).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahab, M., Y. Lee, and I. Bogardi: A rule-based fuzzy-set approach to risk analysis of nitrate-contaminated groundwater. Water Sci. Technol. 30(7):45–52 (1994).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donald, S. and T.J. Ross: Use of fuzzy logic and similarity measures in the risk management of hazardous waste sites. 376–382 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Liu, L., S. Cheng, and 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).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferson, S., and L.R. Ginzburg: Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 54(2):133–144 (1996).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferson, S., and 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.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, W.T., and S. Ferson: Probability Bounds Analysis in Environmental Risk Assessment. Setauket, NY: Applied Biomathematics, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Ramachandran, G., and J.H. Vincent: A Bayesian approach to retrospective exposure assessment. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 14(8):547–557 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hewett, P., P. Logan, J. Mulhausen, G. Ramachandran, and S. Banerjee: Rating exposure control using Bayesian decision analysis. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 3(10):568–581 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sottas, P., J. Lavoué, R. Bruzzi, D. Vernez, N. Charrière, and P. Droz: An empirical hierarchical Bayesian unification of occupational exposure assessment methods. Stat. Med. 28(1):75–93 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leidel, N.A., K.A. Busch, and J.R. Lynch: Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, NIOSH Publication No. 77–173. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1977.
   Google Scholar
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): OSHA Technical Manual. Directive TED 01-00-015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Rappaport, S.M.: Assessment of long-term exposures to toxic substances in air. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 35(1):61–122 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappaport, S.M., H. Kromhout, and E. Symanski: Variation of exposure between workers in homogeneous exposure groups. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 54(11):654–662 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappaport, S.M., R.H. Lyles, and L.L. Kupper: An exposure-assessments strategy accounting for within- and between-worker sources of variability. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 39(4):469–495 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappaport, S.M., L.L. Kupper, and Y.S. Lin: On the importance of exposure variability to the doses of volatile organic compounds. Toxicol. Sci. 83(2):224–236 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tornero-Velez, R., E. Symanski, H. Kromhout, R.C. Yu, and S.M. Rappaport: Compliance versus risk in assessing occupational exposures. Risk Anal. 17(3):279–292 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kromhout, H.: Design of measurement strategies for workplace exposures. Occup. Environ. Med. 59(5):349–354 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tielemans, E., L.L. Kupper, H. Kromhout, D. Heederik, and R. Houba: Individual-based and group-based occupational exposure assessment: some equations to evaluate different strategies. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 42(2):115–119 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogden, T., and 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).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS): Statistical Program for the Evaluation of Exposure Data (SPEED) (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Drolet, D., T. Armstrong, and 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Hewett, P.: IHDA for Bayesian decision analysis. http://www.oesh.com/software.php. 12. 27, Morgantown, WV: Exposure Solutions, Inc., 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Lyles, R.H., L.L. Kupper, and S.M. Rappaport: A lognormal distribution-based exposure assessment method for unbalanced data. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 41(1):63–76 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, A., R. Sussman, J. Mulhausen, and R. Roy: Characterizing the impacts of uncertainty and scientific judgment. Toxicologist 132(1) (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler, M.W., R. Park, A.J. Bailer, and 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).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dankovic, M., B. Naumann, M. Dourson, and A. Maier: The scientific basis of uncertainty factors used in setting occupational exposure limits. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(S1):S55–S68 (2015).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jayjock, M.A., P.G. Lewis, and J.R. Lynch: Quantitative level of protection offered to workers by ACGIH threshold limit values occupational exposure limits. AIHAJ 62(1):4–11 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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).
   Google Scholar
• Dourson, M.L., L.K. Teuschler, P.R. Durkin, and W.M. Stiteler: Categorical regression of toxicity data: A case study using aldicarb. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25(2):121–129 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertzberg, R.C., and M.L. Dourson: Using categorical regression instead of a NOAEL to characterize a toxicologist's judgment in noncancer risk assessment. 254–261 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Haber, L.T., J.S. Dollarhide, A. Maier, and 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.
   Google Scholar
• Teuschler, L.K., M.L. Dourson, W.M. Stiteler, P. McClure, and H. Tully: Health risk above the reference dose for multiple chemicals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 30(2 Pt 2):S19–26 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. EPA: CatReg Software Version 2.3 for Categorical Regression Analysis in Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, S.J., J.T. Cohen, J.D. Graham, A.I. Shlyakhter, and J.S. Evans: Noncancer risk assessment: A probabilistic alternative to current practice. Hum. Ecol. Risk 2(1):79–102 (1996).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dourson, M.L., and J.F. Stara: Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 3(3):224–238 (1983).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swartout, J.C., P.S. Price, M.L. Dourson, H.L. Carlson-Lynch, and R.E. Keenan: A probabilistic framework for the reference dose (probabilistic RfD). Risk Anal. 18(3):271–282 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC): Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Price, P.S., R.E. Keenan, J.C. Swartout, C.A. Gillis, H. Carlson-Lynch, and M.L. Dourson: An approach for modeling noncancer dose responses with an emphasis on uncertainty. Risk Anal. 17(4):427–437 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattis, D., S. Baird, and R. Goble: A straw man proposal for a quantitative definition of the RfD. Drug Chem. Toxicol. 25(4):403–436 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattis, D., and 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC): Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• United States Environmental Protection Agency: “NextGen: Risk Assessment.” Available at: http://www.epa.gov/risk/nexgen/ (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Yokota, F., and K.M. Thompson: Value of information analysis in environmental health risk management decisions: past, present, and future. Risk Anal. 24(3):635–650 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappaport, S.M.: Assessing workplace exposures: turning to the past for guidance. Occup. Environ. Med. 66(7):429–430 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency (ECHA): Occupational Exposure Estimation. In Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Anonymous. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2009. . Chapter R.14.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar