The current practice of health risk assessment: potential impact on standards for toxic air contaminants.

Abstract

Since the Bhopal incident, the public has placed pressure on regulatory agencies to set community exposure limits for the dozens of chemicals that may be released by manufacturing facilities. More or less objective limits can be established for the vast majority of these chemicals through the use of risk assessment. However, each step of the risk assessment process (i.e., hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization) contains a number of pitfalls that scientists need to avoid to ensure that valid limits are established. For example, in the hazard identification step there has been little discrimination among animal carcinogens with respect to mechanism of action or the epidemiology experience. In the dose-response portion, rarely is the range of "plausible" estimated risks presented. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PB-PK) models should be used to understand the difference between the tissue doses and the administered dose, as well as the difference in target tissue concentrations of the toxicant between rodents and humans. Biologically-based models like the Moolgavkar-Knudson-Venzon (MKV) should be developed and used, when appropriate. The exposure assessment step can be significantly improved by using more sensitive and specific sampling and analytical methods, more accurate exposure parameters, and computer models that can account for complex environmental factors. Whenever possible, model predictions of exposure and uptake should be validated by biological monitoring of exposed persons (urine, blood, adipose) or by field measurements of plants, soil, fish, air, or water. In each portion of an assessment, the weight of evidence approach should be used to identify the most defensible value. In the risk characterization, the best estimate of the potential risk as well as the highest plausible risk should be presented. Future assessments would be much improved if quantitative uncertainty analyses were conducted. Procedures are currently available for making future assessments. By correcting some of these shortcomings in how health risk assessments have been conducted, scientists and risk managers should be better able to identify scientifically appropriate ambient air standards and emission limits.