A survey of the research done on preventive maintenance is presented. The scope of the present survey is on the research published after the 1976 paper by Pierskalla and Voelker [98]. This article includes optimization models for repair, replacement, and inspection of systems subject to stochastic deterioration. A classification scheme is used that categorizes recent research into inspection models, minimal repair models, shock models, or miscellaneous replacement models.
Chronic progressive nephropathy (CPN) is a spontaneous renal disease of rats which can be a serious confounder in toxicology studies. It is a progressive disease with known physiological factors that modify disease progression, such as high dietary protein. The weight of evidence supports an absence of a renal counterpart in humans. There is extensive evidence that advanced CPN, particularly end-stage kidney, is a risk factor for development of a background incidence of atypical tubule hyperplasia and renal tubule tumors (RTT). The likely cause underlying this association with tubule neoplasia is the long-term increased tubule cell proliferation that occurs throughout CPN progression. As a variety of chemicals are able to exacerbate CPN, there is a potential for those exacerbating the severity up to and including end-stage kidney to cause a marginal increase in RTT and their precursor lesions. Extensive statistical analysis of National Toxicology Program studies shows a strong correlation between high-grade CPN, especially end-stage CPN, and renal tumor development. CPN as a mode of action (MOA) for rat RTT has received attention from regulatory authorities only recently. In the absence of toxic effects elsewhere, this does not constitute a carcinogenic effect of the chemical but can be addressed through a proposed MOA approach for regulatory purposes to reach a decision that RTT, developing as a result of CPN exacerbation in rats, have no relevance for human risk assessment. Guidelines are proposed for evaluation of exacerbation of CPN and RTT as a valid MOA for a given chemical.
Ethylene oxide (EO) research has significantly increased since the 1980s, when regulatory risk assessments were last completed on the basis of the animal cancer chronic bioassays. In tandem with the new scientific understanding, there have been evolutionary changes in regulatory risk assessment guidelines, that encourage flexibility and greater use of scientific information. The results of an updated meta-analysis of the findings from 10 unique EO study cohorts from five countries, including nearly 33,000 workers, and over 800 cancers are presented, indicating that EO does not cause increased risk of cancers overall or of brain, stomach or pancreatic cancers. The findings for leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) are inconclusive. Two studies with the requisite attributes of size, individual exposure estimates and follow up are the basis for dose-response modeling and added lifetime risk predictions under environmental and occupational exposure scenarios and a variety of plausible alternative assumptions. A point of departure analysis, with various margins of exposure, is also illustrated using human data. The two datasets produce remarkably similar leukemia added risk predictions, orders of magnitude lower than prior animal-based predictions under conservative, default assumptions, with risks on the order of 1 x 10(-6) or lower for exposures in the low ppb range. Inconsistent results for "lymphoid" tumors, a non-standard grouping using histologic information from death certificates, are discussed. This assessment demonstrates the applicability of the current risk assessment paradigm to epidemiological data.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.