Cumulative risk assessments (CRAs) address combined risks from exposures to multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors and may focus on vulnerable communities or populations. Significant contributions have been made to the development of concepts, methods, and applications for CRA over the past decade. Work in both human health and ecological cumulative risk has advanced in two different contexts. The first context is the effects of chemical mixtures that share common modes of action, or that cause common adverse outcomes. In this context two primary models are used for predicting mixture effects, dose addition or response addition. The second context is evaluating the combined effects of chemical and nonchemical (e.g., radiation, biological, nutritional, economic, psychological, habitat alteration, land-use change, global climate change, and natural disasters) stressors. CRA can be adapted to address risk in many contexts, and this adaptability is reflected in the range in disciplinary perspectives in the published literature. This article presents the results of a literature search and discusses a range of selected work with the intention to give a broad overview of relevant topics and provide a starting point for researchers interested in CRA applications.

Cumulative risk assessments (CRAs) address exposures to multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors and often focus on characterization of health risks in vulnerable populations. Evaluating complex exposure-response relationships in CRAs requires the use of formal and rigorous methods for causal inference. Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are graphical causal models used to organize and communicate knowledge about the underlying causal structure that generates observable data. Using existing graphical theories for causal inference with DAGs, risk analysts can identify confounders and effect measure modifiers to determine if the available data are both internally valid to obtain unbiased risk estimates and are generalizable to populations of interest. Conditional independencies implied by the structure of a DAG can be used to test assumptions used in a CRA against empirical data in a selected study and can contribute to the evidence evaluations related to specific causal pathways. This can facilitate quantitative use of these data, as well as help identify key research gaps, prioritize data collection activities, and evaluate risk management alternatives. DAGs also enable risk analysts to be explicit about sources of uncertainty and to determine whether a causal effect can be estimated from available data. Using a conceptual model and DAG for a hypothetical community located near a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), we illustrate the advantages of using DAGs for evaluating causality in CRAs. DAGs also can be used in conjunction with weight of evidence (WOE) methodology to improve causal analysis for CRA, which could lead to more effective interventions to reduce population health risks.