No abstract

A comprehensive analytical review of the risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication approaches currently being undertaken by key national, provincial/state, territorial, and international agencies was conducted. The information acquired for review was used to identify the differences, commonalities, strengths, and weaknesses among the various approaches, and to identify elements that should be included in an effective, current, and comprehensive approach applicable to environmental, human health and occupational health risks. More than 80 agencies, organizations, and advisory councils, encompassing more than 100 risk documents, were examined during the period from February 2000 until November 2002. An overview was made of the most important general frameworks for risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication for human health and ecological risk, and for occupational health risk. In addition, frameworks for specific applications were reviewed and summarized, including those for (1)contaminated sites; (2) northern contaminants; (3) priority substances; (4) standards development; (5) food safety; (6) medical devices; (7) prescription drug use; (8) emergency response; (9) transportation; (10) risk communication. Twelve frameworks were selected for more extensive review on the basis of representation of the areas of human health, ecological, and occupational health risk; relevance to Canadian risk management needs; representation of comprehensive and well-defined approaches; generalizability with their risk areas; representation of "state of the art" in Canada, the United States, and/or internationally; and extent of usage of potential usage within Canada. These 12 frameworks were: 1. Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management (US Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 1997). 2. Health Risk Determination: The Challenge of Health Protection (Health and Welfare Canada, 1990). 3. Health Canada Decision-Making Framework for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Health Risks (Health Canada, 2000). 4. Canadian Environmental Protection Act: Human Health Risk Assessment of Priority Substances(Health Canada, 1994). 5. CSA-Q8550 Risk Management: Guidelines for Decision-Makers (Canada Standards Association, 1997). 6. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (US National Research Council, 1983). 7. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (US National Research Council, 1996). 8. Environmental Health Risk Assessment (enHealth Council of Australia, 2002). 9. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (CCME, 1996). 10. Ecological Risk Assessments of Priority Substances Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Environment Canada, 1996).11. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (US EPA, 1998b). 12. Proposed Model for Occupational Health Risk Assessment and Management (Rampal & Sadhra, 1999). Based on the extensive review of these frameworks, seven key elements that should be included in a comprehensive framew...

No abstract

No abstract

Air pollution is a current and growing concern for Canadians, and there is evidence that ambient levels that meet current exposure standards may be associated with mortality and morbidity in Toronto, Canada. Evaluating exposure is an important step in understanding the relationship between particulate matter (PM) exposure and health outcomes. This report describes the PEARLS model (Particulate Exposure from Ambient to Regional Lung by Subgroup), which predicts exposure distributions for 11 age-gender population subgroups in Toronto to PM2.5 (PM with a median aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microm or less) using Monte Carlo simulation techniques. The model uses physiological and activity pattern characteristics of each subgroup to determine region-specific lung exposure to PM2.5, which is defined as the mass of PM2.5 deposited per unit time to each of five lung regions (two extrathoracic, bronchial, bronchiolar, and alveolar). The modeling results predict that children, toddlers, and infants have the broadest distributions of exposure, and the greatest chance of experiencing extreme exposures in the alveolar region of the lung. Importance analysis indicates that the most influential model variables are air exchange rate into indoor environments, time spent outdoors, and time spent at high activity levels. Additionally, a "critical point" was defined and introduced to the PEARLS to investigate the effects of possible threshold-pathogenic phenomena on subgroup exposure patterns. The analysis indicates that the subgroups initially predicted to be most highly exposed were likely to have the highest proportion of their population exposed above the critical point. Substantial exposures above the critical point were predicted in all subgroups for ambient concentrations of PM2.5 commonly observed in Toronto after continuous exposure of 24 hours or more.