Components of human and ecological risk assessments

Feijtel, Tom C. J.; Lally, Christine

doi:10.1080/10807039509380035

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1. For a detailed description of the approach the reader is referred to Cowan et al (1995), Feijtel and Lally (1995), and Van Leeuwen et al (1996). A tiered approach is also advocated in the Technical Guidance Document in support of Commission Directive (Commission of the European Communities, 1993a) on risk assessment for new noti"ed substances in the European Community (Commission of the European Communities, 1993bCommunities, , 1994.…”

Section: Environmental Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Aquatic Environmental Impact of Detergents: From Simple to More Sophisticated Models

Saouter

Pittinger

Feijtel

2001

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Environmental Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Aquatic Environmental Impact of Detergents: From Simple to More Sophisticated Models

Saouter

Pittinger

Feijtel

2001

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This paper serves to introduce five invited commentaries on the subject of the comparability of human health risk assessments (HHRA) and ecological risk assessments (ERA): Feijtel and Lally (1995); Suedel et al (1995); Hull, Suter, and Barnthouse (1995); Landis, Matthews, and Matthews (1995); and McCarty and Power (1995). As usual, we welcome Letters to the Editor providing additional commentary and, after appropriate review, will publish at least some of these in the next issue of the journal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Feijtel and Lally (1995) emphasize in the first commentary: "Man is an intrinsic part of the ecosystem." Fittingly, in the final commentary, McCarty and Power (1995) speculate on the likely future evolution of both HHRA and ERA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction

Chapman¹

1995

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The estimate may also need to take into account the variability of exposure in individuals in the population, providing a range or estimate of the distribution of the exposure [3]. These estimates of exposure must take into consideration:…”

Section: Exposure Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a set of values that can be used in exposure assessment [4]. The databases may have missing data for a particular sensitive subgroup of the population [3], and default values may have to be used.…”

Section: Exposure Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk assessment. Principles and consequences

Purchase

2000

Pure and Applied Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessment is an important tool in deciding how to allocate resources to controlling risks. In most cases it is based on hazard data derived from animal experiments and on exposure data from an assessment of the likely or actual exposure of the population of interest. Recent advances have improved the understanding of the use of the no adverse effect level (NOAEL) and safety factor for risk assessment by providing a scientific justification of the 100-fold safety factor. Concern about the risks of exposure by various routes simultaneously (aggregate exposure) and the risks of exposure to mixtures (cumulative risk assessment) have lead to new approaches to these issues. For many years, risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens has relied on low-dose extrapolation using mathematical models. Recently, these methods are being reconsidered and, in some cases, replaced with the NOAEL/safety factor approach combined with all information on the mechanism of action and the magnitude of the response. It is vitally important to ensure that risk assessment provides accurate and unbiased estimates of risk of exposure so that appropriate measures can be taken to control the risks. THE PURPOSE OF RISK ASSESSMENTThe number of different chemicals manufactured is estimated to be between 80 000 and 100 000 (medicines, food additives, cosmetics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, etc.). For the benefits of synthetic chemicals to be realized, they must be handled or used safely. In addition to synthetic chemicals, there are numerous natural chemicals with highly toxic properties-such as the mycotoxins (e.g., aflatoxin, ochratoxin, patulin, thricothecenes, etc.), plant toxins (e.g., alkaloids or cyanogenic glycosides), animal toxins (e.g., snake venoms), and chemicals that are produced naturally in the environment (such as heavy metals and ozone). We must know at what dose these chemicals are likely to cause harm. It is this task that requires risk assessment-establishing the safe dose of a chemical and the likely toxic effects that may be seen if that safe dose is exceeded.There are so many potential hazards from human activities, including from exposure to chemicals, that we have to prioritize the risks and use our limited resources for controlling the most serious risks. In order to do so, risk assessment is used as the method of providing information on the magnitude of the risks. This is vital if we are to direct our limited resources to creating the greatest reduction in risks, for it requires that those resources are focused on reducing the largest or most serious risks first. DefinitionsThere are many different definitions of risk and the processes used in risk assessment. The majority makes the clear distinction between hazard and risk.

show abstract

Components of human and ecological risk assessments

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Aquatic Environmental Impact of Detergents: From Simple to More Sophisticated Models

Aquatic Environmental Impact of Detergents: From Simple to More Sophisticated Models

Introduction

Risk assessment. Principles and consequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About