On the ranking of chemicals based on their PBT characteristics: Comparison of different ranking methodologies using selected POPs as an illustrative example

Sailaukhanuly, Yerbolat; Zhakupbekova, Aray; Amutova, Farida; Carlsen, Lars

doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.015

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, weights were assigned to the various dimensions, and MCDA was applied (i.e., scores were multiplied and summed across criteria to give a net score for each alternative). Mitchel et al (2013) presented an overview of an MCDA framework for ranking chemical hazards, considering factors such as the chemical properties (persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity) and life cycle properties (production, consumer use, disposal) to provide an overall transparent approach (Mitchell, Pabon, et al, 2013;Sailaukhanuly et al, 2013;Sorensen et al, 2010).…”

Section: Multi-criteria Decision Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critical review of methodology and application of risk ranking for prioritisation of food and feed related issues, on the basis of the size of anticipated health impact

Fels‐Klerx

Asselt

Raley³

et al. 2015

EFS3

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): van der Fels-Klerx, H. J., van Asselt, E. D., Raley, M., Poulsen, M., Korsgaard, H. B., Bredsdorff, L., ... Frewer, L. (2015). Critical review of methodology and application of risk ranking for prioritisation of food and feed related issues, on the basis of the size of anticipated health impact. Europen Food Safety Authority. (EFSA Supporting Publications; No. 710E, Vol. 12(1) ABSTRACTThis study aimed to critically review methodologies for ranking of risks related to feed/food safety and nutritional hazards, on the basis of their anticipated human health impact. An extensive systematic literature review was performed to identify and characterize the available methodologies for risk ranking in the fields of feed and food safety and nutritional hazards, as well as the socio-economic field. Risk ranking methods from the environmental field were studied as well to determine whether approaches used in this field could also be applied for ranking human health risks related to feed and food safety and nutritional hazards. The review used a predefined search protocol. It covered the bibliographic databases Scopus, CAB Abstracts, Web of Sciences, and PubMed over the period 1993-2013. All references obtained were stored into an Endnote database and evaluated for their relevance. All references deemed to be relevant were studied in-depth so as to characterize the risk ranking method described. Characteristics of each method were stored in an Excel database. The methods for risk ranking were then grouped into method categories, which were described in general. These groups included: risk assessment, comparative risk assessment, risk ratio method, scoring method, cost of illness, DALY/QALY, willingness to pay, multi criteria decision analysis, risk matrix, flow charts/decision trees and expert judgment methods. Based on the characteristics of the individual methods and the method categories, an overarching framework was developed for selection of the appropriate method(s) that could be used for risk ranking of feed and food related hazards, on the basis of human health impact. This framework has the format of a decision tool, with which -given the characteristics of the risk ranking question at hand -the most appropriate method(s) can be selected. Application of this overall framework to several case studies showed it can be a useful tool for risk managers/assessors to select the most suitable method for risk ranking of feed/food and diet related hazards, on the basis of expected human health impact. © RIKILT, 2015 DISCLAIMERThe present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It...

show abstract

Section: Multi-criteria Decision Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MCDA is then applied to aggregate the outcomes (Critto et al, 2007;Zuin et al, 2011). Uncertainty can be included in the analysis using probabilistic distributions for the scores, and Monte-Carlo simulations to determine the likelihood for certain scenarios Sailaukhanuly et al, 2013).…”

Section: Multi-criteria Decision Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical review of methodology and application of risk ranking for prioritisation of food and feed related issues, on the basis of the size of anticipated health impact

Fels‐Klerx

Asselt

Raley³

et al. 2015

EFS3

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ambiguity (e.g., around uncertainty, variability, and complexity) may be resolved by a stakeholder discourse-based strategy (IRGC, 2005), which is a consensus-finding task, and there are several multivariate science policy tools, such as MCDA (multi-criteria decision analysis) that have been developed to capture, elucidate, and identify uncertainties, transparently facilitating the democratization of decisions at the science-policy interface (e.g., Linkov et al, 2013;Sailaukhanuly et al, 2013). The uncertainties concept of "ignorance" reminds us that science is constantly evolving, and underpins the more cautious language often employed by scientists.…”

Section: ) Foster the Interest In Improved And Newly Defined In Silimentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainties of testing methods: What do we (want to) know about carcinogenicity?

Paparella

Colacci

Jacobs

2017

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The PBT (persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity) and environmental risk ratio system of drug comparison [90] is used by European governments (REACH -http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/ pri_substances.htm) [91] as well as adopted by one US State (Oregon) [92][93][94][95]. One of our objectives is to determine if such data provides the hospital environmental professional with a method of ranking damaging drug wastes.…”

Section: Pbt Environmental Risk Ratio and Ecotoxicity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceutical Dispensing and Wasting In Health Care Facilities, Amounts, Costs and Evaluation of Potential Ecologic Effects

Mankes¹,

Silver²

2017

SOJPPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug waste from hospitals contributes to environmental contamination. Patient excreta, bathing or discarding of excess drugs are some sources of drug waste. We report on the wasting of 84 drugs of 14 therapeutic classes in two hospitals in Albany, NY. We consider drug metabolism, excretion, disposal and ecotoxicity in strategies for reducing drug waste, costs and potential environmental damage.Medication (12,345) and waste collection (199) records for: drugs dispensed, returned and wasted were examined. Of 2,700 drugs available, 84 drugs from 14 classes, weighing 56 kg were dispensed to patients, and 2.3 kg were wasted. Twelve drugs accounted for 80 percent of the drug waste and cost $111,000. Of the top wasted and dispensed drugs, all but ibuprofen are persistant and none were bioaccumulative. Ibuprofen, ipratropium ondansetron and oxymetazoline are "very highly toxic" or "highly toxic". Environmental Risk Ratio (PEC/PNEC) for the 20 top drugs were"Insignificant" or "Cannot Be Excluded".Acetazolamide is the most toxic to fish. Dexamethasone has the greatest chronic toxicity to Ceriodaphnia. Ibuprofen is predicted to be very highly toxic (acute and chronic) to zebra mussel, crab and fish. Neostigmine is the most acutely toxic (LC50<1 mg/L) to Daphnia. Ondansetron is the most acutely toxic to green algae. All but 2 of the drugs were 5 to 100% excreted. Fourteen were metabolised. Active metabolites were formed from 2 drugs. Nicardipine, ondansetron and prednisone formed drug conjugates which were excreted. Incineration was the manufacturer's recommended disposal method.We recommend excess drugs be returned to the hospital pharmacy for disposal by incineration. Drug use and disposal should be monitored by an expert committee according to recognized guidelines of pharmaceutical management. Knowledge of the adverse impacts from the release of highly toxic drugs into the environment must influence drug selection and disposal.Key words: Waste; Ecotoxicity; Wastewater; Abbreviations AMCH = Academic Medical Center Hospital; ASTER = Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk. United States Environmental Protection Agency https://archive.epa.gov/med/med_archive_03/web/html/ aster.html Last accessed 6/4/17; B = Bioaccumulation is the general term describing a process by which chemicals are taken up by an organism either directly from exposure to a contaminated medium or by consumption of food containing the chemical; EC50 = Effective Concentration producing an adverse effect in 50% of a test species; EbC50 or ErC50 = EC50 in terms of reduction of growth rate; EyC50 = EC50 in terms of change in biomass yield; Ecosar = Ecologic Structure Activity Relationships is a computerized predictive system that estimates aquatic toxicity. The program estimates a chemical's acute (short-term) toxicity and chronic (long-term or delayed) toxicity to aquatic organisms such as fish, invertebrates, and plants by using computerized Structure Activity Relationships (SARs). https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/ ecological-structure-...

show abstract

On the ranking of chemicals based on their PBT characteristics: Comparison of different ranking methodologies using selected POPs as an illustrative example

Cited by 23 publications

References 10 publications

Critical review of methodology and application of risk ranking for prioritisation of food and feed related issues, on the basis of the size of anticipated health impact

Critical review of methodology and application of risk ranking for prioritisation of food and feed related issues, on the basis of the size of anticipated health impact

Uncertainties of testing methods: What do we (want to) know about carcinogenicity?

Pharmaceutical Dispensing and Wasting In Health Care Facilities, Amounts, Costs and Evaluation of Potential Ecologic Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About