Standard Documentation of Exposure Models: MERLIN-Expo Case Study

  • Annette Altenpohl
  • Philippe Ciffroy
  • Alicia Paini
  • Anita Radovnikovic
  • Nicoleta Alina Suciu
  • Taku Tanaka
  • Alice Tediosi
  • Frederik Verdonck
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 57)

Abstract

At the example of the MERLIN-Expo case study, important aspects of the documentation and of standardisation of chemical exposure models are discussed. A key challenge faced by developers of large or complex chemical exposure models is limited transparency leading to loss of confidence in the applicability of results of the model and other inefficiencies such as lacking interoperability. These inefficiencies can be addressed by standardisation which is explained as a process leading to improved common definitions, transparency and reliability in application. A review of available frameworks on the documentation of exposure models as well other complex models is conducted. The process of arriving at consensus on recommended documentation of exposure models via a workshop process is described, involving representatives from different stakeholders such as scientists, regulators, manufacturers or consultants. Key components of the documentation of chemical exposure models are presented, and a way to structure the communication of the information is proposed. The role of standardisation in supporting research and innovation projects is illustrated.

Keywords

Case study Complex model Documentation Exposure model Standardisation 

References

  1. 1.
    CEN/CENELEC (2014) CEN/CENELEC Workshop Agreements. Guide 29. Available via http://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Guides/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 13 June 2016
  2. 2.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Guidance on the development, evaluation, and application of environmental models. EPA/100/K-09/003. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grimm V et al (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Model 221:2760–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grimm V et al (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grimm V et al (2005) Individual-based modelling and ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Canadian Environmental Modelling Network CEMN (2005) Development and application of models of chemical fate in Canada. Modelling guidance document. CEMN Report No. 200501. Trent University, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007) Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative) structure-activity relationship [(Q)SAR] models. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment 69. ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bilitewski B et al (eds) (2013) Global risk-based management of chemical additives II. Risk-based assessment and management strategies. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO International Standardisation Organisation (2012) ISO/TS 14033. Environmental management – Quantitative environmental information – Guidelines and examples. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CEN European Committee for Standardisation (2012) CEN/TR 16364. Influence of materials on water intended for human consumption – Influence due to migration – Prediction of migration from organic materials using mathematical modelling. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    WHO World Health Organization (2005) Principles of characterizing and applying human exposure models. Harmonization Project Document No. 3. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bilitewski B (2009) Review of models for predicting the concentration of chemicals in air, water and soil to human exposure, including mathematical and functional specification of the multimedia software. In: Riskcycle Project. Available via http://www.wadef.com/projects/riskcycle/results.reports.php. Accessed 13 June 2016
  13. 13.
    Bilitewski B (2009) Review of models used to assess human toxicity and ecotoxicological impacts of chemicals. In: Riskcycle Project. Available via http://www.wadef.com/projects/riskcycle/results.reports.php. Accessed 13 June 2016
  14. 14.
    Fryer M, Collins CD, Ferrier H, Colvile RN, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2006) Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications. Environ Sci Policy 9(3):261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fryer ME, Collins CD, Colvile RN, Ferrier H, Van Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2004) Evaluation of currently used exposure models to define a human exposure model for use in chemical risk assessment in the UK. Imperial College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Furtaw EJ (2001) An overview of human exposure modeling activities at the USEPA’s National Exposure Reseach Laboratory. Toxicol Ind Health 17:302–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huijbregts MAJ, Geelen LMJ, Hertwich EG, McKone TE, Van De Meent D (2005) A comparison between the multimedia fate and exposure models CalTOX and uniform system for evaluation of substances adapted for life-cycle assessment based on the pollution intake fraction of toxic pollutants. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:486–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maddalena RL, McKone TE, Layton DW, Hsieh DPH (1995) Comparison of multi-media transport and transformation models: regional fugacity model vs. CalTOX. Chemosphere 30:869–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park MVDZ, Delmaar JE, Van Engelen JGM (2006) Comparison of consumer exposure modelling tools. Inventory of possible improvements of ConsExpo. RIVM report 320104006. Available via: http://www.rivm.nl/en/Documents_and_publications/Scientific/Reports/2007/april/Comparison_of_consumer_exposure_modelling_tools_Inventory_of_possible_improvements_of_ConsExpo?sp=cml2bXE9ZmFsc2U7c2VhcmNoYmFzZT01OTM5MDtyaXZtcT1mYWxzZTs=&pagenr=5940. Accessed 13 June 2016
  20. 20.
    Pistocchi A, Sarigiannis DA, Vizcaino P (2010) Spatially explicit multimedia fate models for pollutants in Europe: state of the art and perspectives. Sci Total Environ 408:3817–3830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rong-Rong Z, Che-Sheng Z, Zhong-Peng H, Xiao-Meng S (2012) Review of environmental multimedia models. Environ Forensics 13:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (1999) TRIM Total Risk Integrated Methodology. TRIM.Expo Technical Support Document. EPA-453/D-99-001. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morgan GM, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty – a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott M (2000) Sensitivity analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    CEN/CENELEC (2015) Internal Regulations Part 2. Common Rules for Standardisation Work. Available via http://boss.cen.eu/reference%20material/RefDocs/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 13 June 2016
  26. 26.
    CEN European Committee for Standardisation (2015) CWA 16938. Standard documentation of chemical exposure models. BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annette Altenpohl
    • 1
  • Philippe Ciffroy
    • 2
  • Alicia Paini
    • 3
  • Anita Radovnikovic
    • 3
  • Nicoleta Alina Suciu
    • 4
  • Taku Tanaka
    • 2
  • Alice Tediosi
    • 5
  • Frederik Verdonck
    • 6
  1. 1.Austrian StandardsViennaAustria
  2. 2.National Hydraulics and Environment LaboratoryEDF R&DChatouFrance
  3. 3.European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP)IspraItaly
  4. 4.Università Cattolica del Sacro CuorePiacenzaItaly
  5. 5.Aeiforia srlGariga di PodenzanoItaly
  6. 6.ArcheGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations