Skip to main content

Uncertainty Analysis in Exposure Assessment-Relevance for Toxicological Risk Assessment

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Regulatory Toxicology

Abstract

Within the last decade the documentation of uncertainty has become mandatory as a necessary part of any exposure and risk assessment. A key document that is used as a framework in many regulatory approaches is the guidance document published by the WHO (IPCS) in 2008. The structure of this chapter follows the guiding principles described there, adding information from various regulatory documents. The process of an exposure assessment is structured by the definition of the scope of analysis, the selection of appropriate exposure scenarios for the population under concern, and the choice of conceptual and mathematical models with appropriate parameters. The evaluation of the resulting exposure calculation should support conclusions about the likelihood of exceeding health-based guidance values. The choice of parameters must cover the existing variation of all influence factors. The process should start with simplified approaches and repeated iteratively until the level of residual uncertainty can be tolerated with respect to the purpose. Each uncertainty may be analyzed at one of three tiers: qualitative, deterministic, or variance based. The identification and evaluation of the different kinds and sources of inherent uncertainty is part of the overall analysis and documentation. By this, uncertainty analysis strongly supports informed decision-making and risk communication under uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ASME (2005) PTC 19.1 Test Uncertainty. The Performance Test Standard – 2005. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • AUH (1995) Standards zur Expositionsschätzung. Bericht des Ausschusses für Umwelthygiene. BAGS/Hamburg (Hrsg.), https://www.apug.de/archiv/pdf/Expositionsabschaetzung_Laender_1995.pdf

  • BfR (2015) Guidance document on uncertainty analysis in exposure assessment Recommendation of the Committee for Exposure Assessment and Standardisation of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). Berlin (BfR-Wissenschaft 03/2015). Online PDF: www.bfr.bund.de

  • Bois FY, Jame IM, Clewell HJ (2010) PBPK modelling of inter-individual variability in the pharmacokinetics of environmental chemicals. Toxicology 278(3):256–267. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20600548

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bokkers BGH, Mengelers MJ, Bakker MI, Chiu WA, Slob W (2017) APROBA-plus: a probabilistic tool to evaluate and express uncertainty in hazard characterization and exposure assessment of substances. Food Chem Toxicol 110:408–417

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Burns CJ, Wright JM et al (2014) Evaluating uncertainty to strengthen epidemiologic data for use in human health risk assessments. Environ Health Perspect 122(11):1160–1165

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cacuci DG (2003) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis: theory, vol I. Chapman & Hall, CRC

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey JM, Burgman MA (2008) Linguistic uncertainty in qualitative risk analysis and how to minimize it. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1128:13–17

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Clewell HJ, Gentry PR, Covington TR, Gearhart JM (2000) Development of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model of trichloroethylene and its metabolites for use in risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 108(Suppl 2):283–305

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen AC, Frey HC (1999) Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2000) European Commission: first report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures. Report of the Scientific steering committee’s working group on harmonisation of risk assessment procedures in the scientific committees advising the European Commission in the area of human and environmental health appendix 2:26–27 October 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHA (2008) European chemicals agency (ECHA). Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment chapter R.20: table of terms and abbreviation. European Chemicals Agency, Version 2013, Helsinki. http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r20_en.pdf

  • ECHA (2010) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Exposure scenario format in part D: exposure scenario building, in part F: CSR format (version: 2, May 2010); European chemicals agency, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHA (2011) Exposure scenario for chemical safety report and communication example: consumer use of a substance in cleaning products. ECHA-11-R-007-EN 29 August 2011, European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHA (2012a) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment Chapter R.15: consumer exposure estimation. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki 19. http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r15_en.pdf

  • ECHA (2012b) Practical guide 13: how downstream users can handle exposure scenarios. ECHA-12-G-04-EN, June 2012, European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards JA, Snyder FJ, Allen PM, Makinson KA, Hamby DM (2012) Decision making for risk management: a comparison of graphical methods for presenting quantitative uncertainty. Risk Anal 32(12):2055–2070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2006) Guidance of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to uncertainties in dietary exposure assessment. EFSA J 438:1–54. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2007.438. Visited 17 June 2020

  • EFSA (2007) Reasoned opinion on the potential chronic and acute risk to consumers’ health arising from proposed temporary EU MRLs – 15/03/2007; 15 March 2007. European Food Safety Authority, Parma

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2012b) Scientific opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food. EFSA panel on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM). EFSA J 10(12):2985

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA Scientific Committee (2007) Opinion of the scientific committee related to uncertainties in dietary exposure assessment. European Food Safety Authority, Parma. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/438.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA Scientific Committee (2018a) The principles and methods behind EFSA’s guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessment. EFSA J 16(1):e05122

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA Scientific Committee (2018b) Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments. EFSA J 16(1):e05123

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • EU (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Part I. Ispra, European Union, European Chemicals Bureau, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (EUR 20418 EN/1, http://ecb.jrc.it/tgdoc)

  • Farrar D, Allen B, Crump K, Shipp A (1989) Evaluation of uncertainty in input parameters to pharmacokinetic models and the resulting uncertainty in output. Toxicol Lett 49(2–3):371–385

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Filipsson M, Öberg T, Bergbäck B (2011) Variability and uncertainty in Swedish exposure factors for use in quantitative exposure assessments. Risk Anal 31:108–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey HC, Patil SR (2002) Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk Anal 22(3):553–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey HC, Mokhtari A, Zheng J (2004) Recommended practice regarding selection, application, and interpretation of sensitivity analysis methods applied to food safety process risk models. Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammonds JS, Hoffman FO, Bartell SM (1994) An introductory guide to uncertainty analysis in environmental and health risk assessment. ES/ER/TM-35/R1, Oak Ridge. http://rais.ornl.gov/documents/tm35r1.pdf

  • Hart A, Smith GC, Macarthur R, Rose M (2002) Application of uncertainty analysis in assessing dietary exposure. Toxicol Lett 140–141:437–442, 2003. Proceedings of EUROTOX 2002, The Xth European Congress of Toxicology

  • IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (1989) Evaluating the reliability of predictions made using environmental transfer models. IAEA safety series 100. Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrekk H, Morgan MG (1987) Graphical communication of uncertain quantities to nontechnical people. Risk Anal 7(4):519–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IOM (Institute of Medicine) (2013) Environmental decisions in the face of uncertainty. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCS (international Programme on chemical safety) (1994) derivation of guidance values for health based exposure limits. Environmental health criteria no. 170: assessing human health risks of chemicals. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCS (international Programme on chemical safety) (2004) IPCS risk assessment terminology. Part 2: IPCS glossary of key exposure assessment terminology. World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety; Geneva. http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/ipcsterminologyparts1and2.pdf

  • IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety) (2005) Chemical-specific adjustment factors for interspecies differences and human variability: guidance document for use of data in dose/concentration/response assessment. World Health Organization; Geneva. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241546786_eng.pdf

  • IPCS-WHO (International Programme on Chemical Safety) (2008) Uncertainty and data quality in exposure assessment. Part 1: guidance document on characterizing & communicating uncertainty in exposure assessment. Part 2: hallmarks of data quality in chemical exposure assessment. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (1993) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • JCGM (2008) Evaluation of measurement data – guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. JCGM 100:2008, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, 100:2008 (revised version 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krewski D, Wang Y, Bartlett S, Krishnan K (1995) Uncertainty, variability, and sensitivity analysis in physiological pharmacokinetic models. J Biopharm Stat 5(3):245–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzius-Spencer M, O’Rourke MK, Hsu CH, Hartz V, Harris RB, Burgess JL (2013) Measured versus modeled dietary arsenic and relation to urinary arsenic excretion and total exposure. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;23(4):442–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Mekel O, Mosbach-Schulz O, Schümann M, Okken PK, Peters C, Herrmann J, Hehl O, Bubenheim M, Fehr M, Timm J (2007) Evaluation von Standards und Modellen zur probabilistischen Expositionsabschätzung. Band 1–4. WaBoLu-Hefte Nr. 04/2007. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin 2007. http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/gesundheit/methoden/xprob.htm

  • MEP (2012) The guidelines for the risk assessment of chemicals, China. Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP). Translated by REACH24H Consulting Group. January, 2012. http://www.reach24h.com/CN/download/Ebook7_The_Guidelines_for_Risk_Assessment_of_Chemicals.pdf

  • Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty – a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morris MD (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics 33:161–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JM, Sexton DM, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DA (2004) Quantification of modeling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NHANES (2020) National health and nutrition examination survey. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/

  • NIST (2011) Uncertainty in measurement results – guidelines for the expression of uncertainty in measurement. The NIST reference on constants, units, and uncertainty. (Update 2011) National Institute of Standards and Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1994) National Research Council: science and judgment in risk assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Özkaynak H, Frey HC, Hubbell B (2008) Characterizing variability and uncertainty in exposure assessments improves links to environmental decision-making (NIH Public Access). EM 58:18–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne-Sturges DC, Burke TA, Breysse P, Diener-West M, Buckley TJ (2004) Personal exposure meets risk assessment: a comparison of measured and modeled exposures and risks in an urban community. Environ Health Perspect 112(5):589–598

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • RIVM (2009) Identification and handling of uncertainties in dietary exposure assessment. National Institute for public health and the Environment’. Report 320103004/2009. Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  • RIVM (2012a) ConsExpo 5.0: Consumer exposure and uptake models. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, NL, Link to programs and fact sheets (Nov. 2012). http://www.rivm.nl/en/Library/Scientific/Models/Download_page_for_ConsExpo_software

  • RIVM (2012b) ConsExpo 5.0 Consumer exposure and uptake models. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, NL, Link to programs and fact sheets (Nov. 2012). http://www.rivm.nl/en/Library/Scientific/Models/Download_page_for_ConsExpo_software

  • Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, England

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA (1999) Report of the workshop on selecting input distributions for probabilistic assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-98/004

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA (2001) Office of pesticide programs: general principles for performing aggregate exposure and risk assessments. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Pesticide Programs. Nov 28, 2001, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/aggregate.pdf

  • U.S. EPA (2006a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A framework for assessing health risks of environmental exposures to children. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-05/093F

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA (2006b) Approaches for the application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models and supporting data in risk assessment. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA (2011) Exposure factors handbook: 2011 edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/052F, 2011. http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=236252

  • U.S. EPA (2019) Guidelines for human exposure assessment. (EPA/100/B-19/001). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Risk Assessment Forum. https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-human-exposure-assessment

  • U.S.EPA (2008) CSEFH – child-specific exposure factors handbook. National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Link: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=199243

  • U.S.EPA (2009) Highlights of the child-specific exposure factors handbook. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/135. Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield and online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=200445

  • UBA (2011) Gesundheit und Umwelthygiene. Gesundheitsbezogene Expositionsschätzung. Abschlussbericht des Xprob-Projektes und Datenbank RefXP für Expositionsfaktoren. Umweltbundesamt Berlin, 04/05/2012. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/gesundheit/methoden/xprob.htm

  • Vuori V, Jantunen M, Zaleski RT (2006) ExpoFacts—An Overview of European Exposure Factors Data. Risk Analysis 26(3):831–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue J, Zartarian V, Wang SW, Liu SV, Georgopoulos P (2010) Probabilistic modeling of dietary arsenic exposure and dose and evaluation with 2003–2004 NHANES data. Environ Health Perspect 118(3):345–350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, SC (1999) Scientists’ representation of uncertainty. In Friedman, S.M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (3–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Schümann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Schümann, M., Özkaynak, H., Zenié, A. (2020). Uncertainty Analysis in Exposure Assessment-Relevance for Toxicological Risk Assessment. In: Reichl, FX., Schwenk, M. (eds) Regulatory Toxicology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36206-4_111-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36206-4_111-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36206-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36206-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics