Advertisement

Environmental Geochemistry and Health

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 205–217 | Cite as

Uncertainty in the assessment of hazard, exposure and risk

  • Michael H. RamseyEmail author
Review Paper

Abstract

The terminology, concepts and current approaches to uncertainty in the assessment of hazard, exposure and risk are reviewed. Five generic questions are discussed on uncertainty, including sources, levels, when and how it should be dealt with or reduced, what are our gaps in understanding and how they can be addressed. A case study of lead exposure of children in Lavrion, Greece, is used to exemplify these questions and possible answers. Estimation of uncertainty may be improved by the use of interorganisational studies to capture sources of uncertainty that are often overlooked. Gaps identified in our understanding of uncertainty include: a limitation in the availability of basic measurements, a lack of knowledge of the environmental processes, an inability to predict the effects of mixtures, the aetiology of disease and devising procedures for optimal resource allocation in impact assessment.

Keywords

Uncertainty Sampling Risk assessment Exposure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research paper arose out of multidisciplinary discussions held at the MULTITUDE/SEGH workshop, held in June 2007 in Liverpool, UK. Participants with a wide range of expertise were brought together with the authors and this interpretation owes a great deal to those resultant discussions. The list of participants at the workshop are Louise Ander, Katy Boon, Paul Cleary, Elisa Giubilato, James Grellier, Gibby Koshy, Maria Lathouri, Paolo Luria, George Onuoha, Lesley Rushton, Tom Shepherd and Chaosheng Zhang. This research and the workshop was supported by The Joint Environment & Human Health Programme (supported by NERC, EA, Defra, the MOD, MRC, The Wellcome Trust, ESRC, BBSRC, EPSRC and HPA) and administered via NERC grant NE/E009484/1.

References

  1. Allen, K. (2007). Feasibility of using prior estimates of heterogeneity to enable attainment of optimization of uncertainty in contaminated land investigation. BSc Final Year Project Report, University of Sussex, UK, (Unpublished).Google Scholar
  2. Babendreier, J. E., & Castleton, K. J. (2005). Investigating uncertainty and sensitivity in integrated, multimedia environmental models: Tools for FRAMES-3MRA. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(8), 1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benekos, I. D., Shoemaker, C. A., & Stedinger, J. R. (2007). Probabilistic risk and uncertainty analysis for bioremediation of four chlorinated ethenes in groundwater. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 21(4), 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs D. J. (2008). Uncertainty in epidemiology and health risk and impact assessment, Environmental Geochemistry and Health, (this volume).Google Scholar
  5. CDC. (2005). Preventing lead poisoning in young children. A statement by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/PrevLeadPoisoning.pdf.
  6. DEFRA/ EA. (2002). Soil Guideline Values for Lead Contamination. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Environment Agency (EA), UK. R&D Publication SGV 10. Supplied by The R&D Dissemination Centre, WRC plc, Swindon, Wilts.Google Scholar
  7. DoE (Department of Environment). (1995). A guide to risk assessment and risk management for environmental protection. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  8. Ellison, S. L. R. (2003). Excel add-in: amc freml.xla (version 0.1)—Linear Functional relationship estimation based on RSC AMC Technical Brief No.10 (http://www.rsc.org/pdf/amc/brief10.pdf). Royal Society of Chemistry Analytical Methods Committee. Available at: http://www.rsc.org/Membership/Networking/InterestGroups/Analytical/AMC/Software/FREML.asp.
  9. Ellison, S. L. R., Roesslein, M., Williams, A., (Eds.). (2000). Eurachem/CITAC Guide: Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, Eurachem, 2nd edition, ISBN 0 948926 15 5. Available from the Eurachem secretariat, or from LGC Limited, London.Google Scholar
  10. IETC (International Environmental Technology Centre). (1996). Environmental risk assessment for sustainable cities. Technical publication series No. 3. United Nations Environment Program.Google Scholar
  11. ISO 3534-1. (1993). Statistics—vocabulary and symbols. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  12. Kayer van Krauss, M. P., Warren, E., Walker, W. E., van der Sluijs, J. P., Jansen, P., van Asselt, M. B. A., et al. (2006). To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined? Integrated Assessment, 6, 89–94.Google Scholar
  13. Kelly, E. J., & Campbell, K. (2000). Separating variability and uncertainty in environmental risk assessment—Making choices. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 6(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kurfurst, U., Desaules, A., Rehnert, A., & Muntau, H. (2004). Estimation of measurement uncertainty by the budget approach for heavy metal content in soils under different land use. Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 9, 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levin, R. (2006). Adequacy conditions for reporting uncertainty in chemical risk assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 12(5), 834–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lyn, J. A., Palestra, I. M., Ramsey, M. H., Damant, A. P., & Wood, R. (2007). Modifying uncertainty from sampling to achieve fitness for purpose: A case study on nitrate in lettuce. Accreditation and Quality Assurance: Journal for Quality, Comparability and Reliability in Chemical Measurement, 12, 67–74.Google Scholar
  17. Martin, O. V., Lester, J. N., Voulvoulis, N., & Boobis, A. R. (2007). Human health and Endocrine disruption: A simple multicriteria framework for the qualitative assessment of end point-specific risks in a context of scientific uncertainty. Toxicological Sciences, 98(2), 332–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martuzzi, M. (2008). Assessing and managing complex risk factors: Lessons from WHO’s experience. From risk assessment to risk response: Communicating complex risks to concerned stakeholders. Workshop document, page 13, Athens. Available at http://www.intarese.org/files/Delegate%20pack.pdf. Accessed 2–4 April 2008.
  19. Minkkinen, P. (2004). Practical applications of sampling theory. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 74, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norton, J. P., Brown, J. D., & Mysiak, J. (2006). To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined? Integrated Assessment, 6, 83–88.Google Scholar
  21. NRC (National Research Council). (1994). Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy.Google Scholar
  22. Paustenbach, D. J. (1989). The risk assessment of environmental and human health hazards: A text book of text studies (520 pp). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Ramsey, M. H. (1998). Sampling as a source of measurement uncertainty: Techniques for quantification and comparison with analytical sources. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 13, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramsey, M. H. (2004). When is sampling part of the measurement process? Accreditation and Quality Assurance: Journal for Quality, Comparability and Reliability in Chemical Measurement, 9, 11–12, 727–728.Google Scholar
  25. Ramsey, M. H., & Argyraki, A. (1997). Estimation of measurement uncertainty from field sampling: Implications for the classification of contaminated land. Science of the Total Environment, 198, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramsey, M. H., & Ellison, S. L. R. (Eds.). (2007). Eurachem/EUROLAB/ CITAC/Nordtest/AMC Guide. Measurement uncertainty arising from sampling: A guide to methods and approaches Eurachem. http://www.eurachem.org/guides/UfS_2007.pdf.
  27. Ramsey, M. H., Taylor, P. D., & Lee, J. C. (2002). Optimized contaminated land investigation at minimum overall cost to achieve fitness-for-purpose. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 4(5), 809–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ricci, P. F., Rice, D., Ziagos, J., & Cox, L. A. (2003). Precaution uncertainty and causation in environmental decisions. Environment International, 29(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Silva, E., Rajapakse, N., & Kortenkamp, A. (2002). Something from “nothing”—Eight weak estrogenic chemicals combined at concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects. Environmental Science & Technology, 36, 1751–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Squire, S., Ramsey, M. H., Gardner, M. J., & Lister, D. (2000). Sampling proficiency test for the estimation of uncertainty in the spatial delineation of contamination. Analyst, 125(11), 2026–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stirling, A. (2006). Uncertainty, precaution and sustainability: Towards more reflective governance of technology. In J. P. Voss, D. Bauknecht, R. Kemp, (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 225–272). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/profile7513.html.
  32. Taylor, P. D., Ramsey, M. H., & Potts, P. J. (2005). Spatial contaminant heterogeneity: Quantification with scale of measurement at contrasting sites. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 7, 1364–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, P. D., Ramsey, M. H., & Boon, K. A. (2007). Estimating and optimising measurement uncertainty in environmental monitoring: An example using six contrasting contaminated land investigations. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research. doi:  10.1111/j.1751-908X.2007.00854.x.
  34. Thompson, M., & Fearn, T. (1996). What exactly is fitness for purpose in analytical measurement. Analyst, 121, 275–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tristán, E. (2000). Application of human health risk assessment techniques to land contaminated with metals, with particular reference to a former mining village, Shipham, Somerset, UK. PhD Thesis, University of London, UK, (unpublished).Google Scholar
  36. Tristán, E., Demetriades, A., Ramsey, M. H., Rosenbaum, M. S., Stravakkis, P., Thornton, I., et al. (2000). Spatially resolved hazard and exposure assessments: An example of lead in soil at Lavrion, Greece. Environmental Research, 82(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (1992). Guidelines for exposure assessment, notice. Part VI. Federal Register, 57(104), 22888–22938.Google Scholar
  38. US EPA. (1994). Integrated exposure uptake biokinetic model for lead in children (Version 0.99d). Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  39. van der Sluijs, J. P., Potting, J., Risbey, J., van Vuuren, D., de Vries, B., Beusen, A., Heuberger, P., Corral Quintana, S., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Nuijten, D., Petersen, A., & Ravetz, J. (2001). Uncertainty assessment of the IMAGE/TIMER B1 CO2 emissions scenario, using the NUSAP method Dutch National Research Program on Climate Change, Report no: 410 200 104.Google Scholar
  40. van der Voet, H., & Slob, W. (2007). Integration of probabilistic exposure assessment and probabilistic hazard characterization. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. VIM. (2008). International vocabulary of metrology—Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 3rd edition, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) 200. Available at www.bipm.org. Accessed 8 Sept 2008.
  42. Walker, W. E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., et al. (2003). Defining uncertainty. A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assessment, 4, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wikipedia. (2008). Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk#Definitions_of_risk. Accessed 5 Sept 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Environmental Science, School of Life SciencesUniversity of SussexFalmerUK

Personalised recommendations