Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probability-credibility health risk assessment under uncertain environment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability to describe variables in a health risk model through probability theory enables us to estimate human health risk. These types of risk assessment are interpreted as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). Generally, PRA requires specific estimate of the parameters of the probability density of the input variables. In all circumstances, such estimates of the parameters may not be available due to the lack of knowledge or information. Such types of variables are treated as uncertain variables. These types of information are often termed uncertainty which are interpreted through fuzzy theory. The ability to describe uncertainty through fuzzy set theory enables us to process both random variable and fuzzy variable in a single framework. The method of processing aleatory and epistemic uncertainties into a same framework is coined as hybrid method. In this paper, we are going to talk about such type of hybrid methodology for human health risk assessment. Risk assessment on human health through different pathways of exposure has been attempted many a times combining Monte Carlo analysis and extension principle of fuzzy set theory. The emergence of credibility theory enables transforming fuzzy variable into credibility distribution function which can be used in those hybrid analyses. Hence, an attempt, for the first time, has been made to combine probability theory and credibility theory to estimate risk in human health exposure. This method of risk assessment in the presence of credibility theory and probability theory is identified as probabilistic-credibility method (PCM). The results obtained are then interpreted through probability theory, unlike the other hybrid methodology where the results are interpreted in terms of possibility theory. The results obtained are then compared with probability-fuzzy risk assessment (PFRA) method. Generally, decision under hybrid methodology is made on the index of optimism. An optimistic decision maker estimates from the \(\alpha\)-cut at 1, whereas a pessimistic decision maker estimates from the \(\alpha\)-cut at 0. The PCM is an optimistic approach as the decision is always made at \(\alpha\)=1.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adomian G (1980) Applied stochastic processes. Academic press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Arunraj NS, Mandal S, Maiti J (2013) Modeling uncertainty in risk assessment: an integrated approach with fuzzy set theory and monte carlo simulation. Accid Anal Prev 55:242–255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baudrit C, Guyonnet D, Dubois D (2007) Joint propagation of variability and imprecision in assessing the risk of groundwater contamination. J Contam Hydrol 93(1):72–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CalEPA (2000) Air toxics hot spots program risk assessment guidelines, exposure assessment and stochastic analysis (part 4). Technical report

  • Chen Z, Huang GH, Chakma A (2003) Hybrid fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for assessing environmental risks at contaminated groundwater systems. J Environ Eng 129(1):79–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Z, Zhao L, Lee K (2010) Environmental risk assessment of offshore produced water discharges using a hybrid fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach. Environ Model Softw 25(6):782–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chutia R, Mahanta S, Datta D (2011) Arithmmetic of triangular fuzzy variable from credibility theory. Int J Energy Inf Commun 2(3):9–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Chutia R, Mahanta S, Datta D (2013) Uncertainty modelling of atmospheric dispersion model using fuzzy set and imprecise probability. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 25(3):737–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Chutia R, Mahanta S, Datta D (2013) Non-probabilistic sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of atmospheric dispersion. Ann Fuzzy Math Inf 5(1):213–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Chutia R (2013) Environmental risk modelling under probability-normal interval-valued fuzzy number. Fuzzy Inf Eng 5(3):359–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chutia R, Mahanta S, Datta D (2014) Uncertainty modelling of atmospheric dispersion by stochastic response surface method under aleatory and epistemic uncertainties. Sadhana 39(2):467–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (1989) Risk assessment guidance for superfund. volume 1: Human health evaluation manual (part a). Technical report, EPA/540/1-89/002

  • EPA (2001) Risk assessment guidance for superfund. volume 3: Process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. Technical report, EPA/540/R/02/2002

  • EPA (2004) Risk assessment guidance for superfund. vol 1: Human health evaluation manual, supplemental guidance, dermal risk assessment (part e). Technical report, EPA/540/R/99/005

  • Ershow AG, Brown LM, Cantor KP (1991) Intake of tapwater and total water by pregnant and lactating women. Am J Public Health 81(3):328–334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finley B, Paustenbach D (1994) The benefits of probabilistic exposure assessment: Three case studies involving contaminated air, water, and soil. Risk Anal 14(1):53–73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frey HC (1992) Quantitative analysis of uncertainty and variability in environmental policy making. Technical report, Fellowship Program for Environmental Science and Engineering, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC

  • Frey HC, Bammi S (2003) Probabilistic nonroad mobile source emission factors. J Environ Eng 129(2):162–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frey HC, Li S (2003) Methods for quantifying variability and uncertainty in ap-42 emission factors: case studies for natural gas-fueled engines. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 53(12):1436–1447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guyonnet D, Come B, Perrochet P, Parriaux A (1999) Comparing two methods for addressing uncertainty in risk assessments. J Environ Eng 125(7):660–666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guyonnet D, B Bourgine, D Dubois, H Fargier, B Côme, JP Chilès (2003) Hybrid approach for addressing uncertainty in risk assessments. J Environ Eng 129(1):68–78

  • Ibrahim RA (1987) Structural dynamics with parameter uncertainties. Appl Mech Rev 40(3):309–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isukapalli SS (1999) Uncertainty analysis of transport-transformation models. PhD thesis, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  • Isukapalli SS, Roy A, Georgopoulos PG (1998) Stochastic response surface methods (srsms) for uncertainty propagation: application to environmental and biological systems. Risk Anal 18(3):351–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kentel E (2006) Uncertainty modeling in health risk assessment and groundwater resources management. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology

  • Kentel E, Aral MM (2004) Probabilistic-fuzzy health risk modeling. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 18(5):324–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentel E, Aral MM (2005) 2D monte carlo versus 2D fuzzy monte carlo health risk assessment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 19(1):86–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentel E, Aral MM (2007) Risk tolerance measure for decision-making in fuzzy analysis: a health risk assessment perspective. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21(4):405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee Yong W, Dahab Mohamed F, Istvan Bogardi (1995) Nitrate-risk assessment using fuzzy-set approach. J Environ Eng 121(3):245–256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee YW, Dahab MF, Bogardi I (1994) Fuzzy decision making in ground water nitrate risk management. JAWRA 30(1):135–147

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee SC, Guo H, Lam SMJ, Lau SLA (2004) Multipathway risk assessment on disinfection by-products of drinking water in Hong Kong. Environ Res 94(1):47–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leung HW, Jin L, Wei S, Tsui MM, Zhou B, Jiao L, Cheung PC, Chun YK, Murphy MB, Lam PK (2013) Pharmaceuticals in tap water: human health risk assessment and proposed monitoring framework in China. Environ Health Perspect 121(7):839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li JB, Chakma A, Zeng GM, Liu L (2003) Integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling of petroleum contamination in subsurface. Energy Sources 25(6):547–563

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Huang GH, Zeng G, Maqsood I, Huang Y (2007) An integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for risk assessment of groundwater contamination. J Environ Manag 82(2):173–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Liu B (2006) A sufficient and necessary condition for credibility measures. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 14(5):527–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu L, Hao RX, Cheng SY (2003) A possibilistic analysis approach for assessing environmental risks from drinking groundwater at petroleum-contaminated sites. J Environ Inform 2(1):31–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu L, Cheng SY, Guo HC (2004) A simulation-assessment modeling approach for analyzing environmental risks of groundwater contamination at waste landfill sites. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10(2):373–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu B (2004) Uncertainty theory: an introduction to its axiomatic foundations. Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liu B (2006) A survey of credibility theory. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 5(4):387–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu B (2007) Uncertainty theory. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liu B, Liu YK (2002) Expected value of fuzzy variable and fuzzy expected value models. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 10(4):445–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma H-W (2002) Stochastic multimedia risk assessment for a site with contaminated groundwater. Stoch Environ ResRisk Assess 16(6):464–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma H, Hung ML, Chen PC (2007) A systemic health risk assessment for the chromium cycle in Taiwan. Environ Int 33(2):206–218

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mahadevan S, Raghothamachar P (2000) Adaptive simulation for system reliability analysis of large structures. Comput Struct 77(6):725–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell NI, Burmaster DE, Ozonoff D (1991) Trihalomehanes and maximum contaminant levels: the significance of inhalation and dermal exposures to chloroform in household water. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 14(3):297–312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell RM, Pelmulder SD, Tompson AF, Kastenberg WE (1998) On the development of a new methodology for groundwater-driven health risk assessment. Water Resour Res 34(4):833–847

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell MR, Kastenberg EW (1999) Stochastic environmental risk analysis: an integrated methodology for predicting cancer risk from contaminated groundwater. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 13(1):27–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKone TE, Bogen KT (1991) Predicting the uncertainties in risk assessment. Environ Sci Technol 25(10):1674–1681

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mofarrah A, Husain T (2011) Fuzzy based health risk assessment of heavy metals introduced into the marine environment. Water Qual Expo Health 3(1):25–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naz A, Mishra BK, Gupta SK (2016) Human health risk assessment of chromium in drinking water: a case study of sukinda chromite mine, Odisha, India. Expo Health 8(2):253–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1993) Pesticides in the diets of infants and children. Technical report, National Academic Science Research Council, Washington DC (1993)

  • Qin XS (2012) Assessing environmental risks through fuzzy parameterized probabilistic analysis. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 26(1):43–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseberry AM, Burmaster DE (1992) Lognormal distributions for water intake by children and adults. Risk Anal 12(1):99–104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saeedi M, Fakhraee H, Sadrabadi MR (2008) A fuzzy modified gaussian air pollution. Res J Environ Sci 2(3):156–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenbach RP, Escher BI, Fenner K, Hofstetter TB, Johnson CA, Von Gunten U, Wehrli B (2006) The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science 313(5790):1072–1077

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu B, Zhang Y, Zhang X, Cheng S (2009) Health risk from exposure of organic pollutants through drinking water consumption in nanjing, china. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 84(1):46–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang AL, Huang GH, Qin XS (2010) An integrated simulation-assessment approach for evaluating health risks of groundwater contamination under multiple uncertainties. Water Resour Manag 24(13):3349–3369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Cotton College, Guwahati, Assam, 781001, India

    Rituparna Chutia

  2. Radilogical Physics & Advisory Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Mumbai, 400845, India

    D. Datta

Authors
  1. Rituparna Chutia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Datta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rituparna Chutia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chutia, R., Datta, D. Probability-credibility health risk assessment under uncertain environment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31, 449–460 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1335-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1335-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation