Advertisement

Qualitative and Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis

  • Scott Baker
  • Jeffrey Driver
  • David McCallum

Abstract

Chapter 1 defines residential exposure assessment as the process of determining, through direct or indirect means, the doses that the individuals receive from sources of contamination in the residential environment. Measures of exposure and dose and the factors used to determine these measures are subject to both uncertainty and variation. As discussed in the introduction of the present chapter, uncertainty is a measure of the state of knowledge of an investigator. Uncertainty in dose estimates arises from a variety of sources, including: uncertainty in measurements of the factors used in estimating exposures, uncertainty in the accuracy and precision of models, and uncertainty in problem formulation. In addition, residential exposures vary across individuals and across time for an individual. Exposure related factors such as source terms and individual’s behaviors vary in time and space (Price et al. 1991, 1996a). This variation greatly contributes to the complexity of uncertainty analyses (Morgan and Henrio 1990, USEPA 1992).

Keywords

Environmental Protection Agency Exposure Assessment Monte Carlo Analysis Risk Anal Exposure Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AIHC (American Industrial Health Council). 1994. Exposure factors sourcebook. American Industrial Health Council. Washington DC. 118 pages.Google Scholar
  2. Bevington, P.R. 1969 Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bogen, K.T. 1990. Uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Garland Publishing. New York, New York. 195 pages.Google Scholar
  4. Bogen, K.T. and R.C. Spear. 1987. Integrating uncertainty and interindividual variability in environmental risk assessment. Risk Analysis 7(4):427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buck, R.J., K.A. Hammerstrom, and P.B. Ryan. 1995. Estimating long-term exposures from short-term measurements. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 5(3):359–373.Google Scholar
  6. Caulcutt, R. and R. Boddy. 1983. Statistics for analytical chemists. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  7. Cleveland, W.S. 1994. The elements of graphing data. Revised edition. Hobart Press. Summit, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J.T., M.A. Lampson, and T.S. Bowers. 1996. The use of two-stage Monte Carlo simulation techniques to characterize variability and uncertainty in risk analysis. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 2(4):939–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conover, W.J. 1980. Practical non-parametric statistics. John Wiley, New York. 507 pages.Google Scholar
  10. Duan, N. 1988. Estimating microenvironment concentration distributions using integrated exposure measurements. Pages 15–114 in: Starks, T.H. (ed.). Proceedings of the research planning conference on human activity patterns. EPA-600/4-89/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  11. Ebert, E.S., T.J. Barry, M.N. Gray, and N.W Harrington. 1996. Estimated rates of fish consumption by anglers participating in the Connecticut Housatonic River creel survey. North. Amer. J. Fish. Management 16:81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ershal, A.G. and K.P. Cantor. 1989. Total water and tapwater intake in the United States: Population-based estimates of quantities and sources. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 263-MD-810264. May.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, J.S., J.D. Graham, G.M. Gray, and R.L. Sielken, Jr. 1993. A distributional approach to characterizing low-dose cancer risk. Risk Anal. 14(1):25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, J.S., G.M. Gray, R.L. Sielken, Jr., A.E. Smith, C. Valdez-Flores, and J.D. Graham. 1994. Use of probabilistic expert judgment in uncertainty analysis of carcinogenic potency. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 20(l):15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finley, B., D. Proctor, P. Scott, N. Harrington, D. Paustenbach, and P. Price. 1994. Recommended distributions for exposure factors frequently used in health risk assessment. Risk Anal. 14(4):533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frey, H.C. 1992. Quantitative analysis of uncertainty and variability in environmental policy making. Directorate for Science and Policy Programs. American Association for Advancement of Science. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  17. Frey, H.C. and D.S. Rhodes. 1996. Characterizing, simulating, and analyzing variability and uncertainty: An illustration of methods using an air toxics emissions approach. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 2:762–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, New York. 320 pages.Google Scholar
  19. Ginevan, M.E. 1994. Bounding the mean concentration for environmental contaminants when all observations are below the limit of detection. Pages 123–128 in: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association. Section on statistics and the environment. American Statistical Association. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  20. Helsel, D.R. 1990. Less than obvious: Statistical treatment of data below the detection limit. Environ. Sci. Technol. 24:1766–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holland, CD. and R.L. Sielken, Jr. 1993. Quantitative cancer modeling and risk assessment. PTR Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  22. Hattis, D. and D.E. Burmaster. 1994. Assessment of variability and uncertainty distributions for practical risk analyses. Risk Anal. 14(5):713–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Helton, J.C., D.R. Anderson, B.L. Baker, IE. Bean, J.W. Berglund, W. Beyeler, R. Blaine, K. Economy, J.W. Garner, S.C. Hora, R.C. Lincoln, M.G. Marietta, F.T. Mendenhall, N.H. Prindle, D.K. Rudeen, J.D. Schreiber, A.W. Shiver, L.N. Smith, P.N. Swift, and P. Vaughn. 1997. Computational implementation of a systems prioritization methodology for the waste isolation pilot plant: A preliminary example. Reliability Engineer. System Safety 57:223–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inman, R.L. and J.C. Helton. 1988. An investigation of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models. Risk Anal. 8(l):71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKone, T.E. and P.B. Ryan. 1989. Human exposures to chemicals through food chains: An uncertainty analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23(9): 1154–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKone, T.E. and J.I. Daniels. 1991. Estimating human exposure through multiple pathways from air, water, and soil. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 13(1):36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morgan, M.G. and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press. New York, New York. 332 pages.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murray, D.M. and D.E. Burmaster. 1996. Residential air exchange rates in the United States. Empirical and estimated parametric distributions by season and climactic region. Risk Anal. 15(4):459–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Science and judgment in risk assessment. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington DC. 652 pages.Google Scholar
  30. Ott, W 1981. Computer simulation of human air pollution exposures to carbon monoxide. Paper 81-57.6 presented at the 74th annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  31. Ott, W. 1984. Exposure estimates based on computer generated activity patterns. J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 21:97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ott, W.R. 1990. A physical explanation of lognormality of pollutant concentrations. JAWMA 40:1378–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Price, P., J. Sample, and R. Strieter. 1991. Determination of less-than-lifetime exposures to point source emissions. Risk Anal. 12(3):367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Price, P.S., C.L. Curry, P.E. Goodrum, M.N. Gray, J.I. McCrodden, N.W. Harrington, H. Carlson-Lynch, and R.E. Keenan. 1996a. Monte Carlo modeling of time-dependent exposures using a microexposure event approach. Risk Anal. 16(3):339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Price, P.S., S.H. Su, J.R. Harrington, and R.E. Keenan. 1996b. Uncertainty and variation in indirect exposure assessments: An analysis of exposure to tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from a beef consumption pathway. Risk Anal. 16(2):263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson, J.R and J. Thomas. 1991. Time spent in activities, locations, and microenvironments: A California-National Comparison Project report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
  37. RSI (Risk Science Institute). 1998. Aggregate exposure assessment: Risk Science Institute workshop report. International Life Sciences Institute. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  38. Sielken, R.L. Jr. 1996. Comprehensive realism’s use of trees and distributions to reflect uncertainty and variability and to overcome the limitations of default assumptions. In: Ricci, P.F. (ed.). Journal of Energy Engineering: New methods to deal with uncertainty and applications in assessing energy systems. In press.Google Scholar
  39. Silverman, B.W. 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall. London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  40. Slob, W. 1994. Uncertainty analysis in multiplicative models. Risk Anal. 14(4):571–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor, A.C. 1993. Using objective and subjective information to develop distributions for probabilistic exposure assessment. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 3(3):285–298.Google Scholar
  42. Tukey, J.W. 1977. Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley. Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  43. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985a. Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances. Volume 2: Methods for assessing exposure to chemicals in the ambient environment. EPA-560/5-85/002, NTIS PB86-107067. Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  44. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985b. Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances. Volume 4: Methods for enumerating and characterizing populations exposed to chemical substances. EPA-560/5-85/004, NTIS PB86-107042. Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  45. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985c. Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances. Volume 5: Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances in drinking water. EPA-560/5-85/005, NTIS PB86-1232156. Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  46. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1985d. Methodology for characterization of uncertainty in exposure assessments. EPA/600/8-86/009. Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  47. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986a. Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances. Volume 8: Methods for assessing environmental pathways of food contamination. EPA-560/5-85/008. Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  48. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986b. Guideline on air quality models (revised). EPA-450/2-78/027R. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  49. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987a. Supplement A to the guideline on air quality models (revised). EPA-450/2-78/027R. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  50. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987b. Selection criteria for mathematical models used in exposure assessments: Surface water models. EPA-600/8-87/042. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  51. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988. Selection criteria for mathematical models used in exposure assessments: Groundwater models. EPA-600/8-88/075. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  52. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991a. Selection criteria for mathematical models used in exposure assessment: Atmospheric dispersion models. DRAFT EPA-600/8-91/038. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  53. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991b. Dermal exposure assessment: Principles and applications. EPA-600/8-91/011A. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  54. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Guidelines for exposure assessment. Fed. Reg. 57(104):22888–22938. May 29.Google Scholar
  55. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Exposure factors handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002F(a-c), Washington DC.Google Scholar
  56. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. EPA/630/R-97/001. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  57. Wilkinson, L.M. Hill, P. Howe, G. Birkenbeuel, J. Beck, and J. Liu. 1994. SYSTAT for DOS: Using SYSTAT, Version 6. SYSTAT. Inc. Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Baker
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Driver
    • 2
  • David McCallum
    • 3
  1. 1.International Copper AssociationNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.infoscientific.com, Inc. and risksciences.netManassasUSA
  3. 3.FOCUS GROUPTilghman IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations