Quantification of Health Risk Due to Chemicals: Methods and Uncertainties

  • D. H. Trønnes
  • A. Heiberg
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 12)


As will be recalled from the previous chapter, quantification of the risk to human health caused by chemicals involves two separate tasks (see Figure 1.1). First, an assessment has to be made of the extent to which the population is exposed to the chemical considered. Second, the connection between the exposure level (dose rate and duration of exposure) and the probability of adverse health effects must be established. Before these two steps are begun, however, a hazard assessment is normally performed. That is, tests are conducted to determine whether or not the chemical poses a risk to human health or the environment. If the results of these tests show that the chemical is nontoxic or has an extremely small chance of getting in contact with the surroundings, a full risk assessment like that displayed in Figure 1.1 is unnecessary.


Adverse Health Effect Exposure Assessment Uncertain Parameter Ames Test Angina Attack 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ames, B.N., 1979, Identifying environmental chemicals causing mutations and cancer, Science, 204: 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aune, T., 1982, “Health Effects from Air Pollution in Oslo” (in Norwegian), The Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority, Oslo, Report No. 4l.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, G.L., Cohan, D., and North, D.W., 1982, “The Application of Decision Analysis to Toxic Substances: Proposed Methodology and Two Case Studies,” Economics and Technology Division, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Day, N.F., and Brown, C.C., 1980, Multistage models and primary prevention of cancer, J. Nat. Cancer Inst., 64: 977.Google Scholar
  5. Dybing, E., 1986, Predictability of human carcinogenicity from animal studies, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 6: 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Keeney, R.L., Sarin, R.K., and Winkler, R.L., 1984, Analysis of alternative ambient carbon monoxide standards, Management Science, 30: 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewtas, J., 1986, A quantitative cancer risk assessment methodology using short-term genetic bioassays: the comparative potency method, in: “Risk and Reason: Risk Assessment in Relation to Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens,” P. Oftedal and A. Brøgger, eds., Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Morgan, M.G., 1983, “The Role of Decision Analysis in the Implementation of Environmental Policies,” OECD, Geneva, ENV/CHEM/CH/83.5, Annex.Google Scholar
  9. Prentice, R.L., and Breslow, N.E., 1978, Retrospective studies and failure time models, Biometrika, 65: 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Resnick, M.A., 1987, “Evaluation of Short-Term Tests of Genotoxicity,” paper presented at the International Conference on Structure. Activity Relationships (SAR) for Toxicological Estimation of Chemicals, Pisa, Italy, May 1987.Google Scholar
  11. Sievering, H., and Roberts, H.A., 1982, “Risk Assessment for Environmental Management: A Case Study of Fuel Switching at Illinois Power Plants,” Illinois Department of Energy and National Resources, Springfield, Illinois, Document No. 82 /14.Google Scholar
  12. United Nations, 1984, “Air-borne Sulphur Pollution: Effects and Control”, Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations, New York, Sales no. E.84.U.E. 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. H. Trønnes
    • 1
  • A. Heiberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Industrial ResearchOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations