Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$49.00



View/Hide Left Panel

There was a consensus that modeling for retrospective and prospective analysis will likely play a more important role in ecological exposure assessment than it normally does in human health risk assessment. Direct measurements with personal monitors or tissue-fluid analysis, the preferred methods of human exposure assessment, usually are not feasible or are prohibitively expensive in ecological assessments. Modeling was at least an underlying concept in all the case studies.

Test of the Definition

The group tested its proposed definition by attempting to fit it to the case studies and the 13 issues addressed by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Relative Risk Reduction Project (EPA, 1990). The group concluded that the new definition fit all six case studies, but that the definition provided in the Red Book fit only the three chemical case studies. Similarly, the new definition fit all 13 of the issues addressed by SAB, but the Red Book definition fit only about half. Two of the six case studies (on species introductions and harvesting) were related to issues not addressed by SAB.

RISK CHARACTERIZATION

G. W. Suter II and W. A. Farland

This group first developed a definition of risk characterization for ecological assessment and then applied the definition to the six case studies. As in health risk assessment, the principal objectives of risk characterization are to integrate information on exposure and effects and organize the results for presentation to risk managers, stake-holders, and the public.

Definition of Risk Characterization

The group determined that integration of exposure and exposure-response assessments is a complex process that requires a great deal of expert judgment. For the relatively straightforward case of predictive



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 318
APPENDIX F 318 original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. There was a consensus that modeling for retrospective and prospective analysis will likely play a more important role in ecological exposure assessment than it normally does in human health risk assessment. Direct measurements with personal monitors or tissue-fluid analysis, the preferred methods of human exposure assessment, usually are not feasible or are prohibitively expensive in ecological assessments. Modeling was at least an underlying concept in all the case studies. Test of the Definition The group tested its proposed definition by attempting to fit it to the case studies and the 13 issues addressed by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Relative Risk Reduction Project (EPA, 1990). The group concluded that the new definition fit all six case studies, but that the definition provided in the Red Book fit only the three chemical case studies. Similarly, the new definition fit all 13 of the issues addressed by SAB, but the Red Book definition fit only about half. Two of the six case studies (on species introductions and harvesting) were related to issues not addressed by SAB. RISK CHARACTERIZATION G. W. Suter II and W. A. Farland This group first developed a definition of risk characterization for ecological assessment and then applied the definition to the six case studies. As in health risk assessment, the principal objectives of risk characterization are to integrate information on exposure and effects and organize the results for presentation to risk managers, stake-holders, and the public. Definition of Risk Characterization The group determined that integration of exposure and exposure-response assessments is a complex process that requires a great deal of expert judgment. For the relatively straightforward case of predictive