State-of-the-Science Workshop Report: Issues and Approaches in Low-Dose–Response Extrapolation for Environmental Health Risk Assessment

Low-dose extrapolation model selection for evaluating the health effects of environmental pollutants is a key component of the risk assessment process. At a workshop held in Baltimore, Maryland, on 23–24 April 2007, sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, a multidisciplinary group of experts reviewed the state of the science regarding low-dose extrapolation modeling and its application in environmental health risk assessments. Participants identified discussion topics based on a literature review, which included examples for which human responses to ambient exposures have been extensively characterized for cancer and/or noncancer outcomes. Topics included the need for formalized approaches and criteria to assess the evidence for mode of action (MOA), the use of human versus animal data, the use of MOA information in biologically based models, and the implications of interindividual variability, background disease processes, and background exposures in threshold versus nonthreshold model choice. Participants recommended approaches that differ from current practice for extrapolating high-dose animal data to low-dose human exposures, including categorical approaches for integrating information on MOA, statistical approaches such as model averaging, and inference-based models that explicitly consider uncertainty and interindividual variability

Microbial Risk Assessment Framework for Exposure to Amended Sludge Projects

BackgroundAlthough the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a long history of using risk-based approaches for regulatory purposes, pollutant limits for pathogens in biosolids are not currently based on quantitative risk assessments.ObjectivesWe developed and demonstrated a risk-based methodology for assessing the risk to human health from exposure to pathogens via biosolids.MaterialsFour models were developed, incorporating direct ingestion, groundwater, and aerosol exposure pathways. Three sources of environmental data were used to estimate risk: pathogen monitoring of sludge, efficacy of sludge treatment, and pathogen monitoring of biosolids.ResultsRisk estimates were obtainable even for Class A biosolids, where posttreatment monitoring data are below detectable levels, demonstrating that risk assessments for biosolids exposure are practical. Model analyses suggest that: a) a two-digester design decreases the probability of risks >10(-4) compared with one-digester designs, b) risks associated with exposures to groundwater and aerosol pathways were, in general, lower than exposures to the direct ingestion pathway, and c) secondary transmission can be an important factor in risk estimation.ConclusionsThe risk-based approach presented here provides a tool to a) help biosolids producers interpret the results of biosolids monitoring data in terms of its health implications, b) help treatment plant engineers evaluate the risk-based benefits of operational changes to existing or projected treatment processes, and c) help environmental managers evaluate potential capital improvements and/or land application site placement issues. Regulation of pathogens can now be based on human health risk in a manner parallel to other water-related risks

The Forest for the Trees: A Systems Approach to Human Health Research

We explore the relationship between current research directions in human health and environmental and public health policy. Specifically, we suggest there is a link between the continuing emphasis in biomedical research on individualized, therapeutic solutions to human disease and the increased reliance on individual choice in response to environmental and/or public health threats. We suggest that continued research emphasis on these traditional approaches to the exclusion of other approaches will impede the discovery of important breakthroughs in human health research necessary to understand the emerging diseases of today. We recommend redirecting research programs to interdisciplinary and population-focused research that would support a systems approach to fully identifying the environmental factors that contribute to disease burden. Such an approach would be able to address the interactions between the social, ecological, and physical aspects of our environment and explicitly include these in the evaluation and management of health risks from environmental exposures