Background: Environmental health effects vary considerably with regard to their severity, type of disease, and duration. Integrated measures of population health, such as environmental burden of disease (EBD), are useful for setting priorities in environmental health policies and research. This review is a summary of the full Environmental Burden of Disease in European countries (EBoDE) project report.Objectives: The EBoDE project was set up to provide assessments for nine environmental risk factors relevant in selected European countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands).Methods: Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were estimated for benzene, dioxins, secondhand smoke, formaldehyde, lead, traffic noise, ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5), and radon, using primarily World Health Organization data on burden of disease, (inter)national exposure data, and epidemiological or toxicological risk estimates. Results are presented here without discounting or age-weighting.Results: About 3–7% of the annual burden of disease in the participating countries is associated with the included environmental risk factors. Airborne particulate matter (diameter ≤ 2.5 μm; PM2.5) is the leading risk factor associated with 6,000–10,000 DALYs/year and 1 million people. Secondhand smoke, traffic noise (including road, rail, and air traffic noise), and radon had overlapping estimate ranges (600–1,200 DALYs/million people). Some of the EBD estimates, especially for dioxins and formaldehyde, contain substantial uncertainties that could be only partly quantified. However, overall ranking of the estimates seems relatively robust.Conclusions: With current methods and data, environmental burden of disease estimates support meaningful policy evaluation and resource allocation, including identification of susceptible groups and targets for efficient exposure reduction. International exposure monitoring standards would enhance data quality and improve comparability.Citation: Hänninen O, Knol AB, Jantunen M, Lim TA, Conrad A, Rappolder M, Carrer P, Fanetti AC, Kim R, Buekers J, Torfs R, Iavarone I, Classen T, Hornberg C, Mekel OC, EBoDE Working Group. 2014. Environmental burden of disease in Europe: assessing nine risk factors in six countries. Environ Health Perspect 122:439–446; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1206154

BackgroundEnvironmental health impact assessments often have to deal with substantial uncertainties. Typically, the knowledge-base is limited with incomplete, or inconsistent evidence and missing or ambiguous data. Consulting experts can help to identify and address uncertainties.MethodsFormal expert elicitation is a structured approach to systematically consult experts on uncertain issues. It is most often used to quantify ranges for poorly known parameters, but may also be useful to further develop qualitative issues such as definitions, assumptions or conceptual (causal) models. A thorough preparation and systematic design and execution of an expert elicitation process may increase the validity of its outcomes and transparency and trustworthiness of its conclusions. Various expert elicitation protocols and methods exist. However, these are often not universally applicable, and need customization to suite the needs of a specific study. In this paper, we set out to develop a widely applicable method for the use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment.ResultsWe present a practical yet flexible seven step procedure towards organising expert elicitation in the context of environmental health impact assessment, based on existing protocols. We describe how customization for specific applications is always necessary. In particular, three issues affect the choice of methods for a particular application: the types of uncertainties considered, the intended use of the elicited information, and the available resources. We outline how these three considerations guide choices regarding the design and execution of expert elicitation. We present signposts to sources where the issues are discussed in more depth to give the newcomer the insights needed to make the protocol work. The seven step procedure is illustrated using examples from earlier published elicitations in the field of environmental health research.ConclusionsWe conclude that, despite some known criticism on its validity, formal expert elicitation can support environmental health research in various ways. Its main purpose is to provide a temporary summary of the limited available knowledge, which can serve as a provisional basis for policy until further research has been carried out.

The overall medium to high likelihood rating of causality of health effects of UFP exposure and the high likelihood rating of at least one of the proposed causal mechanisms explaining associations between UFP and cardiac events, stresses the importance of considering UFP in future health impact assessments of (transport-related) air pollution, and the need for further research on UFP exposure and health effects.

No abstract

Toxicological studies have provided evidence of the toxicity of ultrafine particles (UFP), but epidemiological evidence for health effects of ultrafines is limited. No quantitative summary currently exists of concentration-response functions for ultrafine particles that can be used in health impact assessment. The goal was to specify concentration-response functions for ultrafine particles in urban air including their uncertainty through an expert panel elicitation. Eleven European experts from the disciplines of epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical medicine selected using a systematic peer-nomination procedure participated. Using individual ratings supplemented with group discussion, probability distributions of effect estimates were obtained for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular and respiratory hospital admissions. Experts judged the small database of epidemiological studies supplemented with experimental studies sufficient to quantify effects of UFP on all-cause mortality and to a lesser extent hospital admissions. Substantial differences in the estimated UFP health effect and its uncertainty were found between experts. The lack of studies on long-term exposure to UFP was rated as the most important source of uncertainty. Effects on hospital admissions were considered more uncertain. This expert elicitation provides the first quantitative evaluation of estimates of concentration response functions between urban air ultrafine particles and all-cause mortality and hospital admissions.