Risk characterization framework for noncancer end points.

Pierson, Terrence K.; Hetes, Robert G.; Naugle, Dennis F.

doi:10.1289/ehp.9195121

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The summary of the evaluations and a list of the critical toxicological effects are given in Table 1. The effects of substances with the same health effects are in general believed to be additive (Holmberg and Lundberg, 1985;Lippy and Turner, 1991;Pierson et al, 1991;Rothweiler and Schlatter, 1993;van der Wal, 1993;Verhoeff et al, 1988). The same applies for irritants (Marlhave and Nielsen, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is often argued that the OELs do not protect against health effects in "sensitive groups", e.g. children, elderly people, asthmatics, and truly hypersensitive people (Shoaf, 1991;Lippy and Turner, 1991;Pierson et al, 1991;Rothweiler and Schlatter, 1993;van der Wal, 1993). A safety factor of 10 is often used to account for the variation in sensitivity among humans (Shoaf, 1991).…”

Section: Indoor Air Standards Derived From Occupational Exposure Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chemical and Biological Evaluation of Building Material Emissions. II. Approaches for Setting Indoor Air Standards or Guidelines for Chemicals

Njelsen¹,

Hansen²,

Wolkoff³

1997

Indoor Air

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measured emissions from building materials (Part I, Nielsen et al., 1996), were evaluated for their sensory effects, odour and irritation, as well as for health effects. The procedures adopted are general. First, if established indoor air standards or guidelines are available, they are to be preferred for the evaluations. Second, if they are not available, odour and irritation thresholds are used. The occupational exposure limits may be used for the evaluation of health effects if applying an additional safety factor between 4 and 40. The actual value depends on the critical effect, but a safety factor of 40 is proposed as a first approximation. Other values must be justified. Third, if occupational exposure limits are not available, two different procedures provide a tentative standard or guideline on the basis of published literature, which of necessity must therefore be collected and evaluated. One procedure estimates the standard from an effect in animals and applies a number of safety factors (each often equal to 10), corresponding to a series of worst‐case assumptions. The other procedure evaluates the critical effect and uses fewer specific safety factors to predict the human no‐observed‐effect level (NOEL). The political safety factor is then determined, i.e. how far below the NOEL the standard or guideline level should be set. The last‐mentioned procedure gives a logical concordant system, explaining why different standards or guidelines may be set for outdoor, indoor and occupational exposures, and why exposures exceeding a standard or a guideline need not cause health effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indoor Air Standards Derived From Occupational Exposure Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical and Biological Evaluation of Building Material Emissions. II. Approaches for Setting Indoor Air Standards or Guidelines for Chemicals

Njelsen¹,

Hansen²,

Wolkoff³

1997

Indoor Air

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The risk framework and the predictive equations are most often applied to prediction of cancer risk. Pierson et al (1991) have shown that the framework may be applied to non-cancer risk if sufficient data are available.…”

Section:  Exposed Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A risk assessment can be quantitative or qualitative depending on the data available and the requirements for the assessment. RISK uses a risk calculation scheme described by Naugle (1991), Naugle and Pierson (1991), U. S. EPA (1991), and Pierson et al (1991). The calculation scheme developed by these authors provides a systematic way for estimating risk.…”

Section: Risk Calculation Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residential inter-zonal ventilation rates for exposure modeling

Jayjock

Havics

2018

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residential inter-zonal (e.g., between rooms) ventilation is comprised of fresh air infiltration in and exfiltration out of the whole house plus the "fresh" air that is entering (and exiting) the room of interest from other rooms or areas within the house. Clearly, the inter-zone ventilation rate in any room of interest will be greater than the infiltration/exfiltration ventilation rate of outdoor air for the whole house. The purpose of this study is to determine how much greater the inter-zonal ventilation rate is in typical U.S. residences compared to the whole house ventilation rate from outdoor air. The data for this statistical analysis came from HouseDB, a 1995 EPA database of residential ventilation rates. Analytical results indicate that a lognormal distribution provides the best fit to the data. Lognormal probability distribution functions (PDFs) are provided for various inter-zonal ventilation rates for comparison to the PDF for the whole house ventilation rates. All ventilation rates are expressed as air change rates per hour (ACH). These PDFs can be used as inputs to exposure models. This analysis suggests that if one were performing a deterministic analysis for unknown housing stocks in the U.S., a default mean and median ACH values of 0.4/hr and 0.3/hr, respectively, for whole house ventilation would be appropriate; and 0.7/hr and 0.6/hr, respectively, for inter-zonal ventilation.

show abstract

“…Such a value should protect against mucous membrane irritation because irritative effects generally have steep dose-effect relationships (Commetto-Muiiiz and Cain, 1991). IAQ evaluations based on TLVs have been criticized Pierson et al, 1991), but this may be avoided by use of an additional common safety factor of 10 (Shoaf, 199 1).…”

Section: Cycloalkenes 1-30 Estersmentioning

confidence: 99%