Health risk assessment for nanoparticles

A case for using expert judgment

Milind Kandlikar, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Andrew Maynard, Barbara Murdock, William A. Toscano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

95 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Uncertainties in conventional quantitative risk assessment typically relate to values of parameters in risk models. For many environmental contaminants, there is a lack of sufficient information about multiple components of the risk assessment framework. In such cases, the use of default assumptions and extrapolations to fill in the data gaps is a common practice. Nanoparticle risks, however, pose a new form of risk assessment challenge. Besides a lack of data, there is deep scientific uncertainty regarding every aspect of the risk assessment framework: (a) particle characteristics that may affect toxicity; (b) their fate and transport through the environment; (c) the routes of exposure and the metrics by which exposure ought to be measured; (d) the mechanisms of translocation to different parts of the body; and (e) the mechanisms of toxicity and disease. In each of these areas, there are multiple and competing models and hypotheses. These are not merely parametric uncertainties but uncertainties about the choice of the causal mechanisms themselves and the proper model variables to be used, i.e., structural uncertainties. While these uncertainties exist for PM2.5 as well, risk assessment for PM2.5 has avoided dealing with these issues because of a plethora of epidemiological studies. However, such studies don't exist for the case of nanoparticles. Even if such studies are done in the future, they will be very specific to a particular type of engineered nanoparticle and not generalizable to other nanoparticles. Therefore, risk assessment for nanoparticles will have to deal with the various uncertainties that were avoided in the case of PM2.5. Consequently, uncertainties in estimating risks due to nanoparticle exposures may be characterized as 'extreme'. This paper proposes a methodology by which risk analysts can cope with such extreme uncertainty. One way to make these problems analytically tractable is to use expert judgment approaches to study the degree of consensus and/or disagreement between experts on different parts of the exposure-response paradigm. This can be done by eliciting judgments from a wide range of experts on different parts of the risk causal chain. We also use examples to illustrate how studying expert consensus/disagreement helps in research prioritization and budget allocation exercises. The expert elicitation can be repeated over the course of several years, over which time, the state of scientific knowledge will also improve and uncertainties may possibly reduce. Results from expert the elicitation exercise can be used by risk managers or managers of funding agencies as a tool for research prioritization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)137-156
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Nanoparticle Research
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Expert Judgment
risk assessment
Health risks
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment
health
Nanoparticles
Health
Uncertainty
nanoparticles
physical exercise
toxicity
Prioritization
Elicitation
Toxicity
Exercise
Extremes
Managers
budgets
contaminants

Keywords

  • Deep uncertainty
  • Degree of expert consensus
  • Model uncertainty
  • Nanoparticle health risks
  • Occupational health
  • Parametric uncertainty
  • Probabilistic expert judgment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Chemistry(all)
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Engineering (miscellaneous)
  • Materials Science (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Health risk assessment for nanoparticles : A case for using expert judgment. / Kandlikar, Milind; Ramachandran, Gurumurthy; Maynard, Andrew; Murdock, Barbara; Toscano, William A.

In: Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 137-156.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kandlikar, Milind ; Ramachandran, Gurumurthy ; Maynard, Andrew ; Murdock, Barbara ; Toscano, William A. / Health risk assessment for nanoparticles : A case for using expert judgment. In: Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2007 ; Vol. 9, No. 1. pp. 137-156.
@article{9ed692e83bc64e0b809ca85e4ec24718,
title = "Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: A case for using expert judgment",
abstract = "Uncertainties in conventional quantitative risk assessment typically relate to values of parameters in risk models. For many environmental contaminants, there is a lack of sufficient information about multiple components of the risk assessment framework. In such cases, the use of default assumptions and extrapolations to fill in the data gaps is a common practice. Nanoparticle risks, however, pose a new form of risk assessment challenge. Besides a lack of data, there is deep scientific uncertainty regarding every aspect of the risk assessment framework: (a) particle characteristics that may affect toxicity; (b) their fate and transport through the environment; (c) the routes of exposure and the metrics by which exposure ought to be measured; (d) the mechanisms of translocation to different parts of the body; and (e) the mechanisms of toxicity and disease. In each of these areas, there are multiple and competing models and hypotheses. These are not merely parametric uncertainties but uncertainties about the choice of the causal mechanisms themselves and the proper model variables to be used, i.e., structural uncertainties. While these uncertainties exist for PM2.5 as well, risk assessment for PM2.5 has avoided dealing with these issues because of a plethora of epidemiological studies. However, such studies don't exist for the case of nanoparticles. Even if such studies are done in the future, they will be very specific to a particular type of engineered nanoparticle and not generalizable to other nanoparticles. Therefore, risk assessment for nanoparticles will have to deal with the various uncertainties that were avoided in the case of PM2.5. Consequently, uncertainties in estimating risks due to nanoparticle exposures may be characterized as 'extreme'. This paper proposes a methodology by which risk analysts can cope with such extreme uncertainty. One way to make these problems analytically tractable is to use expert judgment approaches to study the degree of consensus and/or disagreement between experts on different parts of the exposure-response paradigm. This can be done by eliciting judgments from a wide range of experts on different parts of the risk causal chain. We also use examples to illustrate how studying expert consensus/disagreement helps in research prioritization and budget allocation exercises. The expert elicitation can be repeated over the course of several years, over which time, the state of scientific knowledge will also improve and uncertainties may possibly reduce. Results from expert the elicitation exercise can be used by risk managers or managers of funding agencies as a tool for research prioritization.",
keywords = "Deep uncertainty, Degree of expert consensus, Model uncertainty, Nanoparticle health risks, Occupational health, Parametric uncertainty, Probabilistic expert judgment",
author = "Milind Kandlikar and Gurumurthy Ramachandran and Andrew Maynard and Barbara Murdock and Toscano, {William A.}",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11051-006-9154-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "137--156",
journal = "Journal of Nanoparticle Research",
issn = "1388-0764",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Health risk assessment for nanoparticles

T2 - A case for using expert judgment

AU - Kandlikar, Milind

AU - Ramachandran, Gurumurthy

AU - Maynard, Andrew

AU - Murdock, Barbara

AU - Toscano, William A.

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - Uncertainties in conventional quantitative risk assessment typically relate to values of parameters in risk models. For many environmental contaminants, there is a lack of sufficient information about multiple components of the risk assessment framework. In such cases, the use of default assumptions and extrapolations to fill in the data gaps is a common practice. Nanoparticle risks, however, pose a new form of risk assessment challenge. Besides a lack of data, there is deep scientific uncertainty regarding every aspect of the risk assessment framework: (a) particle characteristics that may affect toxicity; (b) their fate and transport through the environment; (c) the routes of exposure and the metrics by which exposure ought to be measured; (d) the mechanisms of translocation to different parts of the body; and (e) the mechanisms of toxicity and disease. In each of these areas, there are multiple and competing models and hypotheses. These are not merely parametric uncertainties but uncertainties about the choice of the causal mechanisms themselves and the proper model variables to be used, i.e., structural uncertainties. While these uncertainties exist for PM2.5 as well, risk assessment for PM2.5 has avoided dealing with these issues because of a plethora of epidemiological studies. However, such studies don't exist for the case of nanoparticles. Even if such studies are done in the future, they will be very specific to a particular type of engineered nanoparticle and not generalizable to other nanoparticles. Therefore, risk assessment for nanoparticles will have to deal with the various uncertainties that were avoided in the case of PM2.5. Consequently, uncertainties in estimating risks due to nanoparticle exposures may be characterized as 'extreme'. This paper proposes a methodology by which risk analysts can cope with such extreme uncertainty. One way to make these problems analytically tractable is to use expert judgment approaches to study the degree of consensus and/or disagreement between experts on different parts of the exposure-response paradigm. This can be done by eliciting judgments from a wide range of experts on different parts of the risk causal chain. We also use examples to illustrate how studying expert consensus/disagreement helps in research prioritization and budget allocation exercises. The expert elicitation can be repeated over the course of several years, over which time, the state of scientific knowledge will also improve and uncertainties may possibly reduce. Results from expert the elicitation exercise can be used by risk managers or managers of funding agencies as a tool for research prioritization.

AB - Uncertainties in conventional quantitative risk assessment typically relate to values of parameters in risk models. For many environmental contaminants, there is a lack of sufficient information about multiple components of the risk assessment framework. In such cases, the use of default assumptions and extrapolations to fill in the data gaps is a common practice. Nanoparticle risks, however, pose a new form of risk assessment challenge. Besides a lack of data, there is deep scientific uncertainty regarding every aspect of the risk assessment framework: (a) particle characteristics that may affect toxicity; (b) their fate and transport through the environment; (c) the routes of exposure and the metrics by which exposure ought to be measured; (d) the mechanisms of translocation to different parts of the body; and (e) the mechanisms of toxicity and disease. In each of these areas, there are multiple and competing models and hypotheses. These are not merely parametric uncertainties but uncertainties about the choice of the causal mechanisms themselves and the proper model variables to be used, i.e., structural uncertainties. While these uncertainties exist for PM2.5 as well, risk assessment for PM2.5 has avoided dealing with these issues because of a plethora of epidemiological studies. However, such studies don't exist for the case of nanoparticles. Even if such studies are done in the future, they will be very specific to a particular type of engineered nanoparticle and not generalizable to other nanoparticles. Therefore, risk assessment for nanoparticles will have to deal with the various uncertainties that were avoided in the case of PM2.5. Consequently, uncertainties in estimating risks due to nanoparticle exposures may be characterized as 'extreme'. This paper proposes a methodology by which risk analysts can cope with such extreme uncertainty. One way to make these problems analytically tractable is to use expert judgment approaches to study the degree of consensus and/or disagreement between experts on different parts of the exposure-response paradigm. This can be done by eliciting judgments from a wide range of experts on different parts of the risk causal chain. We also use examples to illustrate how studying expert consensus/disagreement helps in research prioritization and budget allocation exercises. The expert elicitation can be repeated over the course of several years, over which time, the state of scientific knowledge will also improve and uncertainties may possibly reduce. Results from expert the elicitation exercise can be used by risk managers or managers of funding agencies as a tool for research prioritization.

KW - Deep uncertainty

KW - Degree of expert consensus

KW - Model uncertainty

KW - Nanoparticle health risks

KW - Occupational health

KW - Parametric uncertainty

KW - Probabilistic expert judgment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845917622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845917622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11051-006-9154-x

DO - 10.1007/s11051-006-9154-x

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 137

EP - 156

JO - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

JF - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

SN - 1388-0764

IS - 1

ER -