Cumulative risk assessment toolbox: methods and approaches for the practitioner

Cumulative Risk Evaluation of Phthalates Under TSCA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently conducting separate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations for seven phthalates: dibutyl phthalate (DBP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and diisononyl phthalate (DINP). Phthalates are highly abundant plastic additives used primarily to soften materials and make them flexible, and biomonitoring shows widespread human exposure to a mixture of phthalates. Evidence supports biological additivity of phthalate mixture exposures, including the enhancement of toxicity affecting common biological targets. Risk estimates based on individual phthalate exposure may not be protective of public health. Thus, a cumulative risk approach is warranted. While EPA initially did not signal that it would incorporate cumulative risk assessment (CRA) as part of its current risk evaluation for the seven phthalates, the agency recently announced that it is reconsidering if CRA for phthalates would be appropriate. Based on our review of existing chemical mixtures risk assessment guidance, current TSCA scoping documents for the seven phthalates, and pertinent peer-reviewed literature, we delineate a CRA approach that EPA can easily implement for phthalates. The strategy for using CRA to inform TSCA risk evaluation for existing chemicals is based upon integrative physiology and a common adverse health outcome algorithm for identifying and grouping relevant nonchemical and chemical stressors. We recommend adjustments for how hazard indices (HIs) or margins of exposure (MOEs) based on CRA are interpreted for determining "unreasonable risk" under TSCA.

A cumulative-risk assessment method based on an artificial neural network model for the water environment

To analyze the cumulative risks to the water environment, the backpropagation artificial neural network (BP-ANN), a self-adapting algorithm, was proposed in this study. A new comprehensive indicator of cumulative risks was formed by combining the water risk assessment tool proposed by the World Wide Fund for Nature or World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (DEG), and the cumulative environmental risk assessment system proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Eleven training algorithms were selected and optimized based on the mean square error (MSE) of prediction results. Data concerning evaluating indicators and cumulative risk indexes of the Liao River collected from 2005 to 2017 in the cities of Tieling, Shenyang, and Panjin, China, were used as input and output data to train, validate, and test the BP-ANN. Levenberg Marquardt backpropagation was the most accurate algorithm, with an MSE of 3.33 × 10^-6. After optimization, there were six hidden layers in the model. The correlation coefficient of the BP-ANN with LM exceeded 80%. These findings suggest that the BP-ANN model is applicable to prediction of cumulative risks to the water environment. The model was sensitive to the number of wastewater treatment facilities and the wastewater treatment rate along the river. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the contributing factors can be controlled to reduce the cumulative risk.

Framing Environmental Health Decision-Making: The Struggle over Cumulative Impacts Policy

Little progress has been made to advance U.S. federal policy responses to growing scientific findings about cumulative environmental health impacts and risks, which also show that many low income and racial and ethnic minority populations bear a disproportionate share of multiple environmental burdens. Recent scholarship points to a “standard narrative” by which policy makers rationalize their slow efforts on environmental justice because of perceived lack of data and analytical tools. Using a social constructivist approach, ethnographic research methods, and content analysis, we examined the social context of policy challenges related to cumulative risks and impacts in the state of Maryland between 2014 and 2016. We identified three frames about cumulative impacts as a health issue through which conflicts over such policy reforms materialize and are sustained: (a) perceptions of evidence, (b) interpretations of social justice, and (c) expectations of authoritative bodies. Our findings illustrate that policy impasse over cumulative impacts is highly dependent on how policy-relevant actors come to frame issues around legislating cumulative impacts, rather than the “standard narrative” of external constraints. Frame analysis may provide us with more robust understandings of policy processes to address cumulative risks and impacts and the social forces that create health policy change.

Evolving Science and Practice of Risk Assessment

Managing public health risks from environmental contaminants has historically relied on a risk assessment process defined by the regulatory context in which these risks are assessed. Risk assessment guidance follows a straightforward, chemical-by-chemical approach to inform regulatory decisions around the question "what is the risk-based concentration protective of human and ecological health outcomes?" Here we briefly summarize regulatory risk assessment in the context of innovative risk assessment approaches based on an evolving understanding of the underlying scientific disciplines that support risk analysis more broadly. We discuss scientific versus regulatory tensions in the application of these approaches for future risk assessments, and challenges in translating our improved understanding of the underlying scientific complexity to the regulatory landscape to better inform decision making that extends beyond conventional regulatory mandates.

Defining and Intervening on Cumulative Environmental Neurodevelopmental Risks: Introducing a Complex Systems Approach

BACKGROUND

The combined effects of multiple environmental toxicants and social stressor exposures are widely recognized as important public health problems contributing to health inequities. However cumulative environmental health risks and impacts have received little attention from U.S. policy makers at state and federal levels to develop comprehensive strategies to reduce these exposures, mitigate cumulative risks, and prevent harm. An area for which the inherent limitations of current approaches to cumulative environmental health risks are well illustrated is children's neurodevelopment, which exhibits dynamic complexity of multiple interdependent and causally linked factors and intergenerational effects.

OBJECTIVES

We delineate how a complex systems approach, specifically system dynamics, can address shortcomings in environmental health risk assessment regarding exposures to multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors and reshape associated public policies.

DISCUSSION

Systems modeling assists in the goal of solving problems by improving the "mental models" we use to make decisions, including regulatory and policy decisions. In the context of disparities in children's cumulative exposure to neurodevelopmental stressors, we describe potential policy insights about the structure and behavior of the system and the types of system dynamics modeling that would be appropriate, from visual depiction (i.e., informal maps) to formal quantitative simulation models. A systems dynamics framework provides not only a language but also a set of methodological tools that can more easily operationalize existing multidisciplinary scientific evidence and conceptual frameworks on cumulative risks. Thus, we can arrive at more accurate diagnostic tools for children's' environmental health inequities that take into consideration the broader social and economic environment in which children live, grow, play, and learn. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7333.

A Cumulative Risk Perspective for Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Professionals

Cumulative risk assessment (CRA) addresses the combined risk associated with chemical and non-chemical exposures. Although CRA approaches are utilized in environmental and ecological contexts, they are rarely applied in workplaces. In this perspectives article, we strive to raise awareness among occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals and foster the greater adoption of a CRA perspective in practice. Specifically, we provide an overview of CRA literature as well as preliminary guidance on when to consider a CRA approach in occupational settings and how to establish reasonable boundaries. Examples of possible workplace co-exposures and voluntary risk management actions are discussed. We also highlight important implications for workplace CRA research and practice. In particular, future needs include simple tools for identifying combinations of chemical and non-chemical exposures, uniform risk management guidelines, and risk communication materials. Further development of practical CRA methods and tools are essential to meet the needs of complex and changing work environments.

Hybrid Resiliency-Stressor Conceptual Framework for Informing Decision Support Tools and Addressing Environmental Injustice and Health Inequities

While structural factors may drive health inequities, certain health-promoting attributes of one's "place" known as salutogens may further moderate the cumulative impacts of exposures to socio-environmental stressors that behave as pathogens. Understanding the synergistic relationship between socio-environmental stressors and resilience factors is a critical component in reducing health inequities; however, the catalyst for this concept relies on community-engaged research approaches to ultimately strengthen resiliency and promote health. Furthermore, this concept has not been fully integrated into environmental justice and cumulative risk assessment screening tools designed to identify geospatial variability in environmental factors that may be associated with health inequities. As a result, we propose a hybrid resiliency-stressor conceptual framework to inform the development of environmental justice and cumulative risk assessment screening tools that can detect environmental inequities and opportunities for resilience in vulnerable populations. We explore the relationship between actual exposures to socio-environmental stressors, perceptions of stressors, and one's physiological and psychological stress response to environmental stimuli, which collectively may perpetuate health inequities by increasing allostatic load and initiating disease onset. This comprehensive framework expands the scope of existing screening tools to inform action-based solutions that rely on community-engaged research efforts to increase resiliency and promote positive health outcomes.

Characterizing Risk for Cumulative Risk Assessments

In assessing environmental health risks, the risk characterization step synthesizes information gathered in evaluating exposures to stressors together with dose-response relationships, characteristics of the exposed population, and external environmental conditions. This article summarizes key steps of a cumulative risk assessment (CRA) followed by a discussion of considerations for characterizing cumulative risks. Cumulative risk characterizations differ considerably from single chemical- or single source-based risk characterization. CRAs typically focus on a specific population instead of a pollutant or pollutant source and should include an evaluation of all relevant sources contributing to the exposures in the population and other factors that influence dose-response relationships. Second, CRAs may include influential environmental and population-specific conditions, involving multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors. Third, a CRA could examine multiple health effects, reflecting joint toxicity and the potential for toxicological interactions. Fourth, the complexities often necessitate simplifying methods, including judgment-based and semi-quantitative indices that collapse disparate data into numerical scores. Fifth, because of the higher dimensionality and potentially large number of interactions, information needed to quantify risk is typically incomplete, necessitating an uncertainty analysis. Three approaches that could be used for characterizing risks in a CRA are presented: the multiroute hazard index, stressor grouping by exposure and toxicity, and indices for screening multiple factors and conditions. Other key roles of the risk characterization in CRAs are also described, mainly the translational aspect of including a characterization summary for lay readers (in addition to the technical analysis), and placing the results in the context of the likely risk-based decisions.

An Overview of Literature Topics Related to Current Concepts, Methods, Tools, and Applications for Cumulative Risk Assessment (2007-2016)

Cumulative risk assessments (CRAs) address combined risks from exposures to multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors and may focus on vulnerable communities or populations. Significant contributions have been made to the development of concepts, methods, and applications for CRA over the past decade. Work in both human health and ecological cumulative risk has advanced in two different contexts. The first context is the effects of chemical mixtures that share common modes of action, or that cause common adverse outcomes. In this context two primary models are used for predicting mixture effects, dose addition or response addition. The second context is evaluating the combined effects of chemical and nonchemical (e.g., radiation, biological, nutritional, economic, psychological, habitat alteration, land-use change, global climate change, and natural disasters) stressors. CRA can be adapted to address risk in many contexts, and this adaptability is reflected in the range in disciplinary perspectives in the published literature. This article presents the results of a literature search and discusses a range of selected work with the intention to give a broad overview of relevant topics and provide a starting point for researchers interested in CRA applications.

Conceptual Framework To Extend Life Cycle Assessment Using Near-Field Human Exposure Modeling and High-Throughput Tools for Chemicals

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a decision-making tool that accounts for multiple impacts across the life cycle of a product or service. This paper presents a conceptual framework to integrate human health impact assessment with risk screening approaches to extend LCA to include near-field chemical sources (e.g., those originating from consumer products and building materials) that have traditionally been excluded from LCA. A new generation of rapid human exposure modeling and high-throughput toxicity testing is transforming chemical risk prioritization and provides an opportunity for integration of screening-level risk assessment (RA) with LCA. The combined LCA and RA approach considers environmental impacts of products alongside risks to human health, which is consistent with regulatory frameworks addressing RA within a sustainability mindset. A case study is presented to juxtapose LCA and risk screening approaches for a chemical used in a consumer product. The case study demonstrates how these new risk screening tools can be used to inform toxicity impact estimates in LCA and highlights needs for future research. The framework provides a basis for developing tools and methods to support decision making on the use of chemicals in products.

Exposure to Mixtures of Metals and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes: A Multidisciplinary Review Using an Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework

Current risk assessment guidance calls for an individual chemical-by-chemical approach that fails to capture potential interactive effects of exposure to environmental mixtures and genetic variability. We conducted a review of the literature on relationships between prenatal and early life exposure to mixtures of lead (Pb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), and manganese (Mn) with neurodevelopmental outcomes. We then used an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework to integrate lines of evidence from multiple disciplines based on evolving guidance developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Toxicological evidence suggests a greater than additive effect of combined exposures to As-Pb-Cd and to Mn with any other metal, and several epidemiologic studies also suggest synergistic effects from binary combinations of Pb-As, Pb-Cd, and Pb-Mn. The exposure levels reported in these epidemiologic studies largely fall at the high-end (e.g., 95th percentile) of biomonitoring data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), suggesting a small but significant potential for high-end exposures. This review integrates multiple data sources using an AOP framework and provides an initial application of the OECD guidance in the context of potential neurodevelopmental toxicity of several metals, recognizing the evolving nature of regulatory interpretation and acceptance.

Aggregate Exposure and Cumulative Risk Assessment--Integrating Occupational and Non-occupational Risk Factors

Occupational exposure limits have traditionally focused on preventing morbidity and mortality arising from inhalation exposures to individual chemical stressors in the workplace. While central to occupational risk assessment, occupational exposure limits have limited application as a refined disease prevention tool because they do not account for all of the complexities of the work and non-occupational environments and are based on varying health endpoints. To be of greater utility, occupational exposure limits and other risk management tools could integrate broader consideration of risks from multiple exposure pathways and routes (aggregate risk) as well as the combined risk from exposure to both chemical and non-chemical stressors, within and beyond the workplace, including the possibility that such exposures may cause interactions or modify the toxic effects observed (cumulative risk). Although still at a rudimentary stage in many cases, a variety of methods and tools have been developed or are being used in allied risk assessment fields to incorporate such considerations in the risk assessment process. These approaches, which are collectively referred to as cumulative risk assessment, have potential to be adapted or modified for occupational scenarios and provide a tangible path forward for occupational risk assessment. Accounting for complex exposures in the workplace and the broader risks faced by the individual also requires a more complete consideration of the composite effects of occupational and non-occupational risk factors to fully assess and manage worker health problems. Barriers to integrating these different factors remain, but new and ongoing community-based and worker health-related initiatives may provide mechanisms for identifying and integrating risk from aggregate exposures and cumulative risks from all relevant sources, be they occupational or non-occupational.