Suchergebnisse

A persistent problem in health risk analysis where it is known that a disease may occur as a consequence of multiple risk factors with interactions is allocating the total risk of the disease among the individual risk factors. This problem, referred to here as risk apportionment, arises in various venues, including: (i) public health management, (ii) government programs for compensating injured individuals, and (iii) litigation. Two methods have been described in the risk analysis and epidemiology literature for allocating total risk among individual risk factors. One method uses weights to allocate interactions among the individual risk factors. The other method is based on risk accounting axioms and finding an optimal and unique allocation that satisfies the axioms using a procedure borrowed from game theory. Where relative risk or attributable risk is the risk measure, we find that the game‐theory‐determined allocation is the same as the allocation where risk factor interactions are apportioned to individual risk factors using equal weights. Therefore, the apportionment problem becomes one of selecting a meaningful set of weights for allocating interactions among the individual risk factors. Equal weights and weights proportional to the risks of the individual risk factors are discussed.

Occupational exposure modeling is widely used in the context of the E.U. regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals (REACH). First tier tools, such as European Centre for Ecotoxicology and TOxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) targeted risk assessment (TRA) or Stoffenmanager, are used to screen a wide range of substances. Those of concern are investigated further using second tier tools, e.g., Advanced REACH Tool (ART). Local sensitivity analysis (SA) methods are used here to determine dominant factors for three models commonly used within the REACH framework: ECETOC TRA v3, Stoffenmanager 4.5, and ART 1.5. Based on the results of the SA, the robustness of the models is assessed.For ECETOC, the process category (PROC) is the most important factor. A failure to identify the correct PROC has severe consequences for the exposure estimate. Stoffenmanager is the most balanced model and decision making uncertainties in one modifying factor are less severe in Stoffenmanager. ART requires a careful evaluation of the decisions in the source compartment since it constitutes ∼75% of the total exposure range, which corresponds to an exposure estimate of 20–22 orders of magnitude.Our results indicate that there is a trade off between accuracy and precision of the models. Previous studies suggested that ART may lead to more accurate results in well‐documented exposure situations. However, the choice of the adequate model should ultimately be determined by the quality of the available exposure data: if the practitioner is uncertain concerning two or more decisions in the entry parameters, Stoffenmanager may be more robust than ART.

The Flood Risk in the Netherlands project (Dutch acronym: VNK2) is a large‐scale probabilistic risk assessment for all major levee systems in the Netherlands. This article provides an overview of the methods and techniques used in the VNK2 project. It also discusses two examples that illustrate the potential of quantitative flood risk assessments such as VNK2 to improve flood risk management processes: (i) informing political debates about the risks of flooding and the effectiveness of risk management actions, and (ii) (re)directing research efforts towards important sources of uncertainty.