Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.4
Journals
IJERPH
Special Issues
Intersection of Risk Assessment, Exposure Science, and Epidemiology: Issues and...
ijerph-logo
Submit to IJERPH Review for IJERPH Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

► Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser
share announcement

Intersection of Risk Assessment, Exposure Science, and Epidemiology: Issues and Path Forward

A special issue of International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601). This special issue belongs to the section "Public Health Statistics and Risk Assessment".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 November 2022) | Viewed by 12671

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Judy S. LaKind

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. LaKind Associates, LLC., Baltimore, MD, USA
2. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Catonsville, MD 21228, USA
Interests: exposure science; biomonitoring; risk assessment; chemicals in breast milk; data quality
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Dr. Carol Burns

E-Mail
Guest Editor
Burns Epidemiology Consulting, LLC, Sanford, MI, USA
Interests: translating epidemiology results for risk assessment; data quality

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Environmental epidemiology and exposure research provide critical information for assessing risk factors for health outcomes. Only infrequently are these data used in risk assessments to support public health decision-making. But this can change. With new restrictions on animal testing, the use of human studies for risk assessment will become increasingly important. At the same time, risk assessors are advancing the approaches used to evaluate human studies, and these evaluations determine whether the studies will suffice for public health decisions. Calls for enhancing the use of human research for risk assessment have been made for over 20 years, but in today’s climate, the importance of this subject has grown and warrants new ideas and approaches. What are the barriers to using epidemiology information in risk assessment? What are the barriers to dialogue across disciplines? What new ideas can help to overcome these barriers? Papers addressing ideas around the epidemiology–exposure–risk assessment intersection and approaches for enhancing the translation of human research into public health decisions are invited for this Special Issue.

Dr. Judy S. LaKind
Dr. Carol Burns
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2500 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Epidemiology
  • Risk assessment
  • Exposure assessment
  • Environmental policy
  • Matrix
  • Communication

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Editorial

Jump to: Research, Other

6 pages, 559 KiB  
Editorial
Translation of Exposure and Epidemiology for Risk Assessment: A Shifting Paradigm
by Judy S. LaKind, Joshua Naiman and Carol J. Burns
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(12), 4220; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124220 - 12 Jun 2020
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2718
Abstract
Risk assessment is a well-established process used for various types of public health decision-making, such as setting chemical site clean-up levels, developing limits on exposures to chemicals in soil, water, air and food, and determining occupational exposure limits [...] Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intersection of Risk Assessment, Exposure Science, and Epidemiology: Issues and Path Forward)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Research

Jump to: Editorial, Other

10 pages, 1265 KiB  
Article
How Many Urine Samples Are Needed to Accurately Assess Exposure to Non-Persistent Chemicals? The Biomarker Reliability Assessment Tool (BRAT) for Scientists, Research Sponsors, and Risk Managers
by Marc-André Verner, Hassan Salame, Conrad Housand, Linda S. Birnbaum, Maryse F. Bouchard, Jonathan Chevrier, Lesa L. Aylward, Daniel Q. Naiman and Judy S. LaKind
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(23), 9102; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17239102 - 06 Dec 2020
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2933
Abstract
In epidemiologic and exposure research, biomonitoring is often used as the basis for assessing human exposure to environmental chemicals. Studies frequently rely on a single urinary measurement per participant to assess exposure to non-persistent chemicals. However, there is a growing consensus that single [...] Read more.
In epidemiologic and exposure research, biomonitoring is often used as the basis for assessing human exposure to environmental chemicals. Studies frequently rely on a single urinary measurement per participant to assess exposure to non-persistent chemicals. However, there is a growing consensus that single urine samples may be insufficient for adequately estimating exposure. The question then arises: how many samples would be needed for optimal characterization of exposure? To help researchers answer this question, we developed a tool called the Biomarker Reliability Assessment Tool (BRAT). The BRAT is based on pharmacokinetic modeling simulations, is freely available, and is designed to help researchers determine the approximate number of urine samples needed to optimize exposure assessment. The BRAT performs Monte Carlo simulations of exposure to estimate internal levels and resulting urinary concentrations in individuals from a population based on user-specified inputs (e.g., biological half-life, within- and between-person variability in exposure). The BRAT evaluates—through linear regression and quantile classification—the precision/accuracy of the estimation of internal levels depending on the number of urine samples. This tool should guide researchers towards more robust biomonitoring and improved exposure classification in epidemiologic and exposure research, which should in turn improve the translation of that research into decision-making. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intersection of Risk Assessment, Exposure Science, and Epidemiology: Issues and Path Forward)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 536 KiB  
Article
“Good Epidemiology Practice” Guidelines for Pesticide Exposure Assessment
by Julie E. Goodman, Robyn L. Prueitt, Paolo Boffetta, Crispin Halsall and Andrew Sweetman
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(14), 5114; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145114 - 15 Jul 2020
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 3175
Abstract
Both toxicology and epidemiology are used to inform hazard and risk assessment in regulatory settings, particularly for pesticides. While toxicology studies involve controlled, quantifiable exposures that are often administered according to standardized protocols, estimating exposure in observational epidemiology studies is challenging, and there [...] Read more.
Both toxicology and epidemiology are used to inform hazard and risk assessment in regulatory settings, particularly for pesticides. While toxicology studies involve controlled, quantifiable exposures that are often administered according to standardized protocols, estimating exposure in observational epidemiology studies is challenging, and there is no established guidance for doing so. However, there are several frameworks for evaluating the quality of published epidemiology studies. We previously developed a preliminary list of methodology and reporting standards for epidemiology studies, called Good Epidemiology Practice (GEP) guidelines, based on a critical review of standardized toxicology protocols and available frameworks for evaluating epidemiology study quality. We determined that exposure characterization is one of the most critical areas for which standards are needed. Here, we propose GEP guidelines for pesticide exposure assessment based on the source of exposure data (i.e., biomonitoring and environmental samples, questionnaire/interview/expert record review, and dietary exposures based on measurements of residues in food and food consumption). It is expected that these GEP guidelines will facilitate the conduct of higher-quality epidemiology studies that can be used as a basis for more scientifically sound regulatory risk assessment and policy making. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intersection of Risk Assessment, Exposure Science, and Epidemiology: Issues and Path Forward)

Other

Jump to: Editorial, Research

31 pages, 818 KiB  
Systematic Review
A Systematic Review and Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies on Household Fuel Use and Its Health Effects Using Demographic and Health Surveys
by Daniel B. Odo, Ian A. Yang and Luke D. Knibbs
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(4), 1411; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041411 - 03 Feb 2021
Cited by 21 | Viewed by 3022
Abstract
The domestic combustion of polluting fuels is associated with an estimated 3 million premature deaths each year and contributes to climate change. In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), valid and representative estimates of people exposed to household air pollution (HAP) are scarce. [...] Read more.
The domestic combustion of polluting fuels is associated with an estimated 3 million premature deaths each year and contributes to climate change. In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), valid and representative estimates of people exposed to household air pollution (HAP) are scarce. The Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) is an important and consistent source of data on household fuel use for cooking and has facilitated studies of health effects. However, the body of research based on DHS data has not been systematically identified, nor its strengths and limitations critically assessed as a whole. We aimed to systematically review epidemiological studies using DHS data that considered cooking fuel type as the main exposure, including the assessment of the extent and key drivers of bias. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and the DHS publication portal. We assessed the quality and risk of bias (RoB) of studies using a novel tool. Of 2748 records remaining after removing duplicates, 63 were read in full. A total of 45 out of 63 studies were included in our review, spanning 11 different health outcomes and representing 50 unique analyses. In total, 41 of 45 (91%) studies analysed health outcomes in children <5 years of age, including respiratory infections (n = 17), death (all-cause) (n = 14), low birthweight (n = 5), stunting and anaemia (n = 5). Inconsistencies were observed between studies in how cooking fuels were classified into relatively high- and low-polluting. Overall, 36/50 (80%) studies reported statistically significant adverse associations between polluting fuels and health outcomes. In total, 18/50 (36%) of the analyses were scored as having moderate RoB, while 16/50 (32%) analyses were scored as having serious or critical RoB. Although HAP exposure assessment is not the main focus of the DHS, it is the main, often only, source of information in many LMICs. An appreciable proportion of studies using it to analyse the association between cooking fuel use and health have potential for high RoB, mostly related to confounder control, exposure assessment and misclassification, and outcome ascertainment. Based on our findings, we provide some suggestions for ways in which revising the information collected by the DHS could make it even more amenable to studies of household fuel use and health, and reduce the RoB, without being onerous to collect and analyse. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intersection of Risk Assessment, Exposure Science, and Epidemiology: Issues and Path Forward)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop