tOtOF-^OOG 76 - -1

UCRL- 102225
PREPRINT

\ * ry
r //

Uncertainty in Exposure and Health-Risk Assessment:

An Integrated Approach

Thomas E. McKone
and
Kenneth T. Bogen

Thn paper was prepared for the

Air and Waste Management Association Annual Meeting
June 24-29,1990, Pittsburgh, PA

May 1990

This is a preprint of a paper intended for publication in a journal or proceedings. Since

changes mav be made before publication, this preprint is made available with the
understanding that it will not be cited or reproduced without the permission of the
author.

MASTER vh
 DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability
or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference
herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.

D IS C L A IM E R

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image

products. Images are produced from the best available
original document.
 90 186.2
-

UCRL—102225

DE90 012988

Uncertainty in Exposure and

Health-Risk Assessment:
An Integrated Approach

Thomas E. McKone
and
Kenneth T. Bogen

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

P.O. Box 5507, L-453
Livermore, CA 94550
 90 186.2
-

INTRODUCTION

One can represent the average individual risk within a population exposed to
an environmental contaminant as resulting from a source term; the exposure
function, which converts the source into a lifetime equivalent contact per
individual; the fraction of contaminant delivered to the organism after contact; and
the toxic potency associated with the delivered dose. In actual practice, the process of
estimating exposure and risk can be more complex and include temporal and/or
spatial relations and functional dependencies among the source, exposure, dose, and
the incidence of detriment. If we view risk as the simple product of exposure and
potency, then uncertainty in risk can be evaluated by assessing separately the
uncertainty in each term. However, as we move to the use of physiologically based
pharmacokinetic models and biologically based dose-response models where health
detriment is not always a linear function of exposure, the impact of exposure
uncertainties will become harder to quantify and more difficult to dismiss. Using a
case study for contamination of ground water with tetrachloroethylene (PCE), we
characterize here the uncertainty in human exposure models and the combined
uncertainty in exposure and dose-response models. In characterizing uncertainty in
exposure models, we address three key issues: (1) uncertainty in predicting the
relation between sources of contaminants and concentrations in the accessible
environment; (2) uncertainty in quantifying pathway exposure factors that relate
environmental concentrations to levels of exposure; and (3) the important
contributions to the combined uncertainty in environmental dispersion and
pathway exposure factors.

The goal of this paper is to consider a strategy for evaluating and reducing
sources of uncertainty in predictive exposure and health-risk assessments. We focus
on the volatile organic chemical tetrachloroethylene in California water systems
derived from ground water. We divide our analysis into five steps. First, we
consider the magnitude and variability of PCE concentrations available in large
public water supplies in California. Second, we characterize pathway exposure
factors (PEFs) for ground water exposures and estimate uncertainty for each PEE.
Third, we consider models describing uptake and metabolism to estimate the
relation between exposure and metabolized dose. Fourth, we consider the
carcinogenic potency of the metabolized PCE dose. Finally, we combine the results
to estimate the overall magnitude and uncertainty of individual risk within the
exposed population.

WATER-SUPPLY CONCENTRATIONS

We estimate here the magnitude and uncertainty of the population-weighted

concentration of PCE in California water supplies. Using survey data compiled by
the California Department of Health Services1 (and referred to as the AB1803 data),
we estimate that, in 1986, 6.8 million people in California were connected to large

2
 90 186.2
-

public-water supply systems with at least one well in which PCE contamination had
been detected. These data have a number of limitations including (a) incomplete
sampling data (even though all large water systems in California were sampled,
only a limited number of wells in each system were sampled), (b) lack of
information on the fraction of the_t&t3l system -supply provided by any single well,
(c) limited data on how concentrations vary with time, and (d) no information on
the relation between concentrations in individual wells and concentrations in the
water supply lines for individual households.

In spite of these limitations, we estimate the distribution of PCE

concentrations in California water supplies using the AB1803 data and two sets of
assumptions. The first set includes the assumptions that (a) surface water and
negative samples contain no PCE, (b) all wells within a given water system produce
water at the same rate, and (c) the average concentration of PCE in unsampled wells
is the same as the average PCE concentration in sampled wells. The second set of
assumptions is the same as the first except that assumption (c) is replaced by the
assumption that unsampled wells contain no PCE. This assumption is included
because the sampled wells in each system were not randomly selected but selected
because they were expected to contain PCE. Based on the AB1803 data and these
assumptions we estimate two distributions of exposed population size versus
concentration. These distributions are shown in Figure 1. The first and second
assumption sets give population-weighted average concentrations of respectively
1.1 x 10-4 and 3.5 x IQ-4 mg/L.

WATER-BASED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

In a health risk-assessment, exposure is defined by the EPA1 as "the contact of

an organism (humans in the case of a health-risk assessment) with a chemical or
physical agent. The magnitude of exposure is determined by measuring or
estimating the amount of agent available at the human exchange boundaries—the
lungs, the gastrointestinal tract, and the skin surface—during a specified time
period." The end product of an exposure assessment for contaminants at hazardous
waste sites is typically an estimation of the amount of contaminant contacted per
unit body weight over a period of time.

Based on EPA recommendations,2 when environmental concentrations are

constant in time, the average exposure for a specified population exposed to a
concentration (measured or modelled) in environmental medium "k" (i.e., air,
water, or soil) is given by

CR: C; EE x ED ^
:di = x —x---------- x C, = PEF(k—d) x Ck
BW a AT (1)

3
 90 186.2
-

C; EF x ED
PEF(k-»i) = CR, x —L x ———
-BW-
Ck AT (2)

where [CRj/BW] is the contact rate per unit body weight such as kg(soil)/kg-d,
L(milk)/kg-d, or m3(air)/kg-d; Cj/Ck is the ratio of concentration in the "contact"
medium i (i.ev air, tap water, milk, soil, etc.) to the concentration in environmental
medium k (air, water, soil), units depend on the two media; EF is the exposure
frequency, days per year; ED is the exposure duration, years; AT is the averaging
time, days; and PEF(k->i) is the pathway exposure factor relating the concentration
Ck in medium k to the chronic daily intake, mg/kg-d, during the period ED.

This section summarizes the models and ranges of parameters we use to

calculate the magnitude and uncertainty of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
uptake exposures attributable to PCE in ground water. PEFs are estimated for
(1) potable waters drinking water intake, (2) potable water—dnhalation, and
(3) potable water—>dermal uptake.

10 7 Vi

T3
0)
</>
O 10'
Q.
X
0)
o
CL
o 10° ^
a>
a.

0) 10
-Q '

E
z
10° -

10'
3x1 O'3 -> 10‘2

PCE concentration in the water supply (mg/L)

Figure 1. Distributions of exposed population size versus concentration, based on

the AB1803 data and two assumption sets.

4
 90 186.2
-

Ingestion of Tap Water

We calculate the mean and standard deviation of the PEF for ingestion of
ground water using intake per unit body -weight, Iw/BW in L/kg-d, averaged rr/er a
lifetime.

PEF(water—»water ingestion) = Iw/BW (3)

For this pathway the exposure route is ingestion, the source medium and the
contact medium are ground water, the contact rate is the water intake per unit body
weight in L/kg-d, the exposure frequency is 365 d/y, the exposure duration is 70 y,
and the averaging time is 25,550 d.

We used data compiled by the ICRP4 and the EPA5 to calculate, as a function
of age, fluid intake on a per-unit-body weight basis. The standard deviation in this
ratio is estimated by calculating the variance in this ratio under the assumption that
fluid intake scales with body weight to the two-thirds power.

(5)

where g2(iw/bw) the variance in the ratio of fluid intake to body weight; BW is
the body weight, kg; cj2iw is the variance in the fluid intake; (J2byv t^ie variance in
body weight; and 0(iw/bw) is the covariance between breathing rate and body
weight. We estimate the distribution of lifetime average fluid intake per unit body
weight to be a lognormal distribution with an arithmetic mean and arithmetic
standard deviation of 0.034 and 0.013 L/kg-d as summarized in Table I.

Indoor Inhalation from Tap Water

For this pathway the exposure route is inhalation, the source medium is
water, the contact medium is indoor air, the contact rate is the breathing rate per
unit body weight, the exposure frequency is 365 d/y, the exposure duration is 70 y,
and the averaging time is 25,550 d. Efforts to assess human exposure to
contaminated tap water have revealed that significant exposures to volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) can occur from pathways other than ingestion. A review by
McKone6 indicates that exposure to volatile chemicals in tap water by inhalation
may be as large or larger than exposure from fluid ingestion. The contaminants
available in the indoor air are mobilized by showers, baths, toilets, dishwashers,
washing machines, and cooking. McKone6 has developed a model that describes the
daily concentration histories of volatile compounds within various compartments
of the indoor air environment as a result of home water use.

5
 90 186.2
-

Table I. Types of distributions and distribution moments used for the input
parameters.

Arithmetic Arithmetic Geometric

Parameter description Distribution type mean standard standard
deviation deviation
PCE Concentration in water, 3.0 x 10'4 3.5 x IQ'4 2.5
Empirical
Cw in mg/L

Fluid intake per unit body 3.4xl0-2 1.3 x IQ'2 1.4

Lognormal
weight, Iw/BW in L/kg-d

Breathing rate per unit body 0.39 0.50 2.7

Lognormal
weight, BR/BW in m3/kg-d

Shower duration,
0.13 .085

r-H
oq
Lognormal
ETS in h/d

Shower water use per person, 0.047 1.4

Lognormal 0.13
^shower L/h

Total water use in the house,

Lognormal 42 15 1.4
^house

Exposure time in the 0.22 1.8

bathroom, ETj, in h/d
Lognormal 0.33

Surface area per unit body 1.1

Lognormal 0.027 0.0025
weight, SA/BW in m2/kg

PCE metabolized cancer

Empirical 0.11 0.14 4.8
potency, qj in kg-d/mg

Arithmetic
Minimum Maximum
mean
Exposure time in the house, 14
Uniform 8 20
ETh in h/h

Ventilation rate in the

Uniform 4 20 12
shower, VRshower in m3/h

Ventilation rate in the

Uniform 10 100 54
bathroom, VR^ath in m3/h

Ventilation rate in the house,

Uniform 300 1200 750
VRhousein m3/h

Skin permeability,
Uniform 0.004 0.01 0.007
PC in m/h
*

6
 90 186.2
-

Table I. Type of distributions and distribution moments used for the input
parameters (continued).

Arithmetic
Parameter description Distribution type Minimum Maximum
mean
Fraction of skin exposed during Uniform 0.4 0.9 0.65
showering and bathing, fsa

Fraction of inhaled or Uniform 0.038 0.46 0.25

dermally absorbed PCE that is
metabolized, f *mr

Fraction of ingested PCE that Uniform 0.053 0.63 0.34

is metabolized, f *mo

Transfer efficiency from water 0.10 0.90 0.47

Triangular
to shower air ())x

Transfer efficiency from water 0.10 0.90 0.43

Triangular
to household air (j)x

The results of this model provide a basis for calculating the pathway exposure factor
that can be used to estimate the inhalation exposure attributable to the contaminant
concentration Cw (in mg/L) in tap water. This model divides the indoor-air volume
into three compartments—the shower/bath stall, the bathroom, and the household
volume. Concentrations within these compartments are dependent on chemical
mass transfers from water to air, compartment volumes, and air-exchange rates.
Using measured mass-transfer efficiencies from water to air for radon, McKone5 6 has
estimated the typical or "reference" average concentrations of a chemical having the
mass transfer efficiency of radon. For chemicals other than radon, McKone6 has
shown that the transfer efficiency is given by

,-2/3
2.0 x 106(m2/s)
^x “ ^Rn x T
r zs ^ RT
___

-
fN

H x D2/3
D

(5)
l

where (j)x is the mass transfer efficiency of contaminant x from water to air; (j)Rn is
the mass transfer efficiency of radon from water to air; is the contaminant
diffusion coefficient in water, m2/s; Da is the contaminant diffusion coefficient in
air, m2/s; R is ihe universal gas constant, torr-L/mol-k; T is the temperature, in k J. few 1^4 iL^AwL A.9 A .C

kelvins; and H is the Henry's constant in torr-L/mol. (j)]^ is 0.70 for showers and
0.54 for all household water uses including showers.6

7
 90 186.2
-

The concentration in showers-, bathroom-, and household-indoor air can be

approximated using this transfer estimate and a simple relationship proposed by
Fisk et al.7 that the concentration of an indoor air contaminant can be estimated as
the ratio of the source in mg/h divided by the ventilation rate in m3/h. Based on
this we estimate the ratios of concentrations in shower air, Grower' bathroom air,
Cbath/ and house air. Chouse' in mg/m3) to the concentration in tap water Cw (in
mg/L) using

Cshower/Cw — (4 x Wstiower x 0x)/VRshower ^

^bath/Cw = (4 x Wsbower x ^x^/VRbath C9

Chouse/Cw = (^house x ^x)/VRhouse ®

where Wsh0wer the water use per individual in the shower, L/h; W^ouse the
water use in L/h for all household activities and averaged over 24 h; and VRshower,
VRfoath/ and VRhouse are the average ventilation rates for air in the shower,
bathroom, and total house compartments respectively, m3/h.

The PEF for inhalation of contaminants in tap water is estimated as

PEF(water—unhalation) = [BR/BW] x { [Cshower/Cw x ETS] +

(9)
[Cbath/C X ETb] + [Chouse/Cw x EThl ) /(24h/d)

where [BR/BW] is the ratio breathing rate to body weight, m3/kg-d, averaged over a
lifetime; and ETS, ETb, and ETh are the exposure time in, respectively, the shower,
the bathroom, and the house—the amount of time, in h/d, that an individual
spends in each compartment.

We calculate the breathing rate per unit body weight using data from the
ICRP4 and the procedure described above for fluid intake per unit body weight. The
result is a lognormal distribution with an arithmetic mean value and arithmetic
standard deviation of 0.39 and 0.5 m3/kg-d, respectively.

James and Knuiman9 analyzed data on domestic water use from a sample of
3,000 households in Perth, Australia. Their analysis reveals that the mean duration
of a shower in this population is approximately 8 min with a geometric standard
deviation (GSD) of roughly 1.8 and the mean shower flow rate is approximately 8
L/min with a GSD of roughly 1.4. Based on this data, we model the variability of
shower exposure time with a lognormal distribution having an arithmetic mean
and standard deviation, respectively, of 0.13 h and 0.085 h and the variability of
shower water use with a lognormal distribution having an arithmetic mean and

8
 90 186.2
-

standard deviation respectively of 0.13 L/h and 0.047 L/h. We assume that total
water use can be represented by a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 1.4 and
arithmetic mean of 42 L/h and that the amount of time an individual spends in the
bathroom can be represented by a lognormal distribution with an arithmetic mean
of 033 h and a GSD of L8. We model +he amount of dime spend by individual in a
house with a uniform distribution ranging from 8 to 20 h. These distributions are
summarized in Table I.

We estimate that the transfer efficiency of PCE from tap water to shower air
can be represented by a triangular distribution with a range of 0.1 to 0.9 and a
likeliest value of 0.4 and that the transfer efficiency from water to household air for
all water uses can be represented by a triangular distribution with a range of 0.1 to 0.9
and a likeliest value of 0.3. Ventilation rates in the shower, bathroom and house
are based on the assumption that the volumes of these compartments are
respectively 2, 10, and 600 m3 and that the number of air changes per hour range
from 2 to 10 in the shower, 1 to 10 in the bathroom, and 0.5 to 2 in the house.6 These
distributions are summarized in Table I.

Dermal Contact and Uptake of PCE from Water

For this pathway the exposure route is dermal contact, both the source
medium and the contact medium are water, the contact rate is the amount of PCE
that passes through the skin surface (stratum cerneum) per unit body weight per
hour, the exposure time is the number of hours per day spent in bathing or shower,
the exposure frequency is 365 d/y, the exposure duration is 70 y, and the averaging
time is 25,550 d.

The model we use for dermal uptake from tap water is based on a paper by
Brown et al.9, who assumed that (a) dermal uptake of contaminants occurs mainly
by passive diffusion through the stratum corneum, (b) resistance to diffusive flux
through layers other than the stratum corneum is negligible, and (c) steady-state
diffusive flux is proportional to the concentration difference between water on the
skin surface and internal body water. Our dermal-uptake PEF is based on the
additional assumptions that children spend approximately the same amount of
time bathing or showering per week as adults and that the amount of time adults
spend in showering or bathing is the same as the showering time, ETS, reported
above. We calculate the PEF for dermal uptake of contaminants using the following
expression,

PEF(water—»dermal uptake) = [SA/BW] x fsa x PC x ETS x CF (10)

where SA/BW is total skin surface area per unit body weight averaged over a
lifetime, m2/kg; fsa is the fraction of the total skin surface that is in contact with
water during bathing and swimming, m2; PC is the chemical-specific dermal

9
 90 186.2
-

permeability constant, m/h; ETS is the exposure time, h/d; and CF is a conversion
constant, 10~3 L/m3.

Information on the relation between body weight and surface area has been
published by the ICRP4 and the EPA5! The ICRP recommends the following
formula to relate surface area (SA) in m2 to body weight (BW) in kg,

c A _ 4 BW + 7
BW + 90 (ID

whereas the EPA suggests another relation.

SA = 0.1 x BW2/3. (12)

We estimate the variability in surface area per unit body weight by by combining
these two formulations using a lognormal distribution of lifetime average body
weight with arithmetic mean and standard deviation equal to, respectively 58 and 14
kg. The resulting distribution of surface area to body weight is a lognormal
distribution with an arithmetic mean and standard deviation of 0.027 and 0.0025
m2/kg. Based on the range of permeability constants reported for volatile
compounds by Brown et al.9, we represent the permeability parameter, PC, with a
uniform distribution ranging from 0.004 to 0.01 m/h. The fraction of skin surface in
contact with water during showering and bathing is represented by a uniform
distribution ranging from 0.4 to 0.9. These distributions are summarized in Table I.

PHARMACOKINETICS AND DOSE

PCE is metabolized in mammals to one or more reactive metabolites.

Extensive evidence exists that it is a product of PCE metabolism rather than the
parent compound itself that is responsible for PCE's carcinogenicity in laboratory
animals.10'1"1 To address this fact, we estimate the carcinogenic potencies for PCE as
a function of the metabolized dose of PCE. The relationship between applied and
metabolized dose of PCE was derived from an analysis of available data on PCE.10
Using a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model, Bogen and McKone12
modeled the data of Ikeda et al.13 and Ohtsuki et al.14 on urinary metabolite
production in Japanese workers exposed to PCE. In that analysis, Bogen and
McKone12 demonstrated that the fraction of very low levels of inhaled PCE that is
metabolized (f*mr) can best be described by a simple equation.

*
-l
f mr lim mr 1 + Q, ■U-L
Qn->0 K
(13)
t

10
 90 186.2
-

where f *rnr is the limiting fraction of inhaled VOC metabolized at extremely small
doses; Qa is the alveolar ventilation rate, 354 L/h; Ch is ihe blood flow to the liver
compartment, 93 L/h; Pb is the blood/air partition coefficient, 10 L blood/L air; Qn is
the concentration in inhaled air, mg/L air; and K is the low-dose metabolic clearance
rate, ' ’ ' •• - "

K = Vmax/Km; (14)

Vmax is the maximum metabolic rate, mg/h and has a best estimate value of 4.1
mg/h based on Ikeda et al. 12 and a best estimate value of 12 mg/h based on Ohtsuki
et al.14; and Km is the Michaelis constant, mg/L; and has a best estimate value of 0.19
mg/L based on Ikeda et al.13 and a best estimate value of 6.1 mg/L based on Ohtsuki
et al.14. This equation also pertains to the metabolism of any volatile organic
compound absorbed dermally, because dermally-acquired VOC entering the
systemic circulation is subject to pulmonary excretion in the same manner as a
respired dose.15 Bogen15 developed an analogous equation to predict the fraction of
very low doses of an orally applied VOC, such as PCE, that is metabolized (f%0)-

-1 -l
f 1™= limfmo = 1 +—I +
R—>0 K|Qa Q,]
(15)

where R is the rate of ingestive infusion, mg/h. Based on the uncertainty in Km and
Vmax values, we represent the uncertainty in the quantities, fmr* and fmo* with
uniform distributions. fmr* ranges from 0.038 to 0.46 and fm0* ranges from 0.053 to
0.63. These distributions are summarized in Table I.

POTENCY

The term carcinogenic "potency" as used here refers to the quantitative

expression of increased tumorigenic response per unit dose rate at very low dose
levels. Responses are predicted using a "linearized" multistage dose-response
extrapolation model that has been adopted for regulatory purposes by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency16. The EPA's health risk assessment document17
and addendum18 for PCE lists cancer potencies for PCE based on eight available
animal bioassays that range from 0.001 to 0.16 (mg/kg-d)'1. PCE is listed as a probable
human carcinogen. Evidence of carcinogenicity to humans is inconclusive.

In order to explore the variance in human potency estimates for PCE, we

have generated the entire probability distribution for the estimation error of the
linear term q^ in the multistage model. This coefficient represents PCE's
carcinogenic potency per unit metabolized dose at low doses based on the time-
independent multistage model.16 The eight available bioassays can be extrapolated
to humans based on surface area or body weight using a steady-state

11
 90 186.2
-

pharmacokinetic model to generate 16 cumulative probability density functions

(CDFs) for the potency. We generate an overall CDF for potency by combining these
16 CDFs under the assumption that each has an equal likelihood of being a
appropriate estimate of human cancer potency. The resulting composite CDF
showman Figure 2 was calculated using a Monte Carlo procedure to sample from the
16 CDFs. It should be noted that this distribution includes a roughly 0.2 probability
that the potency is zero. The arithmetic mean potency from this composite
distribution is 0.11 (mg/kg-dH and the distribution has a geometric standard
deviation of 4.8. Although the cancer potencies for PCE estimated by the U.S.
EPA17,18 were based on metabolized dose, calculation of these values did not
account for (1) bioassay duration relative to expected lifespan; (2) male/female
animal weight differences; (3) data on species-specific pathways of metabolite
elimination (4) the scaling of certain kinetic parameters across species; and (5)
available human metabolic data. Following the procedures in Bogen et al.10, we
account for these factors when calculating cancer potency values for PCE.

Human cancer potency in [mg(metabolized)/kg-d]

Figure 2. Composite cumulative probability density function for the uncertainty in

the predicted carcinogenicity of PCE to humans at low doses. This
distribution includes a roughly 0.2 probability that the potency is zero. The
arithmetic mean potency from this composite distribution is 0.11
(mg/kg-d)*1 and the distribution has a geometric standard deviation of 4.8.

12
 90 186.2
-

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The average individual risk within a population exposed to PCE in this case
study results from: a source term; the exposure function, which converts the source
into a lifetime equivalent contact per individual; the fraction of contaminant
delivered to the organism after contact; and the toxic potency associated with the
delivered dose. Based on current regulatory assumptions, risk is proportional to
average population dose at low levels of exposure. According to this model, the
lifetime increased probability of cancer following exposure to a carcinogen at a
lifetime, time-weighted average dose rate, D, is assumed to be approximately equal
to the product of qi x D, for a very small D, where qi is a low-dose slope of the dose-
response curve (the "potency") derived from a set of tumor-incidence data.
Following this model the information and models described in the preceding
sections can be combined into an overall model of risk.

Risk = Cw x [ f*mr x PEF(water—^dermal uptake)

+ f*mr x PEF(water-»inhalation) (16)
+ f*mo x PEF(water—>water ingestion)] x q^.

We calculate the uncertainty in this estimated risk per individual for the population
exposed to PCE in ground water based on the concentration data, exposure models,
dose models, and potency estimates described above. Using the Monte Carlo-
spreadsheet program Crystal Ball,19 we calculate the composite uncertainty in risk
based on the uncertainty for each input parameter, as defined above and
summarized in Table I. Figure 3 shows the resulting cumulative distribution of risk
based on 10,000 simulations. This distribution has an arithmetic mean of 1.0 x 10‘6
and a geometric standard deviation of 7.1. The 95% upper bound value of risk from
this cumulative distribution is 3.5 x 10~6. In contrast, the risk one would calculate by
using the arithmetic mean value of each input is 8.0 x 10'7 and the risk one would
calculate using the 95% upper bound value of each input is 1.3 x 10'3. Roughly 65%
of the variance in the cumulative distribution of risk shown in Figure 3 is
attributable to variance in potency, 20% is attributable to variance in concentration,
10% is attributable to variance in the parameters of the exposure model, and 5% is
attributable to variance in the parameters used to convert exposure to metabolized
dose.

This paper summarizes a strategy for evaluating the sources of uncertainty in

predictive exposure and health-risk assessments. We focus on the volatile organic
chemical tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in ground water. Because overall uncertainty is
attributable to both variability in natural systems and our ignorance about these
systems, there are two obvious methods for reducing uncertainty—improved
models and expanded data. However, unless our strategy for reducing uncertainty
recognizes that the cost of building new models and collecting data must be balanced
by the value of the information obtained, we could squander limited resources for
environmental research.

13
 1 >

90 186.2
-

V
Cumulative Distribution for 10,000 trials

Arithmetic 95 % upper
mean bound
1.00
482348235323485353235323532348235323532353235323532353902323

XI
as
xi
o

0.0
0.0 1.50e-6 3.00e-6 4.50e-6 6.00e-6

Lifetime cancer risk per individual

Figure 3. The cumulative distribution QfJifetirae cancer risk from exposure to

PCE in ground water based on the uncertainty in data used to calculate the
source concentration, exposure, metabolized dose, and cancer potency.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy
through Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48
with funding provided by the Office of Research and Development of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

REFERENCES

1. California Department of Health Services, Organic Chemical Contamination of

Large Public Water Supply Systems in California, California Department of
Health Services, Health and Welfare Agency, Sacramento, California, 1986.

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Risk Assessment Guidelines of

1986, EPA/600/8-87/045, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1987.3

3. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund

Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), EPA/540/I-89/002, Office

14
 90 186.2
-

of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC, 1989.

4. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Report of the Task

Group on Reference Man, ICRP Publication No. 23, Pergamon Pressr New YarU
1975.

5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Exposure Factors Handbook,

EPA/600/8-89/043, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1989.

6. T.E. McKone, "Human Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds in Household

Tap Water: The Indoor Inhalation Pathway," Environ. Sci. Technol. 21: 1194-
1201 (1987).

7. W.J. Fisk, R.K. Spencer, D.T. Grimsrud, F.J. Offermann, B. Pedersen, and R.
Sextro, Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques, Radon, Formaldehyde,
Combustion Products, Pollution Technology Review No. 44, Noyes Data
corporation. Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1987.

8. I.R. James and M.W. Knuiman, "An Application of Bayes Methodology to the
Analysis of Diary Records from a Water Use Study, I. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82: 705-
711 (1987).

9. H. S. Brown, D. R. Bishop, and C. A. Rowan, "The Role of Skin Absorption as a

Route of Exposure for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Drinking Water,"
Am. J. Public Health 74: 479-484 (1984).

10. K. T. Bogen, L. C. Hall, T. E. McKone, D. W. Layton, and S. E. Patton, Health Risk

Assessment of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in California Drinking Water, Report
No. UCRL-15831, Environmental Sciences Division, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1987.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment Document for

Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene): Final Report, EPA/600/8-82/005F,
PB85-249704, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, 1985.

12. K. T. Bogen and T. E. McKone, "Linking Indoor Air and Pharmacokinetic

Models to Assess Tetrachloroethylene Risk," Risk Anal. 8: 509-520 (1988).

13. M. Ikeda, T. Ohtsuji, H. Imamura, and Y. Knrnoike, "Urinary Excretion of Total

Trichloro-Compounds, Trichloroethanol, and Trichloroacetic Acid as a Measure
of Exposure to Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene," Br. T. Ind. Med. 29:
328-333 (1972).

15
 90 186.2
-

14. T. Ohtsuki, K. Sato, A. Koizumi, M. Kumai, and M. Ikeda, "Limited Capacity of

Humans to Metabolize Tetrachloroethylene," Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health
51: 381-390 (1983).

15. K. T. Bogen, "Pharmacokinetics for Regulatory Risk Analysis: The Case of

Trichloroethylene," Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8: 447-466 (1988).

16. E. L. Anderson, R. E. Albert, R. McGaughy, L. Anderson, S. Bayard, D. Bayliss, C.

Chen, M. Chu, H. Gibb, B. Haberman, C. Hiremath, D. Singh, and T. Thorslund,
"Quantitative Approaches in Use to Assess Cancer Risk," Risk Anal. 3: 277-295
(1983).

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment Document for

Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene): Final Report, EPA/600/8-82/005F,
PB85-249704, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, 1985.

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Addendum to the Health Assessment

Document for Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene), Updated
Carcinogenicity Assessment for Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene, PERC,
PCE): Review Draft, EPA/600/8-82/005FA, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle
Park, NC, 1986.

19. Market Engineering Corporation, Crystal Ball, a Forecasting and Risk

Management Program for the Macintosh, Market Engineering Corporation,
Denver, Colorado, 1988.

<

16