Search

From climate change to hydraulic fracturing, and from drinking water safety to wildfires, environmental challenges are changing. The United States has made substantial environmental protection progress based on media-specific and single pollutant risk-based frameworks. However, today's environmental problems are increasingly complex and new scientific approaches and tools are needed to achieve sustainable solutions to protect the environment and public health. In this article, we present examples of today's environmental challenges and offer an integrated systems approach to address them. We provide a strategic framework and recommendations for advancing the application of science for protecting the environment and public health. We posit that addressing 21st century challenges requires transdisciplinary and systems approaches, new data sources, and stakeholder partnerships. To address these challenges, we outline a process driven by problem formulation with the following steps: a) formulate the problem holistically, b) gather and synthesize diverse information, c) develop and assess options, and d) implement sustainable solutions. This process will require new skills and education in systems science, with an emphasis on science translation. A systems-based approach can transcend media--and receptor-specific bounds, integrate diverse information, and recognize the inextricable link between ecology and human health., Background Environmental and public health scientists and decision-makers are addressing new and complex environmental challenges that impact human well-being and ecological health. Energy demands have increased, and sources and approaches [...]

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 recognizes that dermal exposure plays a crucial part in the total well-being of individuals. The law requires the Environmental Protection Agency to consider total exposure, including dermal exposure, to obtaoin a complete human health risk model. Dermal route research, however, have largely focused on dermal dose or the uptake or absorption of a chemical through the skin.

We review the factors influencing children's exposure to environmental contaminants and the data available to characterize and assess that exposure. Children's activity pattern data requirements are demonstrated in the context [...]

Two deterministic models (US EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Residential Standard Operating Procedures (OPP Residential SOPs) and Draft Protocol for Measuring Children's Non-Occupational Exposure to Pesticides by all Relevant Pathways (Draft Protocol)) and four probabilistic models (CARES®, Calendex™, ConsExpo, and SHEDS) were used to estimate aggregate residential exposures to pesticides. The route-specific exposure estimates for young children (2-5 years) generated by each model were compared to evaluate data inputs, algorithms, and underlying assumptions. Three indoor exposure scenarios were considered: crack and crevice, fogger, and flying insect killer. Dermal exposure estimates from the OPP Residential SOPs and the Draft Protocol were 4.75 and 2.37 mg/kg/day (crack and crevice scenario) and 0.73 and 0.36 mg/kg/day (fogger), respectively. The dermal exposure estimates (99th percentile) for the crack and crevice scenario were 16.52, 12.82, 3.57, and 3.30 mg/kg/day for CARES, Calendex, SHEDS, and ConsExpo, respectively. Dermal exposure estimates for the fogger scenario from CARES and Calendex (1.50 and 1.47 mg/kg/day, respectively) were slightly higher than those from SHEDS and ConsExpo (0.74 and 0.55 mg/kg/day, respectively). The ConsExpo derived non-dietary ingestion estimates (99th percentile) under these two scenarios were higher than those from SHEDS, CARES, and Calendex. All models produced extremely low exposure estimates for the flying insect killer scenario. Using similar data inputs, the model estimates by route for these scenarios were consistent and comparable. Most of the models predicted exposures within a factor of 5 at the 50th and 99th percentiles. The differences identified are explained by activity assumptions, input distributions, and exposure algorithms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Daily soil/dust ingestion rates typically used in exposure and risk assessments are based on tracer element studies, which have a number of limitations and do not separate contributions from soil and dust. This article presents an alternate approach of modeling soil and dust ingestion via hand and object mouthing of children, using EPA's SHEDS model. Results for children 3 to <6 years old show that mean and 95th percentile total ingestion of soil and dust values are 68 and 224 mg/day, respectively; mean from soil ingestion, hand-to-mouth dust ingestion, and object-to-mouth dust ingestion are 41 mg/day, 20 mg/day, and 7 mg/day, respectively. In general, hand-to-mouth soil ingestion was the most important pathway, followed by hand-to-mouth dust ingestion, then object-to-mouth dust ingestion. The variability results are most sensitive to inputs on surface loadings, soil-skin adherence, hand mouthing frequency, and hand washing frequency. The predicted total soil and dust ingestion fits a lognormal distribution with geometric mean = 35.7 and geometric standard deviation = 3.3. There are two uncertainty distributions, one below the 20th percentile and the other above. Modeled uncertainties ranged within a factor of 3-30. Mean modeled estimates for soil and dust ingestion are consistent with past information but lower than the central values recommended in the 2008 EPA Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. This new modeling approach, which predicts soil and dust ingestion by pathway, source type, population group, geographic location, and other factors, offers a better characterization of exposures relevant to health risk assessments as compared to using a single value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Daily soil/dust ingestion rates typically used in exposure and risk assessments are based on tracer element studies, which have a number of limitations and do not separate contributions from soil and dust. This article presents an alternate approach of modeling soil and dust ingestion via hand and object mouthing of children, using EPA's SHEDS model. Results for children 3 to <6 years old show that mean and 95th percentile total ingestion of soil and dust values are 68 and 224 mg/day, respectively; mean from soil ingestion, hand-to-mouth dust ingestion, and object-to-mouth dust ingestion are 41 mg/day, 20 mg/day, and 7 mg/day, respectively. In general, hand-to-mouth soil ingestion was the most important pathway, followed by hand-to-mouth dust ingestion, then object-to-mouth dust ingestion. The variability results are most sensitive to inputs on surface loadings, soil-skin adherence, hand mouthing frequency, and hand washing frequency. The predicted total soil and dust ingestion fits a lognormal distribution with geometric mean = 35.7 and geometric standard deviation = 3.3. There are two uncertainty distributions, one below the 20th percentile and the other above. Modeled uncertainties ranged within a factor of 3-30. Mean modeled estimates for soil and dust ingestion are consistent with past information but lower than the central values recommended in the 2008 EPA Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. This new modeling approach, which predicts soil and dust ingestion by pathway, source type, population group, geographic location, and other factors, offers a better characterization of exposures relevant to health risk assessments as compared to using a single value., (© 2010 Society for Risk Analysis.)