Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

Korean Society of Environmental Health (한국환경보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differences by Selection Method for Exposure Factor Input Distribution for Use in Probabilistic Consumer Exposure Assessment

  • Kang, Sohyun (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Jinho (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lim, Miyoung (Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Kiyoung (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2022.08.23
  • Accepted : 2022.10.17
  • Published : 2022.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The selection of distributions of input parameters is an important component in probabilistic exposure assessment. Goodness-of-fit (GOF) methods are used to determine the distribution of exposure factors. However, there are no clear guidelines for choosing an appropriate GOF method. Objectives: The outcomes of probabilistic consumer exposure assessment were compared by using five different GOF methods for the selection of input distributions: chi-squared test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Anderson-Darling test (A-D), Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Methods: Individual exposures were estimated based on product usage factor combinations from 10,000 respondents. The distribution of individual exposure was considered as the true value of population exposures. Results: Among the five GOF methods, probabilistic exposure distributions using the A-D and K-S methods were similar to individual exposure estimations. Comparing the 95th percentiles of the probabilistic distributions and the individual estimations for 10 CPs, there were 0.73 to 1.92 times differences for the A-D method, and 0.73 to 1.60 times differences (excluding tire-shine spray) for the K-S method. Conclusions: There were significant differences in exposure assessment results among the selection of the GOF methods. Therefore, the GOF methods for probabilistic consumer exposure assessment should be carefully selected.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was partially supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the NRF funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2019R1A2C1083938).

References

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III - Part A, Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: EPA; 2001.
  2. Cullen AC, Frey HC. Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment: A Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs. New York: Plenum Press; 1999.
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. Washington, DC: EPA; 1997.
  4. Chiew E, Cauthen K, Brown N, Nozick L. Comparison of distribution selection methods. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2022; 51(4): 1982-2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2019.1691227
  5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report of the Workshop on Selecting Input Distributions for Probabilistic Assessments. Washington, DC: EPA; 1999.
  6. Gilsenan MB, Lambe J, Gibney MJ. Assessment of food intake input distributions for use in probabilistic exposure assessments of food additives. Food Addit Contam. 2003; 20(11): 1023-1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030310001615168
  7. Cai T, Xia Y, Zhou Y. Generalized inflated discrete models: a strategy to work with multimodal discrete distributions. Sociol Methods Res. 2021; 50(1): 365-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118782535
  8. Muoka AK, Ngesa OO, Waititu AG. Statistical models for count data. Sci J Appl Math Stat. 2016; 4(6): 256-262. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjams.20160406.12
  9. Bohning D. Zero-inflated poisson models and C.A.MAN: a tutorial collection of evidence. Biom J. 1998; 40(7): 833-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199811)40:7<833::AID-BIMJ833>3.0.CO;2-O
  10. Karlis D, Ntzoufras I. Analysis of sports data by using bivariate Poisson models. J R Stat Soc Ser D Stat. 2003; 52(3): 381-393.
  11. Olanrewaju RO. Integer-valued time series model via generalized linear models technique of estimation. Int Ann Sci. 2018; 4(1): 35-43. https://doi.org/10.21467/ias.4.1.35-43
  12. Dimitroulopoulou C, Lucica E, Johnson A, Ashmore MR, Sakellaris I, Stranger M, et al. EPHECT I: European household survey on domestic use of consumer products and development of worst-case scenarios for daily use. Sci Total Environ. 2015; 536: 880-889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.036
  13. Park JY, Lim M, Yang W, Lee K. Exposure factors for cleaning, automotive care, and surface protection products for exposure assessments. Food Chem Toxicol. 2017; 99: 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.11.024
  14. National Institute of Environmental Research. Regulation of Purpose and Method of Concerned Products Risk Assessment. Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2016.
  15. National Institute of Environmental Research. Korean Exposure Factors Handbook. Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2019.
  16. Lim M, Park JY, Lim JE, Moon HB, Lee K. Receptor-based aggregate exposure assessment of phthalates based on individual's simultaneous use of multiple cosmetic products. Food Chem Toxicol. 2019; 127: 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.03.031