IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i8p1308-1326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Apples to Apples: The Origin and Magnitude of Differences in Asbestos Cancer Risk Estimates Derived Using Varying Protocols

Author

Listed:
  • D. Wayne Berman

Abstract

Given that new protocols for assessing asbestos‐related cancer risk have recently been published, questions arise concerning how they compare to the “IRIS” protocol currently used by regulators. The newest protocols incorporate findings from 20 additional years of literature. Thus, differences between the IRIS and newer Berman and Crump protocols are examined to evaluate whether these protocols can be reconciled. Risks estimated by applying these protocols to real exposure data from both laboratory and field studies are also compared to assess the relative health protectiveness of each protocol. The reliability of risks estimated using the two protocols are compared by evaluating the degree with which each potentially reproduces the known epidemiology study risks. Results indicate that the IRIS and Berman and Crump protocols can be reconciled; while environment‐specific variation within fiber type is apparently due primarily to size effects (not addressed by IRIS), the 10‐fold (average) difference between amphibole asbestos risks estimated using each protocol is attributable to an arbitrary selection of the lowest of available mesothelioma potency factors in the IRIS protocol. Thus, the IRIS protocol may substantially underestimate risk when exposure is primarily to amphibole asbestos. Moreover, while the Berman and Crump protocol is more reliable than the IRIS protocol overall (especially for predicting amphibole risk), evidence is presented suggesting a new fiber‐size‐related adjustment to the Berman and Crump protocol may ultimately succeed in reconciling the entire epidemiology database. However, additional data need to be developed before the performance of the adjusted protocol can be fully validated.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Wayne Berman, 2011. "Apples to Apples: The Origin and Magnitude of Differences in Asbestos Cancer Risk Estimates Derived Using Varying Protocols," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(8), pages 1308-1326, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:8:p:1308-1326
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01581.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01581.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01581.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Wayne Berman & Kenny S. Crump & Eric J. Chatfield & John M.G. Davis & Alan D. Jones, 1995. "The Sizes, Shapes, and Mineralogy of Asbestos Structures that Induce Lung Tumors or Mesothelioma in AF/HAN Rats Following Inhalation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 181-195, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. Sahmel & C. A. Barlow & B. Simmons & S. H. Gaffney & H. J. Avens & A. K. Madl & J. Henshaw & R. J. Lee & D. Van Orden & M. Sanchez & M. Zock & D. J. Paustenbach, 2014. "Evaluation of Take‐Home Exposure and Risk Associated with the Handling of Clothing Contaminated with Chrysotile Asbestos," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1448-1468, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Suresh H. Moolgavkar & Jay Turim & Dominik D. Alexander & Edmund C. Lau & Colleen A. Cushing, 2010. "Potency Factors for Risk Assessment at Libby, Montana," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1240-1248, August.
    2. Patrick A. Hessel & M. Jane Teta & Michael Goodman & Edmund Lau, 2004. "Mesothelioma Among Brake Mechanics: An Expanded Analysis of a Case‐Control Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 547-552, June.
    3. Suresh H. Moolgavkar & E. Georg Luebeck & Jay Turim & Linda Hanna, 1999. "Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Lung Cancer Associated with Occupational Exposure to Refractory Ceramic Fibers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 599-611, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:8:p:1308-1326. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.