IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i5p1031-1046.html

Determination of an Occupational Exposure Guideline for Manganese Using the Benchmark Method

Author

Listed:
  • Harvey J. Clewell
  • Gregory A. Lawrence
  • Donald B. Calne
  • Kenny S. Crump

Abstract

An occupational risk assessment for manganese (Mn) was performed based on benchmark dose analysis of data from two epidemiological studies providing dose‐response information regarding the potential neurological effects of exposure to airborne Mn below the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 5 mg Mn/m3. Based on a review of the scientific evidence regarding the toxicity of Mn, it was determined that the most appropriate measure of exposure to airborne Mn for the subclinical effects measured in these studies is recent (rather than historical or cumulative) concentration of Mn in respirable (rather than total) particulate. For each of the studies analyzed, the individual exposure and response data from the original study had been made available by the investigators. From these two studies benchmark concentrations calculated for eight endpoints ranged from 0.09 to 0.27 mg Mn/m3. From our evaluation of these results, and considering the fact that the subtle, subclinical effects represented by the neurological endpoints tested in these studies do not represent material impairment, we believe an appropriate occupational exposure guideline for manganese would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 mg Mn/m3, based on the respirable particulate fraction only, and expressed as an 8‐hour time‐weighted average.

Suggested Citation

  • Harvey J. Clewell & Gregory A. Lawrence & Donald B. Calne & Kenny S. Crump, 2003. "Determination of an Occupational Exposure Guideline for Manganese Using the Benchmark Method," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 1031-1046, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:5:p:1031-1046
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00379
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00379?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. Kenny S. Crump, 1995. "Calculation of Benchmark Doses from Continuous Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 79-89, February.
    2. Kenny S. Crump, 1998. "On Summarizing Group Exposures in Risk Assessment: Is an Arithmetic Mean or a Geometric Mean More Appropriate?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 293-297, June.
    3. J. Michael Davis & Annie M. Jarabek & David T. Mage & Judith A. Graham, 1998. "The EPA Health Risk Assessment of Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl (MMT)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 57-70, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mirjana Glisovic‐Bensa & Walter W. Piegorsch & Edward J. Bedrick, 2024. "Bayesian benchmark dose risk assessment with mixed‐factor quantal data," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(5), August.
    2. Mirjam Moerbeek & Aldert H. Piersma & Wout Slob, 2004. "A Comparison of Three Methods for Calculating Confidence Intervals for the Benchmark Dose," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 31-40, February.
    3. Keiko Kubo & Kazuhiro Nogawa & Teruhiko Kido & Muneko Nishijo & Hideaki Nakagawa & Yasushi Suwazono, 2017. "Estimation of Benchmark Dose of Lifetime Cadmium Intake for Adverse Renal Effects Using Hybrid Approach in Inhabitants of an Environmentally Exposed River Basin in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 20-26, January.
    4. David W. Gaylor & William Slikker, 2004. "Role of the Standard Deviation in the Estimation of Benchmark Doses with Continuous Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1683-1687, December.
    5. Jingyu Liu & Walter W. Piegorsch & A. Grant Schissler & Susan L. Cutter, 2018. "Autologistic models for benchmark risk or vulnerability assessment of urban terrorism outcomes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(3), pages 803-823, June.
    6. Matthew W. Wheeler & Jose Cortiñas Abrahantes & Marc Aerts & Jeffery S. Gift & Jerry Allen Davis, 2022. "Continuous model averaging for benchmark dose analysis: Averaging over distributional forms," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), August.
    7. Alfred K. Mbah & Ibrahim Hamisu & Eknath Naik & Hamisu M. Salihu, 2014. "Estimating Benchmark Exposure for Air Particulate Matter Using Latent Class Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 2053-2062, November.
    8. Mehdi Razzaghi & Ralph L. Kodell, 2000. "Risk Assessment for Quantitative Responses Using a Mixture Model," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 519-527, June.
    9. Walter W. Piegorsch & Susan L. Cutter & Frank Hardisty, 2007. "Benchmark Analysis for Quantifying Urban Vulnerability to Terrorist Incidents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1411-1425, December.
    10. Roland C. Deutsch & Walter W. Piegorsch, 2012. "Benchmark Dose Profiles for Joint-Action Quantal Data in Quantitative Risk Assessment," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1313-1322, December.
    11. Yasushi Suwazono & Kouichi Sakata & Mitsuhiro Oishi & Yasushi Okubo & Mirei Dochi & Etsuko Kobayashi & Teruhiko Kido & Koji Nogawa, 2007. "Estimation of Benchmark Dose as the Threshold Amount of Alcohol Consumption for Blood Pressure in Japanese Workers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1487-1495, December.
    12. Hae Dong Woo & Weihsueh A Chiu & Seongil Jo & Jeongseon Kim, 2015. "Benchmark Dose for Urinary Cadmium based on a Marker of Renal Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    13. Katsuyuki Murata & Esben Budtz‐Jørgensen & Philippe Grandjean, 2002. "Benchmark Dose Calculations for Methylmercury‐Associated Delays on Evoked Potential Latencies in Two Cohorts of Children," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 465-474, June.
    14. Zi-Fan Yu & Paul J. Catalano, 2005. "Quantitative Risk Assessment for Multivariate Continuous Outcomes with Application to Neurotoxicology: The Bivariate Case," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 757-766, September.
    15. Walter W. Piegorsch, 2010. "Translational benchmark risk analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 653-667, July.
    16. Kenny S. Grump & Tord Kjellström & Annette M. Shipp & Abraham Silvers & Alistair Stewart, 1998. "Influence of Prenatal Mercury Exposure Upon Scholastic and Psychologica Test Performance: Benchmark Analysis of a New Zealand Cohort," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 701-713, December.
    17. Maria A. Sans‐Fuentes & Walter W. Piegorsch, 2021. "Benchmark dose risk analysis with mixed‐factor quantal data in environmental risk assessment," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), August.
    18. Walter W. Piegorsch & Hui Xiong & Rabi N. Bhattacharya & Lizhen Lin, 2014. "Benchmark Dose Analysis via Nonparametric Regression Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 135-151, January.
    19. Kristi Kuljus & Dietrich Von Rosen & Salomon Sand & Katarina Victorin, 2006. "Comparing Experimental Designs for Benchmark Dose Calculations for Continuous Endpoints," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1031-1043, August.
    20. Steven B. Kim & Ralph L. Kodell & Hojin Moon, 2014. "A Diversity Index for Model Space Selection in the Estimation of Benchmark and Infectious Doses via Model Averaging," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 453-464, March.

    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:23:y:2003:i:5:p:1031-1046. 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.