IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i3p653-666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining Occurrence and Toxicity Information to Identify Priorities for Drinking‐Water Mixture Research

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah J. Ryker
  • Mitchell J. Small

Abstract

Characterizing all possible chemical mixtures in drinking water is a potentially overwhelming project, and the task of assessing each mixture's net toxicity even more daunting. We propose that analyzing occurrence information on mixtures in drinking water may help to narrow the priorities and inform the approaches taken by researchers in mixture toxicology. To illustrate the utility of environmental data for refining the mixtures problem, we use a recent compilation of national ground‐water‐quality data to examine proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) models of noncancer mixture toxicity. We use data on the occurrence of binary and ternary mixtures of arsenic, cadmium, and manganese to parameterize an additive model and compute hazard index scores for each drinking‐water source in the data set. We also use partially parameterized interaction models to perform a bounding analysis estimating the interaction potential of several binary and ternary mixtures for which the toxicological literature is limited. From these results, we estimate a relative value of additional toxicological information for each mixture. For example, we find that according to the U.S. EPA's interaction model, the levels of arsenic and cadmium found in U.S. drinking water are unlikely to have synergistic cardiovascular effects, but the same mixture's potential for synergistic neurological effects merits further study. Similar analysis could in future be used to prioritize toxicological studies based on their potential to reduce scientific and regulatory uncertainty. Environmental data may also provide a means to explore the implications of alternative risk models for the toxicity and interaction of complex mixtures.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah J. Ryker & Mitchell J. Small, 2008. "Combining Occurrence and Toxicity Information to Identify Priorities for Drinking‐Water Mixture Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 653-666, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:3:p:653-666
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.00985.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.00985.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.00985.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. Fumie Yokota & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Value of Information Analysis in Environmental Health Risk Management Decisions: Past, Present, and Future," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 635-650, June.
    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. Hong Yao & Xin Qian & Hong Yin & Hailong Gao & Yulei Wang, 2015. "Regional Risk Assessment for Point Source Pollution Based on a Water Quality Model of the Taipu River, China," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 265-277, February.
    2. Margaret J. Eggers & John T. Doyle & Myra J. Lefthand & Sara L. Young & Anita L. Moore-Nall & Larry Kindness & Roberta Other Medicine & Timothy E. Ford & Eric Dietrich & Albert E. Parker & Joseph H. H, 2018. "Community Engaged Cumulative Risk Assessment of Exposure to Inorganic Well Water Contaminants, Crow Reservation, Montana," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-34, January.

    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. Xiaoyi Liu & Jonghyun Lee & Peter Kitanidis & Jack Parker & Ungtae Kim, 2012. "Value of Information as a Context-Specific Measure of Uncertainty in Groundwater Remediation," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(6), pages 1513-1535, April.
    2. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    3. Nicky Welton & A. E. Ades, 2012. "Research Decisions In The Face Of Heterogeneity: What Can A New Study Tell Us?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(10), pages 1196-1200, October.
    4. Kan Shao & Mitchell J. Small, 2011. "Potential Uncertainty Reduction in Model‐Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimates Informed by an Additional Dose Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1561-1575, October.
    5. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    7. Fumie Yokota & George Gray & James K. Hammitt & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Tiered Chemical Testing: A Value of Information Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1625-1639, December.
    8. John S. Evans, 2016. "Characterizing Uncertainty in Estimates of Mortality Risk from Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(9), pages 1748-1750, September.
    9. Alan Masinter & Mitchell Small & Elizabeth Casman, 2014. "Research prioritization using hypothesis maps," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 49-59, March.
    10. Adam M. Finkel & George Gray, 2018. "Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 230-238, June.
    11. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    12. Bas Groot Koerkamp & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein & M. G. Myriam Hunink, 2011. "The Combined Analysis of Uncertainty and Patient Heterogeneity in Medical Decision Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 650-661, July.
    13. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    14. Goeschl, Timo & Heyen, Daniel, 2016. "Precision requirements in pesticide risk assessments: Contrasting value-of-information recommendations with the regulatory practice in the EU," Working Papers 0607, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    15. François Destandau & Youssef Zaiter, 2020. "Optimisation « économique » vs « physique » des réseaux de surveillance de la qualité de l'eau," Post-Print hal-03373478, HAL.
    16. Hund, Lauren & Schroeder, Benjamin, 2020. "A causal perspective on reliability assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    17. Wesley J. Marrero & Mariel S. Lavieri & Jeremy B. Sussman, 2021. "Optimal cholesterol treatment plans and genetic testing strategies for cardiovascular diseases," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Chiradip Chatterjee & Pallab Mozumder, 2014. "Understanding Household Preferences for Hurricane Risk Mitigation Information: Evidence from Survey Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 984-996, June.
    19. Mitchell J. Small, 2008. "Methods for Assessing Uncertainty in Fundamental Assumptions and Associated Models for Cancer Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1289-1308, October.
    20. Zou, Guang & Faber, Michael Havbro & González, Arturo & Banisoleiman, Kian, 2021. "Computing the value of information from periodic testing in holistic decision making under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).

    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:28:y:2008:i:3:p:653-666. 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.