Risk Assessment

Environmental risk assessment:
from perception to decision
Paul Kwan-sing LAM
Department of Biology and Chemistry

City University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
State Key Laboratory in Marine Pollution Hong Kong
Challenges in the
information age
Challenges in the
information age
Ability to collect relevant
information
Sources of information
Internet
Television programmes, newspaper,
magazines
Politicians, NGOs, Green groups,
Books
Seminars, forums and talks
Quasi-scientific literature
Scientific publications in academic journals
Ability to handle
misinformation
Perception Vs Science
Fact or Fiction
Myths or Truth
….virtually nothing left to fish from the
seas by the middle of the century….?
Global Loss of Seafood Species
% of species collapsed
Global fisheries data (1950-2003)
Extrapolated long-term trend
Years Source: Science/FAO

..... Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth
of current levels by 2035 (or 2350?)?....
http://pictures.howbits.com/the-unseen-effect-of-global-warming/
CHINESE WHITE DOLPHINS
Chinese White Dolphins:
About US$ 1 million 400 in 1990
in 3 years 80 in 1995
Extinction in 5 years' time
CHINESE WHITE DOLPHINS
Population of Chinese
White Dolphins > 1,200
Ability to interpret
information
Adopt a Risk-based
approach
Management options - HOW?
• Suspicion-based
• Hazard-based
• Risk-based* Pre-caution Science
*Risk = f (hazard x exposure)
• Risk-based, with cost-

benefit considerations
Management options - HOW?
• Suspicion-based
• Hazard-based
• Risk-based* Pre-caution Science
*Risk = f (hazard x exposure)
• Risk-based, with cost-

benefit considerations
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
(North Sea Convention)
“accepting the principle of safeguarding

the marine ecosystem of the North Sea
by reducing polluting emissions of
substances that are persistent, toxic and
liable to bioaccumulate at source by the
use of the best available technology and
other appropriate measures…………….
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE (CONT.)
This applies especially when there is

reason to assume that certain damage of
harmful effects on the living resources of
the sea are likely to be caused by such
substances even when there is no
scientific evidence to prove a causal link
between emissions and effects (the
principle of precautionary action)”
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Under-protection will lead to
inadequate protection of ecological
systems
Over-protection will lead to wastage
of valuable resources which should be
better targeted to protecting
genuinely vulnerable and important
systems. Not sustainable
Risk characterization
Provide an estimate of the risk
levels in a particular setting
Risk quotient (RQ) analysis
Determine PEC or MEC
PNEC
PEC/PNEC ratio  1: low risk
PEC/PNEC ratio > 1: high risk
Predicted
Environmental
levels in a particular
Concentration setting
PNEC
Measured
Environmental
levels in a particular setting
Concentration
PNEC
Predicted
levels No
in a Effect
particular setting
Concentration
PNEC
How to
derive PNECs
(Predicted No Effect Concentration)
How to
derive PNECs
Some examples
Waterbird Study
(Herons and Egrets)
Map of South China showing the sampling sites
Quanzhou
Xiamen
Hong Kong
Collection of eggs from nests located Collection of eggs from nests located
on tall trees by a professional climber on top of tall bamboos using a cherry
picker
Analyses of POPs
POPs
HCB, Endrin, Dieldrin,
Aldrin, Heptachlor, Co-PCB &
Toxaphene
Mirex, PCBs, PCDD/Fs
Chlordane, DDTs
Gas Chromatograph
Two micro-ECD GCMS-NCI HRGC-HRMS

with dual-column (negative chemical ionization)
Derivation of threshold
effects level
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF DDE
50
% Reduction in Survival of Young
Henny et al. (1984)

Findholt (1984)
Findholt & Trost (1985)
40
30
20
10
-10
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Log10 DDE (ng/g, wet weight)
50
Henny et al. (1984)

Findholt (1984)
40
30
20
10
-10
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
50
Henny et al. (1984)

Findholt (1984)
40
30
20
10
-10
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
50
Henny et al. (1984)

Findholt (1984)
40
30
20
10
-10
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
50
Henny et al. (1984)

Findholt (1984)
40
30
20
10
-10
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
50
Henny et al. (1984)

Findholt (1984)
40
30
20
10
Estimated threshold: Deviation from zero

0 Estimated threshold One sample t-test:
1,000 ng/g wet wt. t=1.92, P=0.042
1000 ng/g wet wt.
-10
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Risks of DDE to Birds
DDE
200
Survival of young
150
fledged (%)
100
50
0
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Log concentration (ng/g wet wt.)
Relationship between [DDE] in eggs of piscivorous birds and % fledging success for a
sustainable population showing the regression line and 95% confidence intervals.
Risks of DDE to Birds
DDE
200 Estimated threshold:
2,818 ng/g wet wt.
Survival of young
150
fledged (%)
100
50
(3.45)
0
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Relationship between [DDE] in eggs of piscivorous birds and % fledging success for a
sustainable population showing the regression line and 95% confidence intervals.
Risks of DDE to South China Waterbirds
Fish-eating
birds
Quanzhou
Herons
99.9
Xiamen
99
DDE
Cumulative Probability%
Hong Kong
Hong Kong Xiamen
90 Quanzhou
Threshold (3.45)
70
50
30
10
0.1
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
Risks of DDE to South China Waterbirds
鹭鸟吃鱼的鸟类
Herons Fish-eating birds
(1000 ng/g) (2818 ng/g)
99.9
99
DDE
Cumulative Probability%
Hong Kong
Xiamen
90 Quanzhou
Threshold (3.45)
70
50
30
10
0.1
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
Ability to
extrapolate
Marine cetacean
Source: AFCD
Hong Kong
Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin Sightings

() in Pearl River Estuary (AFCD).
Exposure Pathway
Sewage
Outfall
Sea Water
Sediment
Contaminated
Contaminated MudMud
Pit Pit
Fish Samples
Mullet (Mugil sp.)

Lionhead
(Collichthys lucida)
Anchovies
(Thryssa sp.)
Croceine croaker
(Pseudosciaena crocea)
Hairtail Croaker (Johnius sp.)

(Trichiurus sp.)
Diet of dolphin comprise >90% fish

Laboratory Toxicological Data
Threshold effect levels

(No Observable Adverse Effect Levels; NOAELs)
Safety factors Scaling factor
RfD (human) TRV (other mammals)


RfD (human) 参考剂量(人类)

TRV (other mammals)
Variable Values
Contaminant concentration in Maximum; 95th and 50th
fish (CF) percentiles
Ingestion rate (IR) 0.076 kg/day
Fraction ingested (FI) 0.007-0.4
Exposure frequency (EF) 350 days/year
Exposure duration (ED) 70 years
Body weight (BW) 60 kg
Average time (AT) 25,550 days

Variable Values
Ingestion rate (IR) 9 kg/day for dolphin
Fraction ingested (FI) 0.9 for dolphins
Exposure duration (ED) 35 years for dolphin
Body weight (BW) 185 kg for dolphin
Average time (AT) 12,775 days for dolphin

Variable Values

Variable Values





Derivation of MAC based on TRV
Toxicity Reference Values (TRV) were derived for the dolphin based on NOAELs from
mammalian surrogates following Sample et al. (1996) as follows:
Scaling factor: TRVr = NOAELt (BWt/BWr)1/4
Where: TRVr = Toxicity reference value for receptor species (mg kg-1 ww day-1);
NOEAL = No observable adverse effect level for test species (mg kg -1 ww
day-1);
BWr = Body weight of the receptor species (kg ww);
BWt = Body weight of the test species (kg ww);
Do not procrastinate
- Extrapolate
Do not procrastinate
- Extrapolate
(if cannot be based on science,
should at least be transparent)
Ability to handle
uncertainties
Sources of uncertainties
Measurement Measurement
Understanding Understanding
Time/space Time/space
PEC or MEC
RQ =
PNEC
Measurement
Understanding
Biological variation
Determination of PEC/PNEC or MEC/PNEC ratio
PEC, MEC and

Frequency
PNEC are not
simple single
PEC and MEC numbers, but
ranges, and even
Frequency frequency
distributions
PNEC
RISK ASSESSMENT - CRITICISMS
• Too complex; too
slow Back to the
precautionary
• Too simplistic; too principle;
naive
Don’t wait for
• Too opaque science
• Too unrealistic
Ability to simplify
complex issues
Ability to simplify
complex issues
One example
Does RQ indicate unacceptable risk?
Step 1: Examine worst-case RQ (i.e.

highest MEC/lowest PNEC)
If RQ > 1 => requires further estimate;

If RQ < 1 => little concern
Step 2: Examine best-case RQ (i.e.

lowest MEC/highest PNEC)
If RQ > 1 => manage;

If RQ < 1; refine estimates (?)
Step 3: Apply re-sampling techniques

to estimate probability that RQ exceeds
critical values and check sensitivity of
distribution assumptions
Determination of PEC/PNEC or MEC/PNEC ratio
Frequency
PEC and MEC
Frequency
PNEC
PEC/PNEC or MEC/PNEC ratio

Ratio  1: low risk
Ratio > 1: high risk)
Frequency
RQ
RISK ASSESSMENT
Feasible
Affordable
Scientifically-based
Transparent
RISK ASSESSMENT
Feasible
Affordable
Scientifically-based
Transparent
FAST
Ability to adopt a
multidisciplinary
approach
Framework for Risk Assessment and Management
Hazard identification
Dose-response assessment Exposure

(Toxicity assessment) assessment
Risk communication
Risk management
Exposure
Science
Dose-response assessment
Risk communication
Risk management
Exposure
Science
Dose-response assessment
Risk communication
Environmental economics
Risk management
Ability to separate
science from politics
in decision making
Nature Conservation Policy Statement
(Hong Kong)
Our nature conservation policy is to regulate,

protect and manage natural resources that are
important for the conservation of biological
diversity of Hong Kong in a sustainable
manner, taking into account social and
economic considerations, for the benefit and
enjoyment of the present and future
generations of the community
Why should we conserve?
 Intrinsic rights to live
 Heritage for future
generations
 Biodiversity
 Ecosystem functions
Ecosystem functions
 Nutrient cycling  Gas regulation
 Waste treatment  Climate regulation
 Pollination  Disturbance regulation
 Biological control  Water regulation
 Refugia  Water supply
 Raw materials  Erosion control
 Genetic resources  Sediment retention
 Recreation  Soil formation
 Cultural  Food production
Ecosystem functions
 Goods and services

 Clean water
 Clean air
 Clean food
 Safe environment
‘REDUNDANT SPECIES’ ‘RIVET’ HYPOTHESIS ‘IDIOSYNCRATIC’
HYPOTHESIS HYPOTHESIS
NUMBER OF SPECIES
Three hypothetical relationships between the rate of

an ecosystem process (e.g. primary production, rate
of decomposition) and ecosystem species richness
What should we conserve?
 “Hot spots” of high
diversity
 Rare species
 Representative species
assemblages
What should we conserve?
 “Hot spots” of high
diversity
 Rare species
 Representative species
assemblages
Can we achieve all?
A Conservation Policy
 Why should we conserve?
 What should we
conserve?
 What is acceptable and
what is not?
A Conservation Policy
 Why should we conserve?
 What should we
conserve?
 What is acceptable and
what is not?
Conclusion - Ability to:
collect relevant information
handle misinformation
interpret information
extrapolate
handle multiple stressors (mixtures)
handle uncertainties
simplify complex issues
separate science from politics in
decision making
Acknowledgements
Dr. Nobuyoshi Yamashita (AIST, Japan),
Prof. John Giesy (University of Saskatewan , Canada),
Prof. Shinsuke Tanabe (Ehime University, Japan),
Prof. Kannan Kurunthachalam (SUNY, USA),
Dr. Sachi Taniyasu (AIST, Japan),
Dr. Yuichi Miyake (AIST, Japan),
Prof. Des Connell (Griffith University, Australia),
Dr. Keerthi S. Guruge (NIAH, Japan),
Mr. Leo W.Y. Yeung (CityU, HK),
Mr. Ridge K.F. Lau (CityU, HK),
Dr. James C.W. Lam (CityU, HK),
Dr. Margaret Murphy (CityU, HK)
Dr. Iris M.K. So (CityU, HK),
Dr. Bruce Richardson (CityU, HK)
K.S. Cheung, Ivan Chan, Joseph Sham (AFCD)
Stephanie Ma (EPD)
Research Grants Council, HK; City University of Hong Kong;

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Dept., HKSAR
Thank You

Risk Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Risk Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental risk assessment:

from perception to decision

Paul Kwan-sing LAM

Department of Biology and Chemistry

Extrapolated long-term trend

Years Source: Science/FAO

• Risk-based, with cost-

• Risk-based, with cost-

“accepting the principle of safeguarding

This applies especially when there is

Two micro-ECD GCMS-NCI HRGC-HRMS

Henny et al. (1984)

Henny et al. (1984)

Henny et al. (1984)

Henny et al. (1984)

Henny et al. (1984)

Henny et al. (1984)

Estimated threshold: Deviation from zero

Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin Sightings

Mullet (Mugil sp.)

Hairtail Croaker (Johnius sp.)

Diet of dolphin comprise >90% fish

Threshold effect levels

Safety factors Scaling factor

RfD (human) TRV (other mammals)

Threshold effect levels

Safety factors Scaling factor

RfD (human) 参考剂量(人类)

Ingestion rate (IR) 0.076 kg/day

Fraction ingested (FI) 0.007-0.4

Exposure frequency (EF) 350 days/year

Exposure duration (ED) 70 years

Body weight (BW) 60 kg

Average time (AT) 25,550 days

Ingestion rate (IR) 9 kg/day for dolphin

Fraction ingested (FI) 0.9 for dolphins

Exposure frequency (EF) 365 days/year

Exposure duration (ED) 35 years for dolphin

Body weight (BW) 185 kg for dolphin

Average time (AT) 12,775 days for dolphin

Ingestion rate (IR) 9 kg/day for dolphin

Fraction ingested (FI) 0.9 for dolphins

Exposure frequency (EF) 365 days/year

Exposure duration (ED) 35 years for dolphin

Body weight (BW) 185 kg for dolphin

Average time (AT) 12,775 days for dolphin

Ingestion rate (IR) 9 kg/day for dolphin

Fraction ingested (FI) 0.9 for dolphins

Exposure frequency (EF) 365 days/year

Exposure duration (ED) 35 years for dolphin

Body weight (BW) 185 kg for dolphin

Average time (AT) 12,775 days for dolphin

Threshold effect levels

Safety factors Scaling factor

RfD (human) TRV (other mammals)

Threshold effect levels

Safety factors Scaling factor

RfD (human) TRV (other mammals)

Scaling factor: TRVr = NOAELt (BWt/BWr)1/4

PEC, MEC and

Step 1: Examine worst-case RQ (i.e.

If RQ > 1 => requires further estimate;

Step 2: Examine best-case RQ (i.e.

If RQ > 1 => manage;