Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications

A wide variety of exposure models are currently employed for health risk assessments. Individual models have been developed to meet the chemical exposure assessment needs of Government, industry and academia. These existing exposure models can be broadly categorised according to the following types of exposure source: environmental, dietary, consumer product, occupational, and aggregate and cumulative. Aggregate exposure models consider multiple exposure pathways, while cumulative models consider multiple chemicals. In this paper each of these basic types of exposure model are briefly described, along with any inherent strengths or weaknesses, with the UK as a case study. Examples are given of specific exposure models that are currently used, or that have the potential for future use, and key differences in modelling approaches adopted are discussed. The use of exposure models is currently fragmentary in nature. Specific organisations with exposure assessment responsibilities tend to use a limited range of models. The modelling techniques adopted in current exposure models have evolved along distinct lines for the various types of source. In fact different organisations may be using different models for very similar exposure assessment situations. This lack of consistency between exposure modelling practices can make understanding the exposure assessment process more complex, can lead to inconsistency between organisations in how critical modelling issues are addressed (e.g. variability and uncertainty), and has the potential to communicate mixed messages to the general public. Further work should be conducted to integrate the various approaches and models, where possible and regulatory remits allow, to get a coherent and consistent exposure modelling process. We recommend the development of an overall framework for exposure and risk assessment with common approaches and methodology, a screening tool for exposure assessment, collection of better input data, probabilistic modelling, validation of model input and output and a closer working relationship between scientists and policy makers and staff from different Government departments. A much increased effort is required is required in the UK to address these issues. The result will be a more robust, transparent, valid and more comparable exposure and risk assessment process. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effects of trauma exposure on the cortisol response to dexamethasone administration in PTSD and major depressive disorder

Objective: To evaluate cortisol suppression following 0.5 mg of dexamethasone (DEX) in trauma survivors (N = 52),with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), both, or neither disorder, and in subjects never exposed to trauma (N = 10), in order to examine interactions between diagnosis and trauma history on cortisol negative feedback inhibition. Method: Lifetime trauma exposure and psychiatric diagnoses were assessed and blood samples were obtained at 8:00 a.m. for the determination of baseline cortisol. Participants ingested 0.5 mg of DEX at 11:00 p.m. and blood samples for determination of cortisol and DEX were obtained at 8:00 a.m. the following day. Results: PTSD was associated with enhanced cortisol suppression in response to DEX Among trauma survivors, the presence of a traumatic event prior to the "focal" trauma had a substantial impact on cortisol suppression in subjects with MDD. Such subjects were more likely to show cortisol alterations similar to those associated with PTSD, whereas subjects with MDD with no prior trauma were more likely to show alterations in the opposite direction, i.e. relative non-suppression. Conclusions: Cortisol hypersuppression in PTSD appears not to be dependent on the presence of traumatic events prior to the focal trauma. However, prior trauma exposure may affect cortisol suppression in MDD. This finding may have implications for understanding why only some depressed patients show non-suppression on the DST. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Subjective evaluation of experimental dyspnoea: effects of isocapnia and repeated exposure

Resistive respiratory loading is an established stimulus for the induction of experimental dyspnoea. In comparison to unloaded breathing, resistive loaded breathing alters end-tidal CO2 (PETCO2), which has independent physiological effects (e.g. upon cerebral blood flow). We investigated the subjective effects of resistive loaded breathing with stabilized PETCO2 (isocapnia) during manual control of inspired gases on varying baseline levels of mild hypercapnia increased PETCO2). Furthermore, to investigate whether perceptual habituation to dyspnoea stimuli occurs, the study was repeated over four experimental sessions. Isocapnic hypercapnia did not affect dyspnoea unpleasantness during resistive loading. A post hoc analysis revealed a small increase of respiratory unpleasantness during unloaded breathing at +0.6 kPa, the level that reliably induced isocapnia. We didnot observe perceptual habituation over the four sessions. We conclude that isocapnic respiratory loading allows stable induction of respiratory unpleasantness, making it a good stimulus for multi-session studies of dyspnoea.