Estimate of dietary intake of chloropropanols (3-MCPD and 1,3-DCP) and health risk assessment

Chloropropanols, including 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) and 1,3-dichloropropan-2-ol (1,3-DCP), comprise a group of chemical contaminants with carcinogenic and genotoxic properties. They have been found in a variety of processed foods and food ingredients, such as hydrolyzed vegetable protein, soy sauce, cereal-based products, malt-derived ingredients, and smoked foods. This study aimed to assess the dietary exposure to 3-MCPD and 1,3-DCP in Brazil and verify whether the presence of these substances in foods could represent health risks. The intake was calculated by combining data on food consumption, provided by the Consumer Expenditure Survey 2008-2009, with the levels of contaminant occurrence determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The exposure to 3-MCPD ranged from 0.06 to 0.51 µg.kg bw-1.day-1 considering average and high consumers, while the intake of 1,3-DCP was estimated to be 0.0036 µg.kg bw-1.day-1 in the worst case scenario evaluated. Based on these results, it was verified that the Brazilians' exposure to chloropropanols does not present a significant health risk. However, the consumption of specific foods containing high levels of 3-MCPD could exceed the provisional maximum tolerable daily intake of 2 µg.kg bw-1 established for this compound and, therefore, represent a potential concern.

Stress testing a complement of value-a-risk.

Rapport de stage (maîtrise en finance mathématique et computationnelle)

Risk Assessment of Rooftop- Collected Rainwater for Individual Household and Community Use in Central Kerala, India

Water quality of rooftop-collected rainwater is an issue of increased interest particularly in developing countries where the collected water is used as a source of drinking water. Bacteriological and chemical parameters of 25 samples of rooftop-harvested rainwater stored in ferrocement tanks were analyzed in the study described in this article. Except for the pH and lower dissolved oxygen levels, all other physicochemical parameters were within World Health Organization guidelines. Bacteriological results revealed that the rooftop-harvested rainwater stored in tanks does not often meet the bacteriological quality standards prescribed for drinking water. Fifty percent of samples of harvested rainwater for rural and urban community use and 20% of the samples for individual household use showed the presence of E. coli. Fecal coliform/fecal streptococci ratios revealed nonhuman animal sources of fecal pollution. Risk assessment of bacterial isolates from the harvested rainwater showed high resistance to ampicillin, erythromycin, penicillin, and vancomycin. Multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) indexing of the isolates and elucidation of the resistance patterns revealed that 73% of the isolates exhibited MAR

Animal Biosafety Risk Assessment and Management Training Video

This training video is intended to familiarise researchers and technicians working in animal containment facilities with appropriate risk assessment and risk management systems. It is in Windows Media Video format which will require a free media player such as Windows Media Player or VLC Media Player (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/) to watch.

Risk Assessment for blackboard 2011

This resource is for Health Scientists

Envisioning (starting the project)2: User Stories, Sprint Planning, Risk Assessment

Second in a two part set of lectures on Agile Envisioning. The lectures describe the process of starting up a project. 1) creating a shared understanding amongst the team and customers using Stakeholder Analysis, Personas and User stories 2) Sprint planning and using a burndown chart 3) Risk assessment

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.