Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Comparing Epidemiologic Studies of Ingested Asbestos for Use in Risk Assessment.
Author Erdreich, L. S. ;
CORP Author Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.
Year Published 1983
Report Number EPA/600/J-83/292;
Stock Number PB85-196533
Additional Subjects Epidemiology ; Asbestos ; Toxicity ; Risk ; Assessments ; Dosage ; Potable water ; Concentration(Composition) ; Comparison ; Water pollution ; Reprints ; Water pollution effects(Humans) ; Cancer
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
NTIS  PB85-196533 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 06/21/1988
Collation 9p
Epidemiologic data can be used in risk assessment in various ways: to calculate the dose-response relationship between exposure levels and adverse effects; to establish ranges of exposure known to be safe or unsafe; to verify an endpoint in humans derived from a route or species extrapolation; to support assumptions necessary for performing extrapolation procedures. These points are illustrated in the risk assessment for exposure to asbestos in drinking water. A previous risk assessment for asbestos, the EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for Asbestos, was derived from cohort studies of inhalation exposure. Epidemiologic studies of ingested asbestos, all of geographical correlation design, were compared on the basis of their ability to add information in support of both the route extrapolation and low-dose extrapolation used in this risk assessment. Results of these ingestion studies were inconsistent due to variable ability to detect a risk from chronic low-level exposure. After preliminary comparisons of factors that determine scientific validity and statistical power, two ingestion studies were selected to determine if they had the potential to detect the risk predicted by the AWQC. This evaluation has shown that these studies do not offer quantitative data for estimating levels associated with a defined risk.