Engineering topics
Tan, Yu-Mei
Publications and source records attributed to Tan, Yu-Mei.
A weight of evidence approach to investigate potential common mechanisms in pesticide groups to support cumulative risk assessment: A case study with dinitroaniline pesticides
Not Available
A workflow for identifying metabolically active chemicals to complement in vitro toxicity screening
Not Available
Aggregate Exposure Pathways in Support of Risk Assessment
Over time, risk assessment has shifted from establishing relationships between exposure to a single chemical and a resulting adverse health outcome, to evaluation of multiple chemicals and disease outcomes simultaneously. As a result, there is an increasing need to better understand the complex mechanisms that influence risk of chemical and non-chemical stressors, beginning at their source and ending at a biological endpoint relevant to human or ecosystem health risk assessment. Just as the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework has emerged as a means of providing insight into mechanism-based toxicity, the exposure science community has seen the recent introduction of the Aggregate Exposure Pathway (AEP) framework. AEPs aid in making exposure data applicable to the FAIR (i.e., findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principle, especially by (1) organizing continuous flow of disjointed exposure information;(2) identifying data gaps, to focus resources on acquiring the most relevant data; (3) optimizing use and repurposing of existing exposure data; and (4) facilitating interoperability among predictive models. Herein, we discuss integration of the AOP and AEP frameworks and how such integration can improve confidence in both traditional and cumulative risk assessment approaches.
Refining the aggregate exposure pathway
The elements of the aggregate exposure pathway have been refined to better facilitate organization, integration, and dissemination of exposure data.
Expanding on Successful Concepts, Models, and Organization
In her letter to the editor1 regarding our recent Feature Article “Completing the Link between Exposure Science and Toxicology for Improved Environmental Health Decision Making: The Aggregate Exposure Pathway Framework” 2, Dr. von Göetz expressed several concerns about terminology, and the perception that we propose the replacement of successful approaches and models for exposure assessment with a concept. We are glad to have the opportunity to address these issues here. If the goal of the AEP framework was to replace existing exposure models or databases for organizing exposure data with a concept, we would share Dr. von Göetz concerns. Instead, the outcome we promote is broader use of an organizational framework for exposure science. The framework would support improved generation, organization, and interpretation of data as well as modeling and prediction, not replacement of models. The field of toxicology has seen the benefits of wide use of one or more organizational frameworks (e.g., mode and mechanism of action, adverse outcome pathway). These frameworks influence how experiments are designed, data are collected, curated, stored and interpreted and ultimately how data are used in risk assessment. Exposure science is poised to similarly benefit from broader use of a parallel organizational framework, which Dr. von Göetz correctly points out, is currently used in the exposure modeling community. In our view, the concepts used so effectively in the exposure modeling community, expanded upon in the AEP framework, could see wider adoption by the field as a whole. The value of such a framework was recognized by the National Academy of Sciences.3 Replacement of models, databases, or any application with the AEP framework was not proposed in our article. The positive role broader more consistent use of such a framework might have in enabling and advancing “general activities such as data acquisition, organization…,” and exposure modeling was discussed in some detail. Like Dr. von Göetz, we recognized the challenges associated with acceptance of the terminology, definitions, and structure proposed in the paper. To address these challenges, an expert workshop was held in May, 2016 to consider and revise the “basic elements” outlined in the paper. The attendees produced revisions to the terminology (e.g., key events) that align with terminology currently in use in the field. We were also careful in our paper to acknowledge a point raised by Dr. von Göetz, that the term AEP implies aggregation, providing these clarifications: “The simplest form of an AEP represents a single source and a single pathway and may more commonly be referred to as an exposure pathway,”; and “An aggregate exposure pathway may represent multiple sources and transfer through single pathways to the TSE, single sources and transfer through multiple pathways to the target site exposure (TSE), or any combination of these.” These clarifications address the concern that the AEP term is not accurate or logical, and further expands upon the word “aggregate” in a broader context. Our use of AEP is consistent with the definition for “aggregate exposure”, which refers to the combined exposures to a single chemical across multiple routes and pathways.3 The AEP framework embraces existing methods for collection, prediction, organization, and interpretation of human and ecological exposure data cited by Dr. von Göetz. We remain hopeful that wider recognition and use of an organizing concept for exposure information across the exposure science, toxicology and epidemiology communities advances the development of the kind of infrastructure and models Dr. von Göetz discusses. This outcome would be a step forward, rather than a step backward.
Completing the Link between Exposure Science and Toxicology for Improved Environmental Health Decision Making: The Aggregate Exposure Pathway Framework
Driven by major scientific advances in analytical methods, biomonitoring, and computational exposure assessment, and a newly articulated vision for a greater impact in public health, the field of exposure science is undergoing a rapid transition from a field of observation to a field of prediction. Deployment of an organizational and predictive framework for exposure science analogous to the computationally enabled “systems approaches” used in the biological sciences is a necessary step in this evolution. Here we propose the aggregate exposure pathway (AEP) concept as the natural and complementary companion in the exposure sciences to the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept in the toxicological sciences. The AEP framework offers an intuitive approach to successful organization of exposure science data within individual units of prediction common to the field, setting the stage for exposure forecasting. Looking farther ahead, we envision direct linkages between aggregate exposure pathway and adverse outcome pathways, completing the source to outcome continuum and setting the stage for more efficient integration of exposure science and toxicity testing information. Together these frameworks form and inform a decision making framework with the flexibility for risk-based, hazard-based or exposure-based decisions.
A proposal for assessing study quality: Biomonitoring, Environmental Epidemiology, and Short-lived Chemicals (BEES-C) instrument
The quality of exposure assessment is a major determinant of the overall quality of any environmental epidemiology study. The use of biomonitoring as a tool for assessing exposure to ubiquitous chemicals with short physiologic half-lives began relatively recently. These chemicals present several challenges, including their presence in analytical laboratories and sampling equipment, difficulty in establishing temporal order in cross-sectional studies, short- and longterm variability in exposures and biomarker concentrations, and a paucity of information on the number of measurements required for proper exposure classification. To date, the scientific community has not developed a set of systematic guidelines for designing, implementing and interpreting studies of short-lived chemicals that use biomonitoring as the exposure metric or for evaluating the quality of this type of research for WOE assessments or for peer review of grants or publications. We describe key issues that affect epidemiology studies using biomonitoring data on short-lived chemicals and propose a systematic instrument – the Biomonitoring, Environmental Epidemiology, and Short-lived Chemicals (BEES-C) instrument – for evaluating the quality of research proposals and studies that incorporate biomonitoring data on short-lived chemicals. Quality criteria for three areas considered fundamental to the evaluation of epidemiology studies that include biological measurements of short-lived chemicals are described: 1) biomarker selection and measurement, 2) study design and execution, and 3) general epidemiological study design considerations. We recognize that the development of an evaluative tool such as BEES-C is neither simple nor non-controversial. We hope and anticipate that the instrument will initiate further discussion/debate on this topic.