China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Risk Assessment of Metals in Groundwater
Published in Herbert E. Allen, E. Michael Perdue, David S. Brown, Metals in Groundwater, 2020
Reva Rubenstein, Sharon A. Segal
As part of the evaluation of a dose-response relationship, a NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level), if possible, or a LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level) may be determined. The NOAEL is defined as the highest experimental dose of a chemical at which there is no statistically or biologically significant increase in frequency or severity of a toxicological effect between an exposed group and its appropriate control. Adverse effects are defined as any effects that result in functional impairment and/or pathological lesions that may affect the performance of the whole organism or that reduce an organism’s ability to respond to an additional challenge. In general, NOAELs for several different toxicological endpoints will differ. Everything else being equal, the critical end point is the one with the lowest NOAEL. In some instances, the NOAEL for the critical toxic effect is simply referred to as the NOEL (No Observed Effect Level). This latter term, however, is ambiguous because there may be observable effects that are statistically significant but are not considered to be of biological or toxicological significance and thus are not “adverse”. This is often a matter of professional judgment.
EPA and OSHA Guidelines
Published in Jack Daugherty, Assessment of Chemical Exposures, 2020
The overall ecological risk assessment process is shown in Figure 11-1. Problem formulation is the first phase of the process where the assessment purpose is stated, the problem defined, and the plan for analyzing and characterizing risk determined. In the analysis phase, data on potential effects of and exposures to stressors identified during problem formulation are technically evaluated and summarized as exposure and stressor-response profiles. These profiles are integrated in risk characterization to estimate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects. Major uncertainties, assumptions, and strengths and limitations of the assessment are summarized during this phase. While discussions between risk assessors and risk managers are emphasized both at risk assessment initiation (planning) and completion (communicating results), these guidelines maintain a distinction between risk assessment and risk management. Risk assessment focuses on evaluating the likelihood of adverse effects, and risk management involves the selection of a course of action in response to an identified risk that is based on many factors (e.g., social, legal, political, or economic) in addition to the risk assessment results.
Chemical Exposure and Risk Communication
Published in Stephen K. Hall, Joana Chakraborty, Randall J. Ruch, Chemical Exposure and Toxic Responses, 2020
Stephen K. Hall, Cathleen M. Crawford
“Risk management” is the term generally used to refer to the characterization of the potential adverse effects of exposures to hazards, including estimates of risk and of uncertainties in measurements, analytical techniques, and interpretive models. In the past, the term risk communication has commonly been thought of as consisting only of one-way risk messages from experts to nonexperts. Today, however, “risk communication” is viewed as an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions. Often, it involves multiple messages about the nature of risk, or expressing concerns, opinions, or reactions to risk messages or to legal and institutional arrangements for risk management. A “risk message” is a written, verbal, or visual statement containing information about risk, and it may or may not include advice about risk reduction behavior.
Supply chain risks and mitigation strategies in Turkey automotive industry: findings from a mixed-method approach
Published in Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 2022
Sinan Çıkmak, Mustafa Cahit Ungan
Risk mitigation strategies aim to reduce the likelihood of risks and risks’ adverse effects (Chang et al., 2015). After identifying the risks that cause disruptions, managers should choose effective risk mitigation practices suitable for their companies (Chopra and Sodhi 2004). However, managers face difficulties developing appropriate strategies in daily life due to the ever-increasing risks (Can Saglam, Yildiz Çankaya, and Sezen 2020). A risk mitigation strategy may have different effects on different types of risks. Also, a strategy may affect many various risks because the risks are often interrelated (Rajesh, Ravi, and Venkata Rao 2015). The choice of an appropriate strategy depends on the characteristics of the risk and the organization<apos;>s financial resources (Fan and Stevenson 2018).
Supply chain risk management and artificial intelligence: state of the art and future research directions
Published in International Journal of Production Research, 2018
George Baryannis, Sahar Validi, Samir Dani, Grigoris Antoniou
In the context of managing supply chain risks, the aforementioned debates can be resolved in order to obtain a more specific risk definition. First, SCRM can certainly benefit from an objective rather than a subjective view, provided that the focus is on wider applicability instead of individualised approaches. Second, the concept of managing risks carries the connotation of adverse effects, in the sense of containing or avoiding altogether the negative consequences accompanying risk. Finally, SCRM is only effective when at least the supply chain structure is fully known. A recent risk definition that captures these characteristics is provided by Ho et al. (2015), where supply chain risk is defined as ‘the likelihood and impact of unexpected macro and/or micro-level events or conditions that adversely influence any part of a supply chain, leading to operational, tactical or strategic level failures or irregularities’.
Identification of effective control technologies for additive manufacturing
Published in Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 2022
Johan du Plessis, Sonette du Preez, Aleksandr B. Stefaniak
Collectively, existing exposure and toxicology data support the potential for risk during work with some AM processes and feedstocks. Risk assessment approaches account for the probability of an adverse effect occurring (exposure) and the severity of an adverse health effect (hazard) (Dugheri et al. 2022; Petretta et al. 2019). When conducting risk assessments, factors related to exposure include, but are not limited to, particle size (where the particle might be deposited in the respiratory tract) and frequency of events (amount of material used for a task and number of times exposure occurs). Factors related to hazard include toxicity including carcinogenicity or reproductive effects and type of response such as acute, chronic, reversible, or irreversible. As such, risk-based selection of control technologies is necessary to ensure greater risk control for certain tasks such as handling toxic metal powder feedstock for PBF processes compared with handling solid polymer feedstock for ME processes. When implementing controls, health and safety professionals often rely on the “hierarchy of controls” One representation of the hierarchy depicts elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment (PPE) as an inverted triangle, with the most effective control options listed at the top and the least effective options listed at the bottom (NIOSH 2015). Prevention-through-design (PtD), sometimes termed safe-by-design, is a complementary health and safety management methodology that aims to anticipate and design out hazards at the early stages of facility, work operations, process, equipment, tools, and product development (Karayannis et al. 2019). PtD effectively transcends all control types, and thus for purposes of this review, as illustrated in Figure 1, in our version of the hierarchy, it is the most effective option depicted.