This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.
Your use of this
material constitutes acceptance of that license and the conditions of use of materials on this site.
Copyright 2006, The Johns Hopkins University and Jonathan M. Links. All rights reserved. Use of these materials
permitted only in accordance with license rights granted. Materials provided AS IS; no representations or
warranties provided. User assumes all responsibility for use, and all liability related thereto, and must independently
review all materials for accuracy and efficacy. May contain materials owned by others. User is responsible for
obtaining permissions for use from third parties as needed.
Principles of Exposure, Dose, and Response
Jonathan M. Links, PhD
Johns Hopkins University
Section A
Overview and Definitions
Definitions: Exposure and Agent
Exposure
Any condition which provides an opportunity for an
external environmental agent to enter the body
Agent
Any chemical, biological, or physical material capable of
eliciting a biological response
Different than the vector carrier (air, soil, water, food)
Definitions: Dose and Response
Dose
The amount of agent actually deposited within the body
Typically, the distinction between exposure and dose is
blurred, although in reality, significantly different doses
can result from the same exposure
Response
The biological response to an agent
Exposure-Response Paradigm
Exposure
Source
Dose
Response
Host
Adverse
Health Effect
Humans
Disease
Transport
Air, Water,
Soil, Food
Risk Assessment and Management
Risk assessment
The determination of the probability that an adverse
effect will result from a defined exposure
Risk management (science and value judgements)
The process of weighing policy alternatives and selecting
the most appropriate intervention strategy based on the
results of risk assessment and social, economic, and
political concerns
Factors influencing environmental health problems and their
solutions are both technical/scientific and non-scientific in
character!
Risk Assessment Activities
1. Hazard identification
Characterize the innate toxic effect of the agent
2. Exposure assessment
Measure or estimate the intensity, frequency, and
duration of human exposure to the agent
3. Dose-response assessment
Characterize the relationships between varying doses
and incidences of adverse effects in exposed populations
4. Risk characterization
Estimate the incidence of health effects under the
various actual conditions of human exposure
Exposure Assessment
Characterization of the exposure setting
Identification of the exposure pathway
Quantification of exposure
Exposure = Intensity x Frequency x Duration
Exposure = How much x How often x How long
Patterns of Exposure
10
Vectors for Exposure
Adapted by CTLT from Moeller, D. W.
11
Air: Liquid and Solid Suspensions
Aerosols
Characterized by particle size, which influences physical
interactions (coagulation, dispersion, sedimentation,
impaction)
Aerodynamic properties depend on dimensions, shape
and density
X Dustmechanical division of bulk material
X Smokecondensation of combustion products
X Mistmechanical shearing of a bulk liquid
X Fogcondensation of water vapor on atmospheric
nuclei
X Smogcombination of smoke and fog
12
Air: Gases and Vapors
True solutions
Present as discrete molecules; vapors are the gaseous
phase of a substance that is normally a solid or liquid at
room temperature
Generally form mixtures so dilute that physical properties
(e.g., density, viscosity) are indistinguishable from those
of clean air
All molecules of a given compound dispersed in air are
essentially equivalent in their size and capture properties
13
Water and Soil
Chemical contaminants in solution or as hydrosols
Immiscible solid or liquid particles in suspension; liquid
particles in suspension = emulsion (water equivalent of
an aerosol)
Dissolved contaminants
Solids, gases, and suspended particles
Behavior is like that of water
Soil
Intrinsic biological or physical agent
Chemical contaminants
14
Food
Toxic agents can be acquired during production, harvesting,
processing, packaging, transportation, storage, cooking,
serving
Agents are naturally occurring toxicants or those that become
toxicants on conversion by chemical reactions (with other
constituents or additives) or by thermal or microbiological
conversion
15
Examples of Exposure
Contaminated groundwater
Ingestion (drinking water)
Dermal contact (bathing)
Inhalation of VOCs (during showering)
Contaminated surface water
Incidental ingestion or dermal absorption of chemical or
biological contaminant
16
Examples of Exposure
Contaminated surface soil
Ingestion or dermal absorption of contaminants
Contaminated food
Ingestion of contaminated muscle tissue or vegetables
and fruits grown in contaminated soil or covered with
contaminated dust
Contaminated air
Inhalation of fugitive dusts or VOC emissions by nearby
residents or on-site workers
17
Issues in Understanding Exposure
Distinction between agents and vectors
Time activity patterns
What did agent do in environment with time?
What did host do in environment with time?
Homogeneous versus heterogeneous exposures
Mixed exposure scenario
Difficult to quantitate putative agent
Factors influencing biodistribution
Same exposure may not yield the same dose
18
Hierarchy of Exposure Data or Surrogates
Types of Data
1. Quantitative personal dosimeter
measurements
Approx. to Actual Exposures
Best
2. Quantitative ambient measurements in
vicinity of residence or activity
3. Quantitative surrogates of exposure,
e.g., estimates of drinking water or
food consumption
4. Residence of employment in proximity
of source of exposure
5. Residence or employment in general
geographic (e.g., county) of site or
source of exposure
Adapted from Moeller, D. W.
Poorest
19
Section B
Dose-Response Relationships
Dose-Response Relationships
Quantitatively characterize the association between previous
exposure to an environmental agent and subsequent
development of disease
Frequently stuck with exposure-response relationships
Association versus cause and effect
Plausible biologic mechanism (one prerequisite for cause
and effect)
21
Important Issues
Distinction between exposure and dose
Exposure is outside the body
Dose is inside the body
Definition of response
Change in structure or function, morbidity, or mortality
X Define and characterize endpoint
22
Important Issues
Challenges in obtaining dose-response relationships
Characterization of exposure or dose
Assessment of response
Selection of dose-response model to fit the observed data
23
Issues in Understanding Response
Acute versus delayed onset
Latent period confounds many epidemiologic studies
Short-term versus chronic disease
Irreversibility
Spontaneous incidence
Function of age
Tease out agent-produced component from background
Hundreds of causes of nonspecific effects
24
Dose-Response Models
Model
A mathematical description of the relationship between
exposure or dose and response
The mathematical model or function may be plotted on
a graph (with exposure or dose on the x-axis and
response on the y-axis)
25
Dose-Response Curve
10
Response
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Dose
26
Stochastic (Random) Model
Risk (probability) of response is a function of dose
Assumes no threshold
No dose is safe
Any dose increases the risk (not severity)
For example, cancer
X Implies that any exposure increases the risk of
cancer, with larger exposures producing a greater
risk (but not a bigger tumor)
27
Stochastic (Random) Process
10
Risk
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Dose
28
Non-Stochastic (Deterministic) Model
Severity of response is a function of dose
Assumes a threshold
A safe dose exists
Examples
X Radiation
Cataractogenesis
Mental retardation following in utero irradiation
X Chloracne
29
Severity
Non-Stochastic (Deterministic) Process
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Dose
30
Major Issues in the Choice of a Model
Random or deterministic model
Actual mathematical function
The shape of the curve
Presence or absence of a threshold
An exposure or dose below which there is no effect
31
Response
Dose-Response Curve
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Linear relationship
(risk = dose)
Quadratic relationship
(risk = 0.1 dose + 0.1 dose 2)
0
10
Dose
32
Response
Dose-Response Curve
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Linear relationship
(risk = dose)
Quadratic relationship
(risk = 0.1 dose + 0.1 dose 2)
0
10
Dose
33
Dose-Response Curve
Response
100%
Carcinogens
All other chemical
agents
Dose
34
Dose-Response Curve
Response
Observable
Range
Range of Inference
Dose
35
Additivity
Response
160
A and B
120
80
40
A
0
0
10
20
30
30
50
60
70
80
90 100
Dose
36
Synergism
300
Response
250
A and B
200
150
100
B
A
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Dose
37
Lung Cancer and Asbestos
Lung cancer and asbestos compared with the risk of dying
from lung cancer for a nonsmoker not exposed to asbestos
Nonsmoking asbestos worker
Smokers not exposed to asbestos
11
Smoking asbestos workers
53
Asbestos workers smoking 1 pack/day
87
0
20
40
60
80
100
Times Higher
Source: Report of the Surgeon General, 1985.
38
Lung Cancer Incidence/1000
Person-Years
Lung Cancer and Radon
10
Lung Cancer Incidence/1000
Person-Years
8
6
Smokers
4
2
Non-Smokers
0
0
300
600
900
1200 1500 1800 2100
Total Radon Exposure (Working Level Months)
Adapted from: Archer, Gillam, Wagoner. (1976). NY Acad Sci, 271.
39
Section C
The Toxicological Paradigm, the Public Health Paradigm, and
the Environmental Health Paradigm
Toxicological Paradigm
Exposure
Internal dose
Susceptibility
Genetic factors
Exposure/Dose
Relationships
Biologically effective dose
Early biologic effects
Altered structure and function
Biological
Responses
Clinical disease
41
Sequence Leading to Neoplasia
Procarcinogen
Direct carcinogen
Ultimate
carcinogen
Initiated
cell
Preneoplastic
lesion
Malignant
tumor
Clinical
cancer
Exposure
Internal dose
Biologically
effective dose
Direct carcinogen
Procarcinogen
Transfer
Direct carcinogen
Procarcinogen
Bioactivation
Relapse and
secondary tumors
Ultimate carcinogen
Genotoxic
Epigenetic
42
Toxicological Paradigm, Neoplasia, and Intervention
43
Lung Cancer in the United States
Lung cancer accounts for more 25% of all cancer deaths
Lung cancer deaths have increased about 30% in men and
200% in women over the age of 65 since 1973
Women took up smoking decades later than men
Most lung cancer deaths are the result of cigarette smoking
44
Steps in Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction: 1
Identify risk factors and associated factors
Identify and characterize susceptible groups
Identify the effects of secondhand smoke (ETS)
Understand the role of tobacco smoke in carcinogenesis
Understand intermediate stages of the carcinogenic process
45
Steps in Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction: 2
Design early diagnostic procedures
Understand the effects of secondhand smoke
Understand the addictive nature of nicotine
Design effect-risk communication strategies
Design effective smoking cessation techniques
Promote negative social feedback mechanisms
Design ventilation systems to reduce ETS
Regulate the sale of cigarettes
Tax the sale of cigarettes
46
Public Health Paradigm
Behavioral and
Engineering
Regulatory
Process
Identify risks
Understand role
of tobacco
Design risk
communication
strategy
Regulate sales
Identify
susceptibles
Understand
carcinogenesis
and design early
diagnostics
Design smoking
cessation
techniques
Tax sales
Identify ETS
effects
Understand ETS
effects
Design
ventilation
systems
Epidemiology
Mechanistic
Research
Understand
nicotine
addiction
47
Public Health and Environmental Health Paradigms
48
Key Points: Exposure, Dose, and Response
Exposure
Refers to any condition which provides an opportunity for
an external environmental agent to enter the body
Dose
Refers to the amount of agent actually deposited within
the body
Response
Refers to the biological effect of the agent
49
Key Points: Paradigms
The relationship between previous exposure to an
environmental agent and subsequent development of clinical
disease can be represented as a six-stage toxicological
paradigm
Consideration of the toxicological paradigm leads to a
general public health paradigm, which can be directly
related to a corresponding environmental health paradigm
The activities or stages in this paradigm may be broadly
grouped into risk assessment and risk management
50