{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0199203187250996, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005577689243027889, 'mean_word_length': 6.056179775280899, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A method for quantitative risk appraisal for pesticide risk assessments

ABSTRACT Pesticide risk assessments are fraught with uncertainties that arise from the process of estimating exposure to and toxicity of chemicals. Regulatory agencies resolve those uncertainties in a health-protective (conservative) manner, typically acknowledging only inter- and intraspecies uncertainties quantitatively. Other uncertainties may be acknowledged qualitatively, but those safety factors (SF) are not enumerated. Quantitative risk appraisal may be used to enumerate the multiplicative SF generated by conservative assumptions regarding uncertainties. The magnitude of SF derived from decision points dealing with historically unquantified uncertainty may far exceed explicit SF used to gauge acceptable margins of exposure (MoE). Examination of the basis for some previously unenumerated SF may justify potential changes in regulatory practices and policies. Using past risk assessments of 3 pesticides (mevinphos, parathion, and methyl iodide) for which the California Department of Pesticide Regulation found unacceptable risk as examples, the previously unquantified SF ranged from 47 to 1 × 106 for scenarios involving handlers, reentry workers, and bystanders.