PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16492192

Variability in physical constant parameter values from standard data sources and the implication of this variability for risk analysis.

Abstract

Physical property values are used in environmental risk assessments to estimate media and risk-based concentrations. Recently, however, considerable variability has been reported with such values. To evaluate potential variability in physical parameter values supporting a variety of regulatory programs, eight data sources were chosen for evaluation, and chemicals appearing in at least four sources were selected. There were 755 chemicals chosen. In addition, chemicals in seven environmentally important subgroups were also identified for evaluation. Nine parameters were selected for analysis--molecular weight (MolWt), melting point (MeltPt), boiling point (BoilPt), vapor pressure (VP), water solubility (AqSOL), Henry's law constant (HLC), octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow), and diffusion coefficients in air (Dair) and water (Dwater). Results show that while 71% of constituents had equal MolWts across data sources, <3% of the constituents had equivalent parameter values across data sources for AqSOL, VP, or HLC. Considerable dissimilarity between certain sources was also observed. Furthermore, measures of dispersion showed considerable variation in data sets for Kow, VP, AqSOL, and HLC compared to measures for MolWt, MeltPt, BoilPt, or Dwater. The magnitude of the observed variability was also noteworthy. For example, the 95th percentile ratio of maximum/minimum parameter values ranged from 1.0 for MolWt to well over 1.0 x 10(6) for VP and HLC. Risk and exposure metrics also varied by similar magnitudes. Results with environmentally important subgroups were similar. These results show that there is considerable variability in physical parameter values from standard sources, and that the observed variability could affect potential risk estimates and perhaps risk management decisions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dale J Marino. 2006. Variability in physical constant parameter values from standard data sources and the implication of this variability for risk analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00721.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗