Contemporary challenges and ways to improve health risk assessment and management

View or download the full article: 

V.N. Rakitskii, S.V. Kuz'min, S.L. Avaliani, T.A. Shashina, N.S. Dodina, V.A. Kislitsin


Federal Research Center of Hygiene named after F.F. Erisman, 2 Semashko Str., Mytishchi, 141014, Russian Federation


We analyzed basic trends in improving risk assessment and management in Russia taking into account international experience; these trends arise from needs occurring in contemporary hygienic science and necessity to provide stronger resistance against new threats to population health.
We substantiated specific tasks in development of health risk analysis mythology basing on preconditions for finding solutions to them in Russia; we also determined practical issues in its implementation that are the most vital and need solutions in the nearest future in order to eliminate adverse impacts on the environment and population health.
The primary results are creation of a long-term strategy for the development of health risk analysis principles that takes into account the latest scientific data and is aimed at solving the following methodological and practical tasks: implementation of a systemic approach in estimating carcinogenic / non-carcinogenic risks; development of a unified approach to accomplishing toxicological «dose – response» examinations and interpreting their results which will take into account background morbidity and background dose burdens and determine susceptible population groups and behavioral models; threshold levels obtained via determining «benchmark» concentrations taking spontaneous background into account in order to determine new RfD and RfC and revise existing ones; use of micronvironmental approach in exposure estimation; use of risk assessment methodology in BAT parameters implementation for providing control over health safety after new approaches aimed at reducing emissions have been implemented in environmental protection. The necessity to improve approaches to health risk assessment and management and tasks solved within the process have been taken into account when the Branch scientific research program for 2021–2025 was developed by Rospotrebnadzor.

risk assessment, risk management, population health, environment, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects, dose – response, micro-environment exposure, BAT
Rakitskii V.N., Kuz'min S.V., Avaliani S.L., Shashina T.A., Dodina N.S., Kislitsin V.A. Contemporary challenges and ways to improve health risk assessment and management. Health Risk Analysis, 2020, no. 3, pp. 23–29. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2020.3.03.eng
  1. Onishchenko G.G., Novikov S.M., RakhmaninYu.A., Avaliani S.L., Bushtueva K.A. Osnovy otsenki riska dlya zdorov'ya naseleniya pri vozdeistvii khimicheskikh veshchestv, zagryaznyayushchikh okruzhayushchuyu sredu [Basics of health risk assessment under exposure to chemicals that pollute the environment]. In: Yu.A. Rakhmanin, G.G. Onishchenko eds. Moscow, Nauchno-issledovatel'skii institute ekologii cheloveka i gigieny okruzhayushchei sredy imeni A.N. Sysina Publ., 2002, 408 p. (in Russian).
  2. Novikov S.M., Shashina T.A., Dodina N.S., Kislitsin V.A., Skovronskaya S.A., Matsyuk A.V., Panchenko S.V., Arakelyan A.A. The experience of empirical research on comparative assessment of radiation and chemical health risks due to exposure to environmental factors. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2019, vol. 98, no. 12, pp. 1425–1431 (in Russian).
  3. Revich B.A., Shaposhnikov D.A., Pershagen G. New epidemiological model for assessment of the impact of extremely hot weather and air pollution on mortality (in case of the Moscow heat wave of 2010). Profilakticheskaya meditsina, 2015, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 29–33 (in Russian).
  4. IPCS (International Program on Chemical Safety), 2014. Guidance Document on Evaluating and Expressing Uncertainty in Hazard Characterization. World Health Organization. Available at: (01.04.2020).
  5. National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press Publ., 2009, 423 p.
  6. Rodricks J.V., Levy J.I. Science and Decisions: Advancing Toxicology to Advance Risk Assessment. Toxicological Sciences, 2013, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 1–8. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfs246
  7. Rekomendatsii po ispol'zovaniyu funktsii «kontsentratsiya – effekt» v otnoshenii tverdykh chastits, ozona i dioksida azota dlya analiza zatrat i vygod [Recommendations on use of «concentration – effect» function regarding particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide in analyzing costs and benefits]. Copenhagen, World Health Organization, 2015, 66 p. (in Russian).
  8. Chiu W.A., Slob W.A. Unified Probabilistic Framework for Dose-Response Assessment of Human Health Effects. Environ Health Perspect, 2015, vol. 123, no. 12, pp. 1241–1254. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1409385
  9. Gehlhaus M.W., Gift J.S., Hogan K.A., Kopylev L., Schlosser P.M., A.-Kadry R. Approaches to cancer assessment in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 2011, vol. 254, no. 2, pp. 170–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2010.10.019
  10. Slob W., Bakker M.I., Biesebeek J.D.T., Bokkers B.G.H. Exploring the Uncertainties in Cancer Risk Assessment Using the Integrated Probabilistic Risk Assessment (IPRA) Approach. Risk Analysis, 2014, no. 34, pp. 1401–1422. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12194
  11. Slob W., Setzer R.W. Shape and steepness of toxicological dose-response relationships of continuous endpoints. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2014, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 270–297. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12194
  12. Hardy A., Benford D., Halldorsson T., Jeger M.J., Knutsen K.H., More S., Mortensen A. [et al.]. U.S. EPA. Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. EFSA Journal, 2017, vol. 15, no. 1 (4658), pp. 41. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4658
  13. Air: Fate, Exposure, and Risk Analysis (FERA). EPA. Available at: (10.08.2020).
  14. Gubernskii Yu.D., Novikov S.M., Kalinina N.V., Matsyuk A.V. Otsenka riska vozdeistviya na zdorov'e naseleniya khimicheskikh veshchestv, zagryaznyayushchikh vozdukh zhiloi sredy [Assessing risks of effects produced on population health by chemicals that pollute air in residential areas]. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2002, no. 6, pp. 27–30 (in Russian).
  15. Further Technical Details about HAPEM4. EPA. Available at: (10.08.2020).
  16. EPA's Consolidated Human Activity Database. EPA. Available at: (10.08.2020).
  17. Sorokin N.D. Tekhnologicheskie normativy, tekhnologicheskie pokazateli i markernye veshchestva [Technological standards, technological parameters, and marker substances]. Ekologiya proizvodstva, 2019, no. 9, pp. 32–41 (in Russian).
  18. Shchelchkov K.A., Volosatova M.A., Grevtsov O.V. Osnovnye aspekty primeneniya informatsionno-tekhnicheskikh spravochnikov po NDT [Basic aspects related to applying reference and technical guides on BAT]. Ekologiya proizvodstva, 2019, no. 5, pp. 20–26 (in Russian).
  19. Clean. Air. Act., 1990. EPA. Available at: (10.04.2020).
  20. Avaliani S.L., Mishina A.L. Harmonization of approaches to management of air quality. Zdorov'e naseleniya i sreda obitaniya, 2011, vol. 216, no. 3, pp. 44–48 (in Russian).

You are here