Abstract
Workers are often exposed to mixtures of airborne contaminants which may complicate health studies, risk assessments, and epidemiological investigations. In situations where these mixed exposures are correlated, multivariate probability distributions may serve as models suitable for description and subsequent inference. This paper presents a methodology for modeling correlated mixed exposures using the Johnson system of multivariate probability distributions. This system involves transformations to normality and includes the multivariate normal and lognormal distributions, among others. The technique is illustrated with manganese exposures for pipefitters and boilermakers conditioned upon a measurement of total particulate exposure. Applications involving compliance and risk assessment for mixed exposure problems are presented using the fitted distributions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramowitz M, Stegun I (1970) Handbook of mathematical functions, 9th edn. Dover, New York, pp 936–939
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (2007) Documentation of the threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices, 7th edn. ACGIH®, Cincinnati
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (2009) TLVs® and BEIs® based on the documentation of the threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. ACGIH®, Cincinnati
Couper J (1837) On the effects of black oxide of manganese when inhaled into the lungs. Br Ann Med Pharmacol 1:41–42
Flynn MR (2004) The 4-parameter lognormal (S B) model of human exposure. Ann Occup Hyg 48:617–622
Flynn MR (2005a) On the moments of the 4-parameter lognormal distribution. Commun Stat Theor Meth 34:745–751
Flynn MR (2005b) Fitting human exposure data with the Johnson S B distribution. J Exp Anal Environ Epid:1–7
Flynn MR (2007) Analysis of exposure-biomarker relationships with the Johnson S BB distribution. Ann Occup Hyg 51:533–541
Flynn MR, Susi PL (2009) Neurological risks associated with manganese exposure from welding operations—a literature review. Int J Hyg Environ Health. Online publication, Feb. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2008.12.003
Johnson NL (1949a) Systems of frequency curves generated by method of translation. Biometrika 36:149–176
Johnson NL (1949b) Bivariate distributions based on simple translation systems. Biometrika 36:297–304
Johnson NL, Kotz S (1970) Continuous univariate distributions—1 distributions in statistics. Wiley, New York
Nadarajah S (2008) A truncated inverted beta distribution with application to air pollution data. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 22:289–2895
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2005) Mixed exposure research agenda a report by the NORA mixed exposures team DHHS NIOSH Pub #2005-106
Park RM, Schulte PA, Bowman JD, Walker JT, Bondy SC, Yost MG et al (2005) Potential occupational risks for neurodegenerative diseases. Am J Ind Med 48:63–77
Racette BA, McGee-Minnich L, Moerlein SM, Mink JW, Videen TO, Perlmutter JS (2001) Welding-related Parkinsonism clinical features, treatment and pathophysiology. Neurology 56:8–13
Racette BA, Tabbal SD, Jennings D, Good L, Perlmutter JS, Evanoff B (2005) Prevalence of Parkinsonism and relationship to exposure in a large sample of Alabama welders. Neurology 64:230–235
Rappaport SM, Weaver M, Taylor D, Kupper L, Susi PL (1999) Application of mixed models to assess exposures monitored by construction workers during hot processes. Ann Occup Hyg 43(7):457–469
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman and Co, San Francisco
Surucu B (2006) Goodness-of-fit tests for multivariate distributions. Commun Stat Theor Meth 35:1319–1331
Susi P, Goldberg M, Barnes P, Stafford E (2000) The use of a task-based exposure assessment model (T-BEAM) for assessment of metal fume exposures during welding and thermal cutting. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 15(1):26–38
U.S. Department of Labor (2008) Occupational outlook handbook 2008–2009 edn. website: http://www.bls.gov/soc/. Accessed 3 Apr 2008
World Health Organization (WHO) (1990) Chromium, nickel and welding. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 49:447
Acknowledgments
This work was made possible by grant U54 OH008307 from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of the unions, employers and workers whose cooperation and support allowed us to access jobs and collect the data presented in this paper. Included among these are the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers (IBB) and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U.S. and Canada (UA). We also recognize the contribution of the industrial hygienists and journeymen welders who made up field survey teams including Mr. David Feldscher, Dr. John Meeker and Mr. Christopher Cole, to name just a few.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: The Johnson system of probability distributions
Appendix: The Johnson system of probability distributions
Norman L. Johnson developed a comprehensive system of probability distribution functions based on transformations (translations) to normality. The system is very general and encompasses four different probability distributions that are identified as S N, S L, S B, and S U for Normal, Lognormal, Bounded and Unbounded respectively. These four distributions are specified as follows:
The y transform is the first step and is defined by:
The interpretation of epsilon and lambda depends upon the distribution of concern.
The subsequent f transforms for each of the four univariate distributions are:
For the Normal distribution:
For the Lognormal:
For the S B distribution:
And for the S U distribution:
In all cases the unit normal z is defined by:
The normal and lognormal distributions are well-known and the unbounded distribution is not often of interest for exposure data (at least in this author’s experience so far). However the S B distribution is less well-known and more difficult mathematically than the others, for this distribution the mean of y is (Johnson 1949):
and:
The variance of y is:
where the second moment is:
and,
Similar infinite sum expressions for the standardized third and fourth moments are given in (Flynn 2005a, b).
Subsequently Johnson extended the univariate models to bivariate systems as: S IJ where the I, J subscripts denote either normal (N), lognormal (L), bounded (B), or unbounded (U) marginal distributions in accordance with the univariate designations. Thus an S LB would denote a bivariate normal distribution where the x 1 variable is lognormal (S L) and the x 2 variable is distributed as an S B variate. This leads to a total of 16 possible bivariate normal distributions.
In the general case of bivariate Johnson distributions (S IJ) we have:
For the S BB this is equivalent to:
For an S BL this would be
and note in the 2 parameter lognormal case y 2 = x 2.
The conditional array distribution of y 2 given y 1 is an S J distribution defined by:
For S I = S B we have:
An example of the calculation of the conditional mean and variance using the S BB model is given here. Consider a pipefitter exposed to 2.0 mg/m3 of total particulate; what is the estimated mean and variance of the manganese exposure using the S BB model. This requires solution of Eq. 31 for the mean and Eq. 36 for the variance. These equations in turn depend upon expressions (32–40) that require the conditional values of γ 2 and δ 2 which are given by Eq. 45. This calculation requires the results from the fitting of the univariate distributions for pipefitters in Table 3 where the 1 subscript refers to the total particulate, and the 2 subscript is for manganese:
ε2 = 0.0 | ε1 = 0.0235 |
λ2 = 1.0114 | λ1 = 73.6627 |
γ2 = 2.3265 | γ1 = 4.344 |
δ2 = 0.729 | δ1 = 1.254 |
From the median regression shown in Fig. 5 the correlation coefficient is the square root of the R 2 or ρ = 0.712. At this point the information is available to evaluate the Eq. 45 as follows:
Equations 35 and 40 are now solved with a computer code using the values:
The mean and standard deviation of y are returned as 0.04972 and 0.05 respectively which are converted to exposures (C) by noting: C = λy + ε or:
Thus the conditional mean and standard deviation of manganese exposure for a pipefitter exposed to 2.0 mg/m3 of total; particulate is 0.05 mg/m3 for both (i.e., a 100% coefficient of variation). Note that the conditional median exposure for this case using Eq. 19 is 0.035 mg/m3.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flynn, M.R., Susi, P. Modeling mixed exposures: an application to welding fumes in the construction trades. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24, 377–388 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-009-0327-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-009-0327-x