skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Expanding on Successful Concepts, Models, and Organization

Abstract

In her letter to the editor1 regarding our recent Feature Article “Completing the Link between Exposure Science and Toxicology for Improved Environmental Health Decision Making: The Aggregate Exposure Pathway Framework” 2, Dr. von Göetz expressed several concerns about terminology, and the perception that we propose the replacement of successful approaches and models for exposure assessment with a concept. We are glad to have the opportunity to address these issues here. If the goal of the AEP framework was to replace existing exposure models or databases for organizing exposure data with a concept, we would share Dr. von Göetz concerns. Instead, the outcome we promote is broader use of an organizational framework for exposure science. The framework would support improved generation, organization, and interpretation of data as well as modeling and prediction, not replacement of models. The field of toxicology has seen the benefits of wide use of one or more organizational frameworks (e.g., mode and mechanism of action, adverse outcome pathway). These frameworks influence how experiments are designed, data are collected, curated, stored and interpreted and ultimately how data are used in risk assessment. Exposure science is poised to similarly benefit from broader use of a parallel organizational framework, whichmore » Dr. von Göetz correctly points out, is currently used in the exposure modeling community. In our view, the concepts used so effectively in the exposure modeling community, expanded upon in the AEP framework, could see wider adoption by the field as a whole. The value of such a framework was recognized by the National Academy of Sciences.3 Replacement of models, databases, or any application with the AEP framework was not proposed in our article. The positive role broader more consistent use of such a framework might have in enabling and advancing “general activities such as data acquisition, organization…,” and exposure modeling was discussed in some detail. Like Dr. von Göetz, we recognized the challenges associated with acceptance of the terminology, definitions, and structure proposed in the paper. To address these challenges, an expert workshop was held in May, 2016 to consider and revise the “basic elements” outlined in the paper. The attendees produced revisions to the terminology (e.g., key events) that align with terminology currently in use in the field. We were also careful in our paper to acknowledge a point raised by Dr. von Göetz, that the term AEP implies aggregation, providing these clarifications: “The simplest form of an AEP represents a single source and a single pathway and may more commonly be referred to as an exposure pathway,”; and “An aggregate exposure pathway may represent multiple sources and transfer through single pathways to the TSE, single sources and transfer through multiple pathways to the target site exposure (TSE), or any combination of these.” These clarifications address the concern that the AEP term is not accurate or logical, and further expands upon the word “aggregate” in a broader context. Our use of AEP is consistent with the definition for “aggregate exposure”, which refers to the combined exposures to a single chemical across multiple routes and pathways.3 The AEP framework embraces existing methods for collection, prediction, organization, and interpretation of human and ecological exposure data cited by Dr. von Göetz. We remain hopeful that wider recognition and use of an organizing concept for exposure information across the exposure science, toxicology and epidemiology communities advances the development of the kind of infrastructure and models Dr. von Göetz discusses. This outcome would be a step forward, rather than a step backward.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1322510
Report Number(s):
PNNL-SA-119240
Journal ID: ISSN 0013-936X; WN0219080
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Environmental Science and Technology; Journal Volume: 50; Journal Issue: 17
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
exposure science

Citation Formats

Teeguarden, Justin G., Tan, Yu-Mei, Edwards, Stephen W., Leonard, Jeremy A., Anderson, Kim A., Corley, Richard A., Kile, Molly L., L. Massey Simonich, Staci, Stone, David, Tanguay, Robert L., Waters, Katrina M., Harper, Stacey L., and Williams, David E.. Expanding on Successful Concepts, Models, and Organization. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b03027.
Teeguarden, Justin G., Tan, Yu-Mei, Edwards, Stephen W., Leonard, Jeremy A., Anderson, Kim A., Corley, Richard A., Kile, Molly L., L. Massey Simonich, Staci, Stone, David, Tanguay, Robert L., Waters, Katrina M., Harper, Stacey L., & Williams, David E.. Expanding on Successful Concepts, Models, and Organization. United States. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b03027.
Teeguarden, Justin G., Tan, Yu-Mei, Edwards, Stephen W., Leonard, Jeremy A., Anderson, Kim A., Corley, Richard A., Kile, Molly L., L. Massey Simonich, Staci, Stone, David, Tanguay, Robert L., Waters, Katrina M., Harper, Stacey L., and Williams, David E.. 2016. "Expanding on Successful Concepts, Models, and Organization". United States. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b03027.
@article{osti_1322510,
title = {Expanding on Successful Concepts, Models, and Organization},
author = {Teeguarden, Justin G. and Tan, Yu-Mei and Edwards, Stephen W. and Leonard, Jeremy A. and Anderson, Kim A. and Corley, Richard A. and Kile, Molly L. and L. Massey Simonich, Staci and Stone, David and Tanguay, Robert L. and Waters, Katrina M. and Harper, Stacey L. and Williams, David E.},
abstractNote = {In her letter to the editor1 regarding our recent Feature Article “Completing the Link between Exposure Science and Toxicology for Improved Environmental Health Decision Making: The Aggregate Exposure Pathway Framework” 2, Dr. von Göetz expressed several concerns about terminology, and the perception that we propose the replacement of successful approaches and models for exposure assessment with a concept. We are glad to have the opportunity to address these issues here. If the goal of the AEP framework was to replace existing exposure models or databases for organizing exposure data with a concept, we would share Dr. von Göetz concerns. Instead, the outcome we promote is broader use of an organizational framework for exposure science. The framework would support improved generation, organization, and interpretation of data as well as modeling and prediction, not replacement of models. The field of toxicology has seen the benefits of wide use of one or more organizational frameworks (e.g., mode and mechanism of action, adverse outcome pathway). These frameworks influence how experiments are designed, data are collected, curated, stored and interpreted and ultimately how data are used in risk assessment. Exposure science is poised to similarly benefit from broader use of a parallel organizational framework, which Dr. von Göetz correctly points out, is currently used in the exposure modeling community. In our view, the concepts used so effectively in the exposure modeling community, expanded upon in the AEP framework, could see wider adoption by the field as a whole. The value of such a framework was recognized by the National Academy of Sciences.3 Replacement of models, databases, or any application with the AEP framework was not proposed in our article. The positive role broader more consistent use of such a framework might have in enabling and advancing “general activities such as data acquisition, organization…,” and exposure modeling was discussed in some detail. Like Dr. von Göetz, we recognized the challenges associated with acceptance of the terminology, definitions, and structure proposed in the paper. To address these challenges, an expert workshop was held in May, 2016 to consider and revise the “basic elements” outlined in the paper. The attendees produced revisions to the terminology (e.g., key events) that align with terminology currently in use in the field. We were also careful in our paper to acknowledge a point raised by Dr. von Göetz, that the term AEP implies aggregation, providing these clarifications: “The simplest form of an AEP represents a single source and a single pathway and may more commonly be referred to as an exposure pathway,”; and “An aggregate exposure pathway may represent multiple sources and transfer through single pathways to the TSE, single sources and transfer through multiple pathways to the target site exposure (TSE), or any combination of these.” These clarifications address the concern that the AEP term is not accurate or logical, and further expands upon the word “aggregate” in a broader context. Our use of AEP is consistent with the definition for “aggregate exposure”, which refers to the combined exposures to a single chemical across multiple routes and pathways.3 The AEP framework embraces existing methods for collection, prediction, organization, and interpretation of human and ecological exposure data cited by Dr. von Göetz. We remain hopeful that wider recognition and use of an organizing concept for exposure information across the exposure science, toxicology and epidemiology communities advances the development of the kind of infrastructure and models Dr. von Göetz discusses. This outcome would be a step forward, rather than a step backward.},
doi = {10.1021/acs.est.6b03027},
journal = {Environmental Science and Technology},
number = 17,
volume = 50,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 9
}
  • In the second part of this article it is suggested that coal slurries should not be considered only as replacement fuels. Their use in fluidized-bed boilers is seen as a probable development and successful combustion tests of coal-water mixtures and coal-oil mixtures have been carried out in atmospheric and pressurised fluidised-bed combustors. The preparation of slurry fuels is considered and a notional flowsheet for coal preparation integrated with coal slurry production is shown. The preparation of micronised coal slurry and its possible use as a diesel fuel is discussed.
  • In realistic unified models involving so-called SO(10)-inspired patterns of Dirac and heavy right-handed (RH) neutrino masses, the lightest right-handed neutrino N{sub 1} is too light to yield successful thermal leptogenesis, barring highly fine tuned solutions, while the second heaviest right-handed neutrino N{sub 2} is typically in the correct mass range. We show that flavour coupling effects in the Boltzmann equations may be crucial to the success of such N{sub 2} dominated leptogenesis, by helping to ensure that the flavour asymmetries produced at the N{sub 2} scale survive N{sub 1} washout. To illustrate these effects we focus on N{sub 2} dominatedmore » leptogenesis in an existing model, the A to Z of flavour with Pati-Salam, where the neutrino Dirac mass matrix may be equal to an up-type quark mass matrix and has a particular constrained structure. The numerical results, supported by analytical insight, show that in order to achieve successful N{sub 2} leptogenesis, consistent with neutrino phenomenology, requires a “flavour swap scenario” together with a less hierarchical pattern of RH neutrino masses than naively expected, at the expense of some mild fine-tuning. In the considered A to Z model neutrino masses are predicted to be normal ordered, with an atmospheric neutrino mixing angle well into the second octant and the Dirac phase δ≃20{sup ∘}, a set of predictions that will be tested in the next years in neutrino oscillation experiments. Flavour coupling effects may be relevant for other SO(10)-inspired unified models where N{sub 2} leptogenesis is necessary.« less
  • In realistic unified models involving so-called SO(10)-inspired patterns of Dirac and heavy right-handed (RH) neutrino masses, the lightest right-handed neutrino N{sub 1} is too light to yield successful thermal leptogenesis, barring highly fine tuned solutions, while the second heaviest right-handed neutrino N{sub 2} is typically in the correct mass range. We show that flavour coupling effects in the Boltzmann equations may be crucial to the success of such N{sub 2} dominated leptogenesis, by helping to ensure that the flavour asymmetries produced at the N{sub 2} scale survive N{sub 1} washout. To illustrate these effects we focus on N{sub 2} dominatedmore » leptogenesis in an existing model, the A to Z of flavour with Pati-Salam, where the neutrino Dirac mass matrix may be equal to an up-type quark mass matrix and has a particular constrained structure. The numerical results, supported by analytical insight, show that in order to achieve successful N{sub 2} leptogenesis, consistent with neutrino phenomenology, requires a ''flavour swap scenario'' together with a less hierarchical pattern of RH neutrino masses than naively expected, at the expense of some mild fine-tuning. In the considered A to Z model neutrino masses are predicted to be normal ordered, with an atmospheric neutrino mixing angle well into the second octant and the Dirac phase δ≅ 20{sup o}, a set of predictions that will be tested in the next years in neutrino oscillation experiments. Flavour coupling effects may be relevant for other SO(10)-inspired unified models where N{sub 2} leptogenesis is necessary.« less
  • Multifluid equations describing the plasma of vacuum arcs expanding anisotropically from a cathode spot are given and discussed. Some first and preliminary results from an approximate analytical integration of such a system of equations, based on the representation of all plasma parameters by asymptotic power series, are presented and evaluated. Though the dependence of the plasma parameters on the direction (angle {var_theta}) is weak, the inclusion of angular terms and angular equations changes some results significantly, compared with the experiences from usually 1-D models. While the basic radial dependence (r) of the terms {approximately}r{sup {minus}2k/5}, k = 0, 1, 2more » ..., remains the same as in 1-D theories, the author now gets an angular dependence {approximately}{var_theta}{sup 2} of the parameters in a first approximation, with positive factors, i.e., a flattening of the whole plasma distribution. However, with analytical solutions of higher flexibility, cos-like distributions are possible as well. The final kinetic energy of the plasma ions in the case of Cu arc spots is caused by the electric field within the plasma (contributing approximately 27%), the ion pressure gradient ({approximately}24%), and the electron-ion friction (plasma resistivity, {approximately}49%) in directions near to the discharge axis. Again, similar to the results from 1-D models. With an approach to the cathode surface ({var_theta} {yields} {pi}/2), the plasma flow becomes ambipolar. Finally, some further possibilities which are available with the help of this model are discussed.« less