The use and evaluation of primary data in 29 trichloroethylene carcinogen risk assessments.

This paper reports the results from a detailed study on how risk assessments of chemicals are actually made. The study is performed by comparing 29 cancer risk assessments made of one and the same chemical substance, namely, trichloroethylene. In this paper, the conclusions that are drawn in these risk assessment documents are described, and differences between the conclusions are explored. This is made within the framework of a proposed cancer risk assessment index. The selection of scientific data for risk assessment purposes is analyzed and the different risk assessors' interpretations and evaluations of individual primary data are compared. It is concluded that the data sets utilized by the trichloroethylene risk assessors are surprisingly incomplete and that biased data selection may have influenced some of the risk assessors' conclusions. Different risk assessors often interpret and evaluate one and the same study in different ways. There are also indications of both interpretation bias and evaluation bias for some of the risk assessors.