Carbon Black Risk Assessment Comparison Is Flawed

UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
Mark R. Schulz, Assistant Professor (Creator)
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
Web Site:

Abstract: Although the effort of Valberg and Watson (1996) to incorporate epidemiologic data into an assessment of the plausibility of carcinogenicity estimates is to be commended, their analysis contains a fundamental flaw. The authors equate comparison of observed rates with expected rates, a common technique in epidemiology, to a comparison of the number of observed events with an expected number of events. The two comparisons are not equivalent. The only circumstance in which they are equivalent is when the same denominator of person-time produces both the observed and the expected events.

Additional Information

Hertz-Picciotto, I., Korte, J., Schulz, M. R. , Chiang, T., & Ball, L. (1997). Carbon black risk assessment comparison is flawed (letter). Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology, 26 (3), 338-339.
Language: English
Date: 1997
Carcinogens, Carbon, Risk Assessment, Evaluation

Email this document to