Risk estimates can be calculated using crisp estimates of the exposure variables (i.e., contaminant concentration, contact rate, exposure frequency and duration, body weight, and averaging time). However, aggregate and cumulative exposure studies require a better understanding of exposure variables and uncertainty and variability associated with them. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) studies use probability distributions for one or more variables of the risk equation in order to quantitatively characterize variability and uncertainty. Two-dimensional Monte Carlo Analysis (2D MCA) is one of the advanced modeling approaches that may be used to conduct PRA studies. In this analysis the variables of the risk equation along with the parameters of these variables (for example mean and standard deviation for a normal distribution) are described in terms of probability density functions (PDFs). A variable described in this way is called a "second order random variable." Significant data or considerable insight to uncertainty associated with these variables is necessary to develop the appropriate PDFs for these random parameters. Typically, available data and accuracy and reliability of such data are not sufficient for conducting a reliable 2D MCA. Thus, other theories and computational methods that propagate uncertainty and variability in exposure and health risk assessment are needed. One such theory is possibility analysis based on fuzzy set theory, which allows the utilization of incomplete information (incomplete information includes vague and imprecise information that is not sufficient to generate probability distributions for the parameters of the random variables of the risk equation) together with expert judgment. In this paper, as an alternative to 2D MCA, we are proposing a 2D Fuzzy Monte Carlo Analysis (2D FMCA) to overcome this difficulty. In this approach, instead of describing the parameters of PDFs used in defining the variables of the risk equation as random variables, we describe them as fuzzy numbers. This approach introduces new concepts and risk characterization methods. In this paper we provide a comparison of these two approaches relative to their computational requirements, data requirements and availability. For a hypothetical case, we also provide a comperative interpretation of the results generated.