Health assessment of gasoline and fuel oxygenate vapors: subchronic inhalation toxicity.

Sprague Dawley rats were exposed via inhalation to vapor condensates of either gasoline or gasoline combined with various fuel oxygenates to assess whether their use in gasoline influences the hazard of evaporative emissions. Test substances included vapor condensates prepared from an EPA described "baseline gasoline" (BGVC), or gasoline combined with methyl tertiary butyl ether (G/MTBE), ethyl t-butyl ether (G/ETBE), t-amyl methyl ether (G/TAME), diisopropyl ether (G/DIPE), ethanol (G/EtOH), or t-butyl alcohol (G/TBA). Target concentrations were 0, 2000, 10,000 or 20,000mg/m(3) and exposures were for 6h/day, 5days/week for 13weeks. A portion of the animals were maintained for a four week recovery period to determine the reversibility of potential adverse effects. Increased kidney weight and light hydrocarbon nephropathy (LHN) were observed in treated male rats in all studies which were reversible or nearly reversible after 4weeks recovery. LHN is unique to male rats and is not relevant to human toxicity. The no observed effect level (NOAEL) in all studies was 10,000mg/m(3), except for G/MTBE (<2000) and G/TBA (2000). The results provide evidence that use of the studied oxygenates are unlikely to increase the hazard of evaporative emissions during refueling, compared to those from gasoline alone.

Asphalt fume dermal carcinogenicity potential: II. Initiation-promotion assay of Type III built-up roofing asphalt.

Clark et al. (accepted for publication) reported that a sample of field-matched fume condensate from a Type III built-up roofing asphalt (BURA) resulted in a carcinogenic response in a mouse skin bioassay, with relatively few tumor-bearing animals, long tumor latency and chronic skin irritation. This mouse skin initiation/promotion study was conducted to assess possible mechanisms, i.e., genotoxic initiation vs. tumor promotion subsequent to repeated skin injury and repair. The same Type III BURA fume condensate sample was evaluated in groups of 30 male Crl:CD1® mice by skin application twice per week (total dose of 50 mg/week) for 2 weeks during the initiation phase and for 26 weeks during the promotion phase. Positive control substances were 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA, 50 µg applied once) as an initiator and 12-O-tetradecanoyl-13-acetate (TPA, 5 µg, applied twice weekly) during the promotion phase. During the 6 months of study with the asphalt fume condensate, eight skin masses were observed when tested for initiation, five of which were confirmed microscopically to be benign squamous cell papillomas. Only two papillomas were observed when tested for promotion. There was no apparent relationship between skin irritation and tumor development in this study. These results are more indicative of genotoxicity rather than a non-genotoxic mode of action.

Asphalt fume dermal carcinogenicity potential: I. dermal carcinogenicity evaluation of asphalt (bitumen) fume condensates.

Asphalt (bitumen) fume condensates collected from the headspace above paving and Type III built up roofing asphalt (BURA) tanks were evaluated in two-year dermal carcinogenicity assays in male C3H/HeNCrl mice. A third sample was generated from the BURA using a NIOSH laboratory generation method. Similar to earlier NIOSH studies, the BURA fume condensates were applied dermally in mineral oil twice per week; the paving sample was applied 7 days/week for a total weekly dose of 50 mg/wk in both studies. A single benign papilloma was observed in a group of 80 mice exposed to paving fume condensate at the end of the two-year study and only mild skin irritation was observed. The lab generated BURA fume condensate resulted in statistically significant (P<0.0001) increases in squamous cell carcinomas (35 animals or 55% of animals at risk). The field-matched BURA condensate showed a weaker but significant (P=0.0063) increase (8 carcinomas or 13% of animals) and a longer average latency (90 weeks vs. 76 for the lab fume). Significant irritation was observed in both BURA condensates. It is concluded that the paving fume condensate was not carcinogenic under the test conditions and that the field-matched BURA fume condensate produced a weak tumor response compared to the lab generated sample.