ABSTRACT
Many government agencies and expert groups have estimated a dose-rate of perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) that would protect human health. Most of these evaluations are based on the same studies (whether of humans, laboratory animals, or both), and all note various uncertainties in our existing knowledge. Nonetheless, the values of these various, estimated, safe-doses vary widely, with some being more than 100,000 fold different. This sort of discrepancy invites scrutiny and explanation. Otherwise what is the lay public to make of this disparity? The Steering Committee of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (2022) called for scientists interested in attempting to understand and narrow these disparities. An advisory committee of nine scientists from four countries was selected from nominations received, and a subsequent invitation to scientists internationally led to the formation of three technical teams (for a total of 24 scientists from 8 countries). The teams reviewed relevant information and independently developed ranges for estimated PFOA safe doses. All three teams determined that the available epidemiologic information could not form a reliable basis for a PFOA safe dose-assessment in the absence of mechanistic data that are relevant for humans at serum concentrations seen in the general population. Based instead on dose-response data from five studies of PFOA-exposed laboratory animals, we estimated that PFOA dose-rates 10-70 ng/kg-day are protective of human health.
Subject(s)
Caprylates , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Fluorocarbons , International Cooperation , Caprylates/toxicity , Fluorocarbons/toxicity , Humans , Animals , Risk Assessment , Environmental Pollutants/toxicity , Environmental Exposure/adverse effectsSubject(s)
Environmental Pollutants/blood , Occupational Exposure/analysis , Rescue Work , September 11 Terrorist Attacks , Adult , Benzofurans/blood , Benzofurans/pharmacokinetics , Dibenzofurans, Polychlorinated , Dioxins/blood , Dioxins/pharmacokinetics , Environmental Pollutants/pharmacokinetics , Humans , Inactivation, Metabolic , Male , Middle Aged , Polychlorinated Biphenyls/blood , Polychlorinated Biphenyls/pharmacokineticsABSTRACT
Whether and to what extent contaminated sites harm ecologic and human health are topics of considerable interest, but also considerable uncertainty. Several federal and state agencies have approved the use of some or many aspects of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), but its site-specific application has often been limited to high-profile sites and large projects. Nonetheless, times are changing: newly developed software tools, and recent federal and state guidance documents formalizing PRA procedures, now make PRA a readily available method of analysis for even small-scale projects. This article presents and discusses a broad review of PRA literature published since 2000.
Subject(s)
Risk Assessment , Environmental Exposure , Health Status Indicators , Humans , Models, Statistical , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Risk Management , United States , United States Environmental Protection AgencyABSTRACT
Chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents, such as trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, have been used widely in many industries because of their ready ability to dissolve oils, greases, and other materials, their low acute toxicity, and their non-flammability. Although these materials share certain toxicologic, functional, and chemical similarities, important differences exist. These differences largely explain why certain solvents, once common, are no longer in use and why others have become more widely used over time. This article reviews the properties, toxicologic effects of interest, workplace limits, and use history of the most common chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents.
Subject(s)
Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Solvents/adverse effects , Humans , Maximum Allowable Concentration , Methylene Chloride/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Tetrachloroethylene/adverse effects , Trichloroethanes/adverse effects , Trichloroethylene/adverse effects , United StatesABSTRACT
U.S. regulations that set standards for acceptable concentrations of respirable particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air, particularly total fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)), are based largely on the belief that current concentrations cause death and illness, and that reducing these concentrations will save lives. Because the mortality risk estimates from important observational epidemiologic studies are extremely weak, derived from studies unable to control for relevant confounding causes, and inconsistent by location, toxicologic and clinical information is necessary to judge the likelihood and degree to which such findings are causal. Toxicologic data on typical forms of pollution-derived PM strongly suggest that current ambient concentrations in the U.S. are too small to cause significant disease or death. We review here the results of inhalation studies using concentrated ambient particles, diesel engine exhaust particulate matter, and sulfate and nitrate salts, and find no evidence that moderate concentrations are lethal. The expectation that lives will be saved by reducing ambient PM(2.5) in the U.S. is not supported by the weight of scientific evidence, although other bases for regulating PM may be justifiable.
Subject(s)
Air Pollutants/standards , Mortality/trends , Particle Size , Toxicology/trends , Air Pollutants/chemistry , Animals , Humans , Risk Assessment/trends , United States/epidemiology , United States Environmental Protection Agency/standardsABSTRACT
Associations between airborne concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)) and mortality rates have been investigated primarily by ecologic or semiecologic epidemiology studies. Many investigators and regulatory agencies have inferred that the weak, positive association often observed is causal, that it applies to all forms of airborne PM(2.5), and that current ambient levels of PM(2.5) require reduction. Before implementing stringent regulations of ambient PM(2.5), analysts should pause to consider whether the accumulated evidence is sufficient, and sufficiently detailed, to support the PM(2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard. We take two tacks. First, we analyze the toxicologic evidence, finding it inconsistent with the notion that current ambient concentrations of all forms of fine particulate matter should affect pulmonary, cardiac, or all-cause mortality rates. More generally, we note that the thousands of forms of PM(2.5) are remarkably diverse, yet the PM(2.5) NAAQS presumes them to be identical toxicologically, and presumes that reducing ambient concentrations of any form of PM(2.5) will improve public health. Second, we examine the epidemiologic evidence in light of two related examples of semiecologic associations, examples that both inform the PM-mortality association and have been called into question by individual-level data. Taken together, the toxicologic evidence and lessons learned from analogous epidemiologic associations should encourage further investigation of the association between particulate matter and mortality rates before additional regulation is implemented, and certainly before the association is characterized as causal and applicable to all PM(2.5).