Literature DB >> 15204790

Is PM more toxic than the sum of its parts? Risk-assessment toxicity factors vs. PM-mortality "effect functions".

Peter A Valberg1.   

Abstract

Epidemiology studies of populations living in areas with good air quality report correlations between levels of ambient particulate matter (PM) and mortality rates. These associations occur at low PM concentrations that are below current air quality standards. Can such concentrations cause mortality, given the toxicity of PM chemical constituents? We examined chemical-specific, dose-response data typically used in U.S. EPA human health risk assessments. These assessments rely on established, no-effect thresholds for noncancer health endpoints. We found that chemicals identified as constituents of ambient PM are present at concentrations considerably below the regulatory thresholds used in risk assessment (i.e., below the RfCs and RfDs that identify levels for which no adverse health effects are anticipated). From the perspective of risk assessment, exposure to the concentrations of chemicals in ambient PM (e.g., sulfate, nitrate, and elemental carbon) cannot be expected to cause death. Hence, the health effects attributed to ambient PM in "regulatory impact analyses" appear to be at odds with what would be predicted from a standard U.S. EPA health-risk assessment for PM chemicals. Four possible resolutions of this paradox are that (1) the mixtures of chemicals present in ambient PM are vastly more toxic than the sum of individual components, (2) small portions of the general population are vastly more sensitive to certain ambient PM chemicals than reflected in U.S. EPA toxicity factors, (3) the toxicity of ambient PM is unrelated to its chemical constituents, or (4) PM mass concentration is not the causal factor in the reported associations. The associations may arise because ambient PM concentrations (1) are a surrogate for unmeasured copollutants (e.g., HAPs), (2) covary with confounding factors that cannot be fully controlled (e.g., weather, demographics), or (3) covary with unmeasured (e.g., societal, behavioral, or stress) factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15204790     DOI: 10.1080/08958370490442935

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Inhal Toxicol        ISSN: 0895-8378            Impact factor:   2.724


  4 in total

1.  In search of the most relevant parameter for quantifying lung inflammatory response to nanoparticle exposure: particle number, surface area, or what?

Authors:  Klaus Wittmaack
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2006-10-03       Impact factor: 9.031

2.  Long-range fine particulate matter from the 2002 Quebec forest fires and daily mortality in Greater Boston and New York City.

Authors:  Ke Zu; Ge Tao; Christopher Long; Julie Goodman; Peter Valberg
Journal:  Air Qual Atmos Health       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 3.763

3.  Synergistic effect of co-exposure to carbon black and Fe2O3 nanoparticles on oxidative stress in cultured lung epithelial cells.

Authors:  Bing Guo; Rema Zebda; Stephen J Drake; Christie M Sayes
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2009-02-09       Impact factor: 9.400

Review 4.  What Are the Net Benefits of Reducing the Ozone Standard to 65 ppb? An Alternative Analysis.

Authors:  Sabine S Lange; Sean E Mulholland; Michael E Honeycutt
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.