Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are formed during incomplete combustion. Domestic wood burning and road traffic are the major sources of PAHs in Sweden. In Stockholm, the sum of 14 different PAHs is 100-200 ng/m(3) at the street-level site, the most abundant being phenanthrene. Benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) varies between 1 and 2 ng/m(3). Exposure to PAH-containing substances increases the risk of cancer in humans. The carcinogenicity of PAHs is associated with the complexity of the molecule, i.e., increasing number of benzenoid rings, and with metabolic activation to reactive diol epoxide intermediates and their subsequent covalent binding to critical targets in DNA. B[a]P is the main indicator of carcinogenic PAHs. Fluoranthene is an important volatile PAH because it occurs at high concentrations in ambient air and because it is an experimental carcinogen in certain test systems. Thus, fluoranthene is suggested as a complementary indicator to B[a]P. The most carcinogenic PAH identified, dibenzo[a,l]pyrene, is also suggested as an indicator, although it occurs at very low concentrations. Quantitative cancer risk estimates of PAHs as air pollutants are very uncertain because of the lack of useful, good-quality data. According to the World Health Organization Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, the unit risk is 9 X 10(-5) per ng/m(3) of B[a]P as indicator of the total PAH content, namely, lifetime exposure to 0.1 ng/m(3) would theoretically lead to one extra cancer case in 100,000 exposed individuals. This concentration of 0.1 ng/m(3) of B[a]P is suggested as a health-based guideline. Because the carcinogenic potency of fluoranthene has been estimated to be approximately 20 times less than that of B[a]P, a tentative guideline value of 2 ng/m(3) is suggested for fluoranthene. Other significant PAHs are phenanthrene, methylated phenanthrenes/anthracenes and pyrene (high air concentrations), and large-molecule PAHs such as dibenz[a,h]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (high carcinogenicity). Additional source-specific indicators are benzo[ghi]perylene for gasoline vehicles, retene for wood combustion, and dibenzothiophene and benzonaphthothiophene for sulfur-containing fuels.

No abstract

This review deals with the current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose (BMD) concept in health risk assessment of chemicals. The BMD method is an alternative to the traditional no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and has been presented as a methodological improvement in the field of risk assessment. The BMD method has mostly been employed in the USA but is presently given higher attention also in Europe. The review presents a number of arguments in favor of the BMD, relative to the NOAEL. In addition, it gives a detailed overview of the several procedures that have been suggested and applied for BMD analysis, for quantal as well as continuous data. For quantal data the BMD is generally defined as corresponding to an additional or extra risk of 5% or 10%. For continuous endpoints it is suggested that the BMD is defined as corresponding to a percentage change in response relative to background or relative to the dynamic range of response. Under such definitions, a 5% or 10% change can be considered as default. Besides how to define the BMD and its lower bound, the BMDL, the question of how to select the dose-response model to be used in the BMD and BMDL determination is highlighted. Issues of study design and comparison of dose-response curves and BMDs are also covered.

The benchmark dose method has been proposed as an alternative to the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) approach for assessing noncancer risks associated with hazardous compounds. The benchmark dose method is a more powerful statistical tool than the traditional NOAEL approach and represents a step in the right direction for a more accurate risk assessment. The benchmark dose method involves fitting a mathematical model to all the dose-response data within a study, and thus more biological information is incorporated in the resulting estimates of guidance values (e.g., acceptable daily intakes, ADIs). Although there is an increasing interest in the benchmark dose approach, it has not yet found its way into the regulatory toxicology in Europe, while in the United States the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already uses the benchmark dose in health risk assessment. Several software packages are today available for benchmark dose calculations. The availability of software to facilitate the analysis can make modeling appear simple, but often the interpretation of the results is not trivial, and it is recommended that benchmark dose modeling be performed in collaboration with a toxicologist and someone familiar with this type of statistical analysis. The procedure does not replace expert judgments of toxicologists and others addressing the hazard characterization issues in risk assessment. The aim of this article is to make risk assessors familiar with the concept, to show how the method can be used, and to describe some possibilities, limitations, and extensions of the benchmark dose approach. In this article the benchmark dose approach is presented in detail and compared to the traditional NOAEL approach. Statistical methods essential for the benchmark dose method are presented in Appendix A, and different mathematical models used in the U.S. EPA's BMD software, the Crump software, and the Kalliomaa software are described in the text and in Appendix B. For replacement of NOAEL in health risk assessment it is considered important that consensus is reached on the crucial parts of the benchmark dose method, that is, selection of risk types and the determination of a response level corresponding to the BMD, especially for continuous data. It is suggested that the BMD method is used as a first choice and that in cases where it is not possible to fit a model to the data the traditional NOAEL approach should be used instead. The possibilities to make benchmark dose calculations on continuous data need to be further investigated. In addition, it is of importance to study whether it would be appropriate to increase the number of dose levels by decreasing the number of animals in each dose group.

No abstract