Cancer risk estimates for oral uptake of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) currently are based on risk estimates for benzo[a]pyrene (BAP). The potency of PAH mixtures often is calculated using relative potency values (BAP equivalency factors). We used recent oral carcinogenicity studies with BAP and coal tar mixtures, as well as older studies for a critical reappraisal of the current practice. A literature survey identified several carcinogenicity studies with oral and dermal exposure and lung implantation that allow a direct comparison of the carcinogenic potency of pure BAP and PAH mixtures. Moreover, when the PAH composition of the mixture has been analysed, prediction of the potency of PAH mixtures by BAP equivalency factors could be compared with the observed PAH potency. The analysis indicates that BAP equivalency factors do not describe adequately the potency of PAH mixtures and lead to underestimations of carcinogenic potency in most cases. Evaluation of several studies with various PAH mixtures revealed that the potency ratio between pure BAP and the PAH mixture in the same assay is highly dependent on the exposure pathway and the target organ, therefore potency estimates for PAH mixtures should be derived separately for oral, dermal and inhalative exposure using data from studies with the relevant pathway. A cancer slope factor for oral PAH exposure was derived based on data from a recent feeding study with coal tar mixtures. By using incidence data for all exposure-related tumours, a slope factor for humans of 11.5 (human excess risk per oral lifetime exposure with 1 mg BAP kg(-1)day(-1) in a PAH mixture) was obtained. Our analysis led to the conclusion that the contribution of BAP to the carcinogenic potency of the mixture depends on the exposure pathway and type of cancer observed but is relatively constant for various PAH mixtures from industrial sources. Thus, the derived oral slope factor is recommended to be used for the risk assessment of PAH-contaminated soils.
Large epidemiological studies in the United States have shown a statistical association between air concentration of the fine dust fraction PM(2.5) in the general environment and increased risk of lung cancer. A quantitative risk assessment for lung cancer based on these studies corresponds to risk estimates based on studies at workplaces with exposure to diesel engine emissions; its magnitude cannot be explained by the known carcinogenicity of organic substances or metals adsorbed to the insoluble particle core. Carcinogenic effects of diesel particles were observed after inhalation in rats independently in several studies. The surprisingly strong effect of diesel particles was partially attributed to their small size. This hypothesis was corroborated by inhalation studies with synthetic nanoparticles virtually free of organic compounds. IARC found sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of carbon black and of titanium dioxide in experimental animals. Long-term studies by the method of intratracheal instillation confirmed the carcinogenic effects in rats for an even broader spectrum of synthetic nanoparticles. Non-positive studies with hamsters are not valid because hamsters did not develop lung tumors after inhalation of some known human carcinogens. In recent years, the number of publications reporting in vitro genotoxicity of TiO(2) and of carbon black nanomaterials has increased. Overall, there is clear positive evidence for carcinogenicity in rats, together with supporting evidence from human data of structurally related substances. Therefore, the European Union (EU) criteria for category 2 of carcinogenic substances appear to be fulfilled for bio-durable nanoparticles consisting of matter without known significant specific toxicity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.