Young children have a greater ventilation rate per body weight or pulmonary surface area as compared to adults. The implications of this difference for inhalation dosimetry and children's risk assessment were evaluated in runs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1994 reference concentration (RfC) methodology and the ICRP 1994 inhalation dosimetry model. Dosimetry estimates were made for 3-mo-old children and adults for particles and Category 1 and 2 reactive gases in the following respiratory-tract regions: extrathoracic (ET), tracheobronchial (BB), bronchioles (bb), and pulmonary (PU). Systemic dosimetry estimates were made for nonreactive (Category 3) gases. Results suggest similar ET dosimetry for children and adults for all types of inhaled materials. BB dosimetry was also similar across age groups except that the dosimetry of ultrafine particles in this region was twofold greater in 3-mo-old children than in adults. In contrast, the bb region generally showed higher dosimetry of particles and gases in adults than in children. Particle dose in the PU region was two- to fourfold higher in 3-mo-old children, with the greatest child/adult difference occurring for submicron size particles. Particulate dosimetry estimates with the default RfC methodology were below those found with the ICRP model for both adults and children for submicrometer sized particles. There were no cases in which reactive gas dosimetry was substantially greater in the respiratory regions of 3-mo-old children. Estimates of systemic dose of Category 3 gases were greater in 3-mo-old children than in adults, especially for liver dose of metabolite for rapidly metabolized gases. These analyses support the approach of assuming twofold greater inhalation dose in children than adults, although there are cases in which this differential can be greater and others where it can be less.

In the 2007 report Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences envisioned a major transition in toxicity testing from cumbersome, expensive, and lengthy in vivo testing with qualitative endpoints, to in vitro robotic high-throughput screening with mechanistic quantitative parameters. Recognizing the need for agencies to partner and collaborate to ensure global harmonization, standardization, quality control and information sharing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is leading by example and has established an intra-agency Future of Toxicity Testing Workgroup (FTTW). This workgroup has produced an ambitious blueprint for incorporating this new scientific paradigm to change the way chemicals are screened and evaluated for toxicity. Four main components of this strategy are discussed, as follows: (1) the impact and benefits of various types of regulatory activities, (2) chemical screening and prioritization, (3) toxicity pathway-based risk assessment, and (4) institutional transition. The new paradigm is predicated on the discovery of molecular perturbation pathways at the in vitro level that predict adverse health effects from xenobiotics exposure, and then extrapolating those events to the tissue, organ, or whole organisms by computational models. Research on these pathways will be integrated and compiled using the latest technology with the cooperation of global agencies, industry, and other stakeholders. The net result will be that chemical toxicity screening will become more efficient and cost-effective, include real-world exposure assessments, and eliminate currently used uncertainty factors.

HighlightsWe propose a harmonized set of age bins for assessing risks from chemical exposure.The set of early life age groups will facilitate consistency with recent guidance.The age bins allow results from longitudinal birth cohort studies to be combined.Region-specific exposure factors and monitoring data are needed to apply the bins.

The purpose of this article is to describe a standard set of age groups for exposure assessors to consider when assessing childhood exposure and potential dose to environmental contaminants. In addition, this article presents examples to show how the age groups can be applied in children's exposure assessments. A consistent set of childhood age groups, supported by an underlying scientific rationale, will improve the accuracy and comparability of exposure and risk assessments for children. The effort was undertaken in part to aid the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in implementing such regulatory initiatives as the 1997 Presidential Executive Order 13,045, which required all federal agencies to ensure that their standards take into account special risks to children. The standard age groups include: birth to <1 month; 1 to <3 months; 3 to <6 months; 6 to <12 months; 1 to <2 years; 2 to <3 years; 3 to <6 years; 6 to <11 years; 11 to <16 years; and 16 to <21 years. These age groups reflect a consideration of developmental changes in various behavioral, anatomical, and physiological characteristics that impact exposure and potential dose. It is expected that the availability of a standard set of early-life age groups will inform future analyses of exposure factors data as well as guide new research and data collection efforts to fill knowledge gaps.

Increasing attention has been placed on inhalation dosimetry in children because of children's greater air intake rate and unique windows of vulnerability for various toxicants and health outcomes. However, risk assessments have not incorporated this information because dosimetric adjustments have focused upon extrapolation across species rather than across age groups within the human population. The objectives of this study were to synthesize information regarding child/adult intake and dosimetry differences for particles and gases for potential application to risk assessment. Data and models gathered at a 2006 workshop and more recent studies were reviewed to better understand lung development and inhaled dose in children. The results show that child/adult differences exist both on a chemical intake basis and on a deposited or systemic dose basis. These differences can persist for several years and are not captured by standard intraspecies uncertainty factors or by USEPA's reference concentration (RfC) methodology. Options for incorporating children's inhalation exposures into human risk assessments include (1) 3-fold default air intake adjustment for the first 3 years of life with a reduced factor for older children; (2) superseding this default via simplified dosimetry models akin to USEPA's RfC methodology modified for children; (3) utilizing more sophisticated models with better anatomical and air flow descriptions; (4) running these models with input distributions to reflect interchild variability; (5) developing more advanced approaches involving imaging techniques and computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models. These options will enable children's inhaled dose to have a quantitative role in risk assessment that has been lacking and will establish a basis for ongoing research.