Valberg Peter A
Gradient Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA.
Inhal Toxicol. 2004;16 Suppl 1:19-29. doi: 10.1080/08958370490442935.
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.
对生活在空气质量良好地区人群的流行病学研究报告了环境颗粒物(PM)水平与死亡率之间的相关性。这些关联出现在低于当前空气质量标准的低PM浓度下。考虑到PM化学成分的毒性,这样的浓度会导致死亡吗?我们研究了美国环境保护局(EPA)人类健康风险评估中通常使用的化学物质特异性剂量反应数据。这些评估依赖于已确定的非癌症健康终点的无效应阈值。我们发现,被确定为环境PM成分的化学物质的浓度大大低于风险评估中使用的监管阈值(即低于确定预期无不良健康影响水平的参考浓度系数(RfCs)和参考剂量(RfDs))。从风险评估的角度来看,接触环境PM中化学物质的浓度(例如硫酸盐、硝酸盐和元素碳)预计不会导致死亡。因此,“监管影响分析”中归因于环境PM的健康影响似乎与美国EPA对PM化学物质的标准健康风险评估所预测的结果不一致。这个悖论的四种可能解决方案是:(1)环境PM中存在的化学物质混合物的毒性比单个成分的总和大得多;(2)一小部分普通人群对某些环境PM化学物质的敏感性比美国EPA毒性因子所反映的要高得多;(3)环境PM的毒性与其化学成分无关;或(4)PM质量浓度不是所报告关联中的因果因素。这些关联可能是因为环境PM浓度(1)是未测量的共污染物(例如有害空气污染物)的替代指标;(2)与无法完全控制的混杂因素(例如天气、人口统计学)共同变化;或(3)与未测量的(例如社会、行为或压力)因素共同变化。