Nadadur Srikanth S, Miller C Andrew, Hopke Philip K, Gordon Terry, Vedal Sverre, Vandenberg John J, Costa Daniel L
National Center for Environmental Assessment, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
Toxicol Sci. 2007 Dec;100(2):318-27. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm170. Epub 2007 Jul 3.
The Clean Air Act mandates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to periodically reassess existing and new science that underlie the regulation of major ambient pollutants -- particulate matter (PM) and tropospheric ozone being most notable. While toxic effects have been ascribed individually to these and other pollutants in the air, it is clear that mixtures of these contaminants have the potential to interact and thereby influence their overall toxic outcomes. It follows that a more comprehensive assessment of the potential health effects of the air pollution complex might better protect human health; however, traditional regulatory drivers and funding constraints have impeded progress to such a goal. Despite difficulties in empirically conducting studies of complex mixtures of air pollutants and acquiring relevant exposure data, there remains a need to develop integrated, interdisciplinary research and analytical strategies to provide more comprehensive (and relevant) assessments of associated health outcomes and risks. The research and assessment communities are endeavoring to dissect this complexity using varied approaches Here we present five interdisciplinary perspectives of this evolving line of thought among researchers and those who use such data in assessment: (1) analyses that coordinate air quality-health analyses utilizing representative polluted U.S. air sheds to apportion source and component-specific health risks; (2) novel approaches to characterize air quality in terms of emission sources and how emission reduction strategies might effectively impact pollutant levels; (3) insights from present-day studies of effects of single ambient pollutants in animal and controlled clinical toxicology studies and how these are evolving to address air pollution; (4) refinements in epidemiologic health assessments that take advantage of the complexities of existent air quality conditions; and (5) new approaches to integrative analyses to establish the criteria for regulation of PM and other criteria pollutants. As these examples illustrate, implementing multidisciplined and integrative strategies offer the promise of more realistic and relevant science, greater reductions in uncertainty, and improved overall air pollution assessment. The regulatory mandate may lag behind the science, but real gains both in public health benefit and the science to dissect complex problems will result.
《清洁空气法》要求美国环境保护局定期重新评估构成主要环境污染物(最显著的是颗粒物(PM)和对流层臭氧)监管基础的现有科学和新科学。虽然已经分别将毒性作用归因于空气中的这些和其他污染物,但很明显,这些污染物的混合物有可能相互作用,从而影响其总体毒性结果。因此,对空气污染复合体潜在健康影响进行更全面的评估可能会更好地保护人类健康;然而,传统的监管驱动因素和资金限制阻碍了实现这一目标的进展。尽管在对空气污染物复杂混合物进行实证研究以及获取相关暴露数据方面存在困难,但仍需要制定综合、跨学科的研究和分析策略,以提供对相关健康结果和风险更全面(且相关)的评估。研究和评估界正努力用各种方法剖析这种复杂性。在此,我们展示研究人员以及在评估中使用此类数据的人员对这一不断发展的思路的五个跨学科观点:(1)利用美国有代表性的污染空气流域协调空气质量 - 健康分析,以分摊源和特定成分的健康风险;(2)根据排放源表征空气质量以及减排策略如何有效影响污染物水平的新方法;(3)当前动物和受控临床毒理学研究中单一环境污染物影响研究的见解以及这些研究如何发展以应对空气污染;(4)利用现有空气质量条件的复杂性改进流行病学健康评估;(5)建立PM和其他标准污染物监管标准的综合分析新方法。正如这些例子所示,实施多学科和综合策略有望带来更现实和相关的科学、更大程度地降低不确定性以及改进整体空气污染评估。监管要求可能落后于科学,但将在公共健康效益以及剖析复杂问题的科学方面取得实际成果。