IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9490-d878641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Long Goodbye: Finally Moving on from the Relative Potency Approach to a Mixtures Approach for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Author

Listed:
  • Lynne T. Haber

    (Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, 160 Panzeca Way, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA)

  • Alison M. Pecquet

    (Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, 160 Panzeca Way, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA
    Syngenta AG, Greensboro, NC 27409, USA)

  • Melissa J. Vincent

    (Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, 160 Panzeca Way, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA
    ChemRisk, Cincinnati, OH 45242, USA)

  • Louise M. White

    (Environmental Health Program, Health Canada, Halifax, NS B3J 3Y6, Canada
    Retired.)

Abstract

For the past several decades, a relative potency approach has been used to estimate the human health risks from exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures. Risk estimates are derived using potency equivalence factors (PEFs; also called relative potency factors [RPFs]), based on the ratio of selected PAHs to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), expressed qualitatively by orders of magnitude. To quantify PEFs for 18 selected carcinogenic PAHs, a systematic approach with a priori and dose response criteria was developed, building on draft work by the US EPA in 2010 and its review by US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2011. An exhaustive search for carcinogenicity studies that included both target PAHs and BaP with environmentally relevant exposure routes found only 48 animal bioassay datasets (mostly pre-1992 based on skin painting). Only eight datasets provided adequate low-response data, and of these only four datasets were appropriate for modeling to estimate PEFs; only benzo[b]fluoranthene and cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene had a PEF that could be quantified. Thus, current knowledge of PAH carcinogenicity is insufficient to support quantitative PEFs for PAH mixtures. This highlights the long-acknowledged need for an interdisciplinary approach to estimate risks from PAH mixtures. Use of alternative and short-term toxicity testing methods, improved mixture characterization, understanding the fate and bioavailability of PAH mixtures, and understanding exposure route-related differences in carcinogenicity are discussed as ways to improve the understanding of the risks of PAHs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynne T. Haber & Alison M. Pecquet & Melissa J. Vincent & Louise M. White, 2022. "The Long Goodbye: Finally Moving on from the Relative Potency Approach to a Mixtures Approach for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-25, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9490-:d:878641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9490/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9490/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. W. Gaylor & S. J. Culp & L. S. Goldstein & F. A. Beland, 2000. "Cancer Risk Estimation for Mixtures of Coal Tars and Benzo(a)pyrene," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 81-86, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frédéric Dor & Roseline Bonnard & Claire Gourier‐Fréry & André Cicolella & Roland Dujardin & Denis Zmirou, 2003. "Health Risk Assessment After Decontamination of the Beaches Polluted by the Wrecked ERIKA Tanker," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1199-1208, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    PAHs; PEF; RPF; potency; mixtures;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9490-:d:878641. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.