Search

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is currently refining its approach for risk assessments conducted under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), largely based on recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). We identified several issues with the current TSCA risk assessment approach that were not addressed by NASEM in its recommendations. Here, we demonstrate these issues with a case study of the 'Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos,' which US EPA released in December 2020. In this evaluation, US EPA found that occupational and some consumer uses of automotive brakes and clutches that contain asbestos result in unreasonable risks. These risks were calculated from estimated exposures during brake work and an inhalation unit risk (IUR) developed for chrysotile asbestos. We found that US EPA overestimated risk as a result of unrealistic inputs to both the exposure and toxicity components of the risk equation, and because the Agency did not fully consider relevant epidemiology and toxicity evidence in its systematic review. Our evaluation demonstrates areas in which the TSCA risk assessment approach could be improved to result in risk evaluations that are supported by the available scientific evidence.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a high production volume chemical that is used in plastics and epoxy coatings. In 2015, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added BPA to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause reproductive toxicity” based on its Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee's (DART-IC) conclusion that BPA has been shown to cause female reproductive toxicity. A critical factor in determining compliance with Proposition 65 is a Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL), which is the exposure level at which a chemical would have no observable reproductive effect even if a person were exposed to 1000 times that level. We performed a comprehensive review of the literature, including the studies reviewed by DART-IC, and derived an oral MADL. Of all the studies we identified, Delclos et al. (2014) is of sufficient quality, has the lowest no observed effect level (NOEL), and results in the most conservative MADL of 157 μg/d. This is generally supported by other studies, including those that were considered by DART-IC. Also, the oral MADL provides a similar margin of safety as OEHHA's dermal MADL and other regulatory guidelines. Taken together, the scientific data support an oral MADL of 157 μg/d.

Esophageal cancers comprise about 1% of all cancers diagnosed in the US but are more prevalent in other regions of the world. Several regulatory agencies have classified asbestos as a known human carcinogen, and it is linked to multiple diseases and malignancies, including lung cancer and mesothelioma. In a 2006 review of the epidemiological literature, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) did not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal relationship between asbestos exposure and esophageal cancer. To reevaluate this conclusion, we performed a critical review of the animal toxicological, epidemiological, and mechanism of action literature on esophageal cancer and asbestos, incorporating studies published since 2006. Although there is some evidence in the epidemiological literature for an increased risk of esophageal cancer in asbestos-exposed occupational cohorts, these studies generally did not control for critical esophageal cancer risk factors (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption). Furthermore, data from animal toxicological studies do not indicate that asbestos exposure increases esophageal cancer risk. Based on our evaluation of the literature, and reaffirming the IOM’s findings, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link between asbestos exposure and esophageal cancer.

Biomass is increasingly being used for power generation; however, assessment of potential occupational health and safety (OH&S) concerns related to usage of biomass fuels in combustion-based generation remains limited. We reviewed the available literature on known and potential OH&S issues associated with biomass-based fuel usage for electricity generation at the utility scale. We considered three potential exposure scenarios—pre-combustion exposure to material associated with the fuel, exposure to combustion products, and post-combustion exposure to ash and residues. Testing of dust, fungal and bacterial levels at two power stations was also undertaken. Results indicated that dust concentrations within biomass plants can be extremely variable, with peak levels in some areas exceeding occupational exposure limits for wood dust and general inhalable dust. Fungal spore types, identified as common environmental species, were higher than in outdoor air. Our review suggests that pre-combustion risks, including bioaerosols and biogenic organics, should be considered further. Combustion and post-combustion risks appear similar to current fossil-based combustion. In light of limited available information, additional studies at power plants utilizing a variety of technologies and biomass fuels are recommended.

Ensuring adequate iodine intake is important, particularly among women of reproductive age, because iodine is necessary for early life development. Biologically based dose-response modeling of the relationships among iodide status, perchlorate dose, and thyroid hormone production in pregnant women has indicated that iodide intake has a profound effect on the likelihood that exposure to goitrogens will produce hypothyroxinemia. We evaluated the possibility of increasing iodine intake to offset potential risks from perchlorate exposure. We also explored the effect of dietary exposures to nitrate and thiocyanate on iodine uptake and thyroid hormone production. Our modeling indicates that the level of thyroid hormone perturbation associated with perchlorate exposures in the range of current regulatory limits is extremely small and would be overwhelmed by other goitrogen exposures. Our analysis also shows that microgram levels of iodine supplementation would be sufficient to prevent the goitrogenic effects of perchlorate exposure at current regulatory limits among at risk individuals. The human health risks from supplementing drinking water with iodine are negligible; therefore, this approach is worthy of regulatory consideration.

Background Thousands of synthetic turf fields in the US are regularly used by millions of individuals (particularly children and adolescents). Although many safety assessments have concluded that there are low or negligible risks related to exposure to chemicals found in the recycled rubber used to make these fields, concerns remain about the safety of this product. Existing studies of recycled rubber's potential health risks have limitations such as small sample sizes and limited evaluation of relevant exposure pathways and scenarios. Objective Conduct a comprehensive multipathway human health risk assessment (HHRA) of exposure to chemicals found in recycled rubber. Methods All available North American data on the chemical composition of recycled rubber, as well as air sampling data collected on or near synthetic turf fields, were identified via a literature search. Ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation pathways were evaluated according to US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) guidance, and exposure scenarios for adults, adolescents, and children were considered. Results Estimated non-cancer hazards and cancer risks for all the evaluated scenarios were within US EPA guidelines. In addition, cancer risk levels for users of synthetic turf field were comparable to or lower than those associated with natural soil fields. Conclusions This HHRA's results add to the growing body of literature that suggests recycled rubber infill in synthetic turf poses negligible risks to human health. This comprehensive assessment provides data that allow stakeholders to make informed decisions about installing and using these fields.

Both mechanistic and epidemiology studies indicate chrysotile asbestos has a threshold below which it does not cause mesothelioma or lung cancer. We conducted a critical review to determine whether electricians are at increased risk for these cancers and, if so, whether their exposure to chrysotile in electrical products could be responsible. We found that most, but not all, epidemiology studies indicate electricians are at increased risk for both cancers. Studies that evaluated electricians’ exposure to asbestos during normal work tasks have generally reported low concentrations in air; an experimental study showed that grinding or drilling products containing encapsulated chrysotile resulted in exposures to chrysotile fibers far below the OSHA permissible exposure limit and the cancer no observed adverse effect level. Studies of other craftsmen who often work in the vicinity of electricians, such as insulators, reported asbestos (including amphibole) exposures that were relatively high. Overall, the evidence does not indicate that exposure to chrysotile in electrical products causes mesothelioma or lung cancer in electricians. Rather, the most likely cause of lung cancer in electricians is smoking, and the most likely cause of mesothelioma is exposure to amphibole asbestos as a result of renovation/demolition work or working in the proximity of other skilled craftsmen.