Analytical review of approaches to providing safety when substantiating hygienic standards for chemicals contents in ambient air

View or download the full article: 
PDF icon health-risk-analysis-2021-2-15.pdf
UDC: 
613; 614
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2021.2.15.eng
Authors: 

P.Z. Shur, A.A. Khasanova

Organization: 

Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, 82 Monastyrskaya Str., Perm, 614045, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

A necessity to harmonize Russian sanitary-epidemiologic approaches with international standards is fixed in the federal legislation in the RF; given that, it seems vital to harmonize standards for ambient air quality taking into account a period of their averaging. To do that, previously methodical approaches were suggested to substantiating average annual MPC of chemicals in ambient air as per health risk criteria.
The research goal here was to make a review of previously applied and newly created methodical approaches to establishing average annual MPC taking into account an extent to which they were harmonized with international approaches and their capacity to provide safety for population.
As per results obtained via the performed literature review, we spotted out key elements in methodical approaches applied in the RF and abroad when substantiating standards for ambient air quality taking into account chronic inhalation exposure; the further analysis was performed in accordance with them.
It was detected that approaches applied to establish average annual MPC were partially harmonized since they didn’t involve using threshold levels (BMC, BMCL); use of results obtained in previous studies to establish starting points in developing hygienic standards does not allow taking all the existing uncertainties into account. It seems impossible to estimate their safety as per health risk criteria due to absence of relevant parameters. Methodical approaches to substantiating average annual MPC as per health risk criteria are fully harmonized. Thus, they involve using BMC and BMCL for determining starting points when standards are being developed; values for such starting points can be established, among other things, as per data obtained via analyzing results of previous studies and are also supplemented when it comes down to taking uncertainty factors into account. Safety of developed average annual MPC is provided, among other things, due to obtained standards being verified as per acceptable (permissible) risk criteria. Given that, they can be used for developing harmonized average annual MPC.

Keywords: 
average annual MPC, average daily MPC, hygienic standards, risk criteria, harmonization, ambient air, safety, methodical approaches.
Shur P.Z., Khasanova A.A. Analytical review of approaches to providing safety when substantiating hygienic standards for chemicals contents in ambient air. Health Risk Analysis, 2021, no. 2, pp. 156–167. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2021.2.15.eng
References: 
  1. Avaliani S.L., Novikov S.M., Shashina T.A., Skvortsova N.S., Kislitsin V.A., Mishina A.L. Problems and ways of solutions to harmonize standards for air pollution. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2012, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 75–78 (in Russian).
  2. Zaitseva N.V., Shur P.Z., Chetverkina K.V., Khasanova A.A. Developing methodical approaches to substantiating average annual maximum permissible concentrations of hazardous substances in ambient air in settlements as per acceptable health risk. Health Risk Analysis, 2020, no. 3, pp. 39–48. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2020.3.05.eng
  3. Sinitsyna O.O., Zholdakova Z.I., Kharchevnikova N.V. Nauchnye osnovy edinogo ekologo-gigienicheskogo normirovaniya khimicheskikh veshchestv v okruzhayushchei srede [Scientific grounds for unified ecological-hygienic standardization of chemicals in the environment]. Itogi i perspektivy nauchnykh issledovanii po problem ekologii cheloveka i gigieny okruzhayushchei sredy. In: Yu.A. Rakhmanin ed. Moscow, Nauchno-issledovatel'skii institute ekologii cheloveka i gigieny okruzhayushchei sredy im. A.N. Sysina Publ., 2001, pp. 106–123 (in Russian).
  4. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. Reference Dose/Reference Concentration (RfD/RfC) Technical Panel. Final report (EPA/630/P-02/002F). Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC, U.S.EPA, 2002, 192 p.
  5. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs). The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Available at: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/minimalrisklevels/ (15.03.2021).
  6. Zaitseva N.V., Popova A.Yu., May I.V., Shur P.Z. Methods and technologies of health risk analysis in the system of state management under assurance of the sanitation and epidemiological welfare of population. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2015, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 93–98 (in Russian).
  7. Zaitseva N.V., Popova A.Yu., Onishchenko G.G., May I.V. Current problems of regulatory and scientific-medical support for the assurance of the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of population in the Russian Federation as the strategic government task. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2016, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 5–9 (in Russian).
  8. Gurvich V.B., Kuz'min S.V., Dikonskaya O.V., Gileva M.A., Boyarskii A.P. Methodical approaches, experience and perspectives of the implementation of the risk model of surveillance activities in the sphere of the assurance of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of population, population’s health risk management and the consumer rights protection. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2015, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 104–108 (in Russian).
  9. Rakitskii V.N., Avaliani S.L., Shashina T.A., Dodina N.S. Actual problems of population health risks management in Russia. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2018, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 572–575 (in Russian).
  10. Rakhmanin Yu.A. Actualization of methodological problems of reglamentation of chemical pollutions on the environment. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2016, vol. 95, no. 8, pp. 701–707 (in Russian).
  11. Popova A.Yu., Gurvich V.B., Kuz'min S.V., Orlov M.S. The paradigm of the development of the regulatory and methodological framework aimed to maintain sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2017, vol. 96, no. 12, pp. 1226–1230 (in Russian).
  12. Avaliani S.L., Mishina A.L. Harmonization of approaches to management of air quality. Zdorov'e naseleniya i sreda obitaniya, 2011, no. 3 (216), pp. 44–48 (in Russian).
  13. Zaitseva N.V., Tutel'yan V.A., Shur P.Z., Khotimchenko S.A., Sheveleva S.A. Experience of justification of hygienic standards of food safety with the use of criteria for the risk for population health. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2014, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 70–74 (in Russian).
  14. Andreeva E.E., Ivanenko A.V., Siliverstov V.A., Sudakova E.V. Application of methodology for the assessment of risk for public health from harmful environmental factors in the practice activity of the office of service for supervision of consumer rights protection and human welfare in the city of Moscow. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2016, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 219–222 (in Russian).
  15. Gaylor D., Kodell R. A procedure for developing risk-based reference doses. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol, 2002, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 137–141. DOI: 10.1006/rtph.2002.1533
  16. Travis K.Z., Pate I., Welsh Z.K. The role of the benchmark dose in a regulatory context. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol, 2005, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 280–291. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.07.003
  17. Gaylor D., Ryan L., Krewski D., Zhu Y. Procedures for calculating benchmark doses for health risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol, 1998, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 150–164. DOI:10.1006/rtph.1998.1247
  18. Filipsson A., Sand S., Nilsson J., Victorin K. The benchmark dose method-review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment. Crit. Rev. Toxicol, 2003, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 505–542.
  19. Dorato M.A., Engelhardt J.A. The no-observed-adverse-effect-level in drug safety evaluations: use, issues, and definition(s). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol, 2005, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 265–274. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.05.004
  20. Faustman E., Bartell S. Review of Noncancer Risk Assessment: Application of the Benchmark Dose Methods. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1997, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 893–920. DOI: 10.1080/10807039709383733
  21. Herrman J.L., Younes M. Background to the ADI/TDI/PTWI. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol, 1999, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 109–113. DOI: 10.1006/rtph.1999.1335
  22. Speijers G. J. Precision of estimates of an ADI (or TDI or PTWI). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol, 1999, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 87–93. DOI: 10.1006/rtph.1999.1331
  23. Wignall J.A., Shapiro A.J., Wright F.A., Woodruff T.J., Chiu W.A., Guyton K.Z., Rusyn I. Standardizing benchmark dose calculations to improve science-based decisions in human health assessments. Environ. Health Perspect, 2014, vol. 122, no. 5, pp. 499–505. DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307539
  24. Sand S., Rosen D., Victorin K., Filipsson A.F. Identification of a critical dose level for risk assessment: developments in benchmark dose analysis of continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci, 2006, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 241–251. DOI:10.1093/toxsci/kfj057
  25. Edler L., Kopp-Schneider A. Statistical models for low dose exposure. Mutat. Res, 1998, vol. 405, no. 2, pp. 227– 236. DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(98)00140-7
  26. Crump K. Calculation of the benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Anal, 1995, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 79–89. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00095.x
  27. Crump K. Critical issues in benchmark calculations from continuous data. Crit. Rev. Toxicol, 2002, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 133–153. DOI: 10.1080/20024091064200
  28. Budtz-Jorgensen E. Benchmark dose calculations from epidemiological data. Biometrics, 2001, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 698–706. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00698.x
  29. Krewski D., Zhu Y., Fung, K. Benchmark doses for developmental toxicants. Inhalation Toxicology, 1999, vol. 11, no. 6–7, pp. 579–591. DOI: 10.1080/089583799196998
  30. Barlow S.M., Greig J.B., Bridges J.W., Carere A., Carpy A.J.M., Galli C.L., Kleiner J., Knudsen I. [et.al.]. Hazard identification by methods of animal-based toxicology. Food Chem. Toxicol, 2002, vol. 40, no. 2–3, pp. 145–191. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-6915(01)00117-x
  31. McClellan R.O. Human health risk assessment: A historical overview and alternative paths forward. Inhal. Toxicol, 1999, vol. 11, no. 6–7, pp. 477–518. DOI: 10.1080/089583799196880
  32. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry (EPA/600/8-90/066F). Office of Research and Development. USA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1994, 289 p.
  33. Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press Publ., 2014, 170 p.
  34. Chemical-specific adjustment factors for interspecies differences and human variability: guidance document for use of data in dose/concentration–response assessment. World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS).Harmonization Project Document, no. 2, 100 p.
  35. Khasanova A.A. Analiz otechestvennykh i zarubezhnykh metodicheskikh podkhodov k uchetu neopredelennostei pri ustanovlenii gigienicheskikh normativov soderzhaniya vrednykh veshchestv v atmosfernom vozdukhe [Analysis of domestic and foreign methodical approaches to taking uncertainties into account when developing hygienic standards for adverse chemicals contents in ambient air]. Analiz riska zdorov'yu - 2020 sovmestno s mezhdunarodnoi vstrechei po okruzhayushchei srede i zdorov'yu RISE-2020 i kruglym stolom po bezopasnosti pitaniya: Materialy X Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem. In: A.Yu. Popova, N.V. Zaitseva eds. Perm', Izdatel'stvo Permskogo natsional'nogo issledovatel'skogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta Publ., 2020, vol. 1, pp. 100–107 (in Russian).
  36. Sussman R.G., Naumann B.D., Pfister T., Sehner C., Seaman C., Weideman P.A. A harmonization effort for acceptable daily exposure derivation–Considerations for application of adjustment factors. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol, 2016, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 57–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.05.023
  37. Uncertainty factors: Their use in human health risk assessment by UK Government. The Interdepartmental Group on Health Risks from Chemicals. Institute for Environment and Health, 2003, 73 p.
  38. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final Report) (EPA/600/R-09/052F). Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, 1436 p.
  39. OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL). The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/ (20.05.2021).
  40. Toxicological profile for ethylbenzene. U.S. Department of health and human services Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2010, 341 p.
  41. Toxicological profile for styrene. U.S. Department of health and human services Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2010, 283 p.
Received: 
08.04.2021
Accepted: 
16.06.2021
Published: 
30.06.2021

You are here

Home