home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SELECTION OF CANCER POTENCY VALUES In some instances, several governmental organizations have calculated cancer potency values for the same chemical. The sources for unit risk and cancer potency values included in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors were generally chosen in the following hierarchical order for the reasons described below: 1. Toxic Air Contaminant documents (Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)) 2. Standard Proposition 65 documents (Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency) 3. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) documents (Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 4. Expedited Proposition 65 documents (Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency) 5. Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section (ATES) documents (Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency) 6. Pesticides and Environmental Toxicology Section (PETS) documents (Pesticides and Environmental Toxicology Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency) All the cancer potency value sources listed above generally follow the recommendations of the National Research Council on cancer risk assessment (NRC, 1983, 1994). The hierarchy of choice listed here gives preference to sources which include external peer review and public comment procedures for publishing cancer potency values. Additional weight of consideration was given to the most recent derivations using the latest data sets and scientific methodology. The publication procedure for Toxic Air Contaminant documents includes a public comment period and review by the Air Resources Board’s Scientific Review Panel (SRP) before adoption by the Air Resources Board of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Furthermore, a petition procedure is available to initiate TAC document review and revision if required because of new or previously unconsidered toxicity data. The standard Proposition 65 document adoption procedure included a public comment and external peer review by the Proposition 65 Scientific Advisory Panel. The expedited Proposition 65 document adoption procedure includes a public comment period. IRIS documents do not receive public comment or external peer review, but do undergo extensive intraagency review at US EPA and must be approved by the Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor Work Group (CRAVE). 7
Additional ATES and PETS documents have not received public comment or external peer review, but have undergone extensive Cal/EPA intraagency review. REGULATORY AGENCY CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES This section describes in general the methodologies used to derive the cancer unit risk and potency factors listed in this document. As noted in the Preface section of this document, no new cancer unit risks or potency factors were developed for this document; all such values contained here were previously developed in documents by Cal/EPA or US EPA. US EPA released for public comment in 1995 the "Proposed and Interim Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment", indicating that US EPA will revise their cancer risk assessment methodologies. However, US EPA has also stated that cancer potency values listed in IRIS will not be revisited solely for the purpose of incorporating changes in cancer potency value calculation methods contained in the draft revised cancer risk assessment guidelines. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) US EPA carcinogen risk assessment procedures are generally described in Anderson et al. (1983) and “Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment” (US EPA, 1986), and are used in the calculation of cancer potency values listed on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (Office of Health and Environmental Assessment). US EPA states that cancer risk estimates based on adequate human epidemiologic data are preferred if available over estimates based on animal data. US EPA Calculation of Carcinogenic Potency Based on Animal Data The procedures used to extrapolate low-dose human cancer risk from animal carcinogenicity data generally assume that most agents that cause cancer also damage DNA, and that the quantal type of biological response characteristic of mutagenesis is associated with a linear non-threshold doseresponse relationship. US EPA states that the risk assessments made with this model should be regarded as conservative, representing the most plausible upper limit for the risk. The mathematical expression used by US EPA to describe the linear non-threshold dose-response relationship at low doses is the linearized multistage procedure developed by Crump (1980). This model is capable of fitting almost any monotonically increasing dose-response data, and incorporates a procedure for estimating the largest possible linear slope at low extrapolated doses that is consistent with the data at all experimental dose levels. The linearized multistage procedure has the form P(d) = 1 - exp[ - ( q 0 + q 1 d + q 2 d 2 + ··· + q k d k )], where P(d) = lifetime risk (probability) of cancer at dose d, q i > 0, and i = 0, 1, 2, ..., k. Equivalently, A(d) = 1 - exp [ - (q 1 d + q 2 d 2 + ··· + q k d k )], where A(d) = P ( d ) − P ( 0) is the extra risk over background at dose d. The point estimate of the 1− P( 0) coefficients q i ; i = 0, 1,2, ..., k; and therefore the extra risk function A(d) at any given dose d is 8
Page 1 and 2: Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk A
Page 3 and 4: Prepared by: John D. Budroe, Ph.D.
Page 5 and 6: This document is one of five docume
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE i INTRODU
Page 9 and 10: N-Nitrosodimethylamine 401 N-Nitros
Page 11 and 12: Hot Spots Unit Risk and Cancer Pote
Page 13 and 14: Hot Spots Unit Risk and Cancer Pote
Page 15: Hot Spots Unit Risk and Cancer Pote
Page 19 and 20: data. If several data sets (dose an
Page 21 and 22: US EPA Calculation of Carcinogenic
Page 23 and 24: exposure to a concentration of 1 µ
Page 25 and 26: incidences for each of the dose lev
Page 27 and 28: computes the surface area of a sphe
Page 29 and 30: Comparison of Hot Spots Cancer Unit
Page 31 and 32: Gold, L., de Veciana, M., Backman,
Page 33 and 34: Animal Studies Rats Woutersen et al
Page 35 and 36: ased on sufficient evidence of carc
Page 37 and 38: ACETAMIDE CAS No: 60-35-5 I. PHYSIC
Page 39 and 40: Methodology Expedited Proposition 6
Page 41 and 42: cancer mortality. However, US EPA (
Page 43 and 44: Table 2. Lung adenoma incidence in
Page 45 and 46: Table 3 (continued). Acrylamide-ind
Page 47 and 48: Robinson M, Bull RJ, Knutsen GL, Sh
Page 49 and 50: Also, a trend was observed correlat
Page 51 and 52: eported. Cause-specific expected de
Page 53 and 54: Bio/Dynamics Inc. conducted a study
Page 55 and 56: examination. Interim sacrifices wer
Page 57 and 58: Table 8. Tumor incidence in male an
Page 59 and 60: Gaffey WR and Strauss ME. 1981. A m
Page 61 and 62: (technical grade; 98% pure) by gava
Page 63 and 64: International Agency for Research o
Page 65 and 66: still alive in the low-dose control
Page 67 and 68:
ANILINE CAS No: 62-53-3 I. PHYSICAL
Page 69 and 70:
fibrosarcomas, stromal sarcomas, ca
Page 71 and 72:
ARSENIC (INORGANIC) CAS No: 7440-38
Page 73 and 74:
elationship between arsenic exposur
Page 75 and 76:
al. (1988) did not induce lung tumo
Page 77 and 78:
A risk assessment was also conducte
Page 79 and 80:
Chen C, Chuang Y, You S, Lin T and
Page 81 and 82:
Schrauzer G, White D, McGinness J,
Page 83 and 84:
Table 1: Summary of epidemiologic s
Page 85 and 86:
had at least one animal demonstrati
Page 87 and 88:
mesothelioma, recommended lifetime
Page 89 and 90:
National Institute for Occupational
Page 91 and 92:
BENZENE CAS No: 71-43-2 I. PHYSICAL
Page 93 and 94:
Animal Studies Available experiment
Page 95 and 96:
Table 3: Summary of NTP bioassay re
Page 97 and 98:
Table 4: Summary of benzene low-dos
Page 99 and 100:
Maltoni C, Conti B and Cotti G. 198
Page 101 and 102:
a benign tumor of the kidney. No ba
Page 103 and 104:
al. (1968) found no tumors in lifet
Page 105 and 106:
following relationship, where C(t 1
Page 107 and 108:
Miakawa M. and Yoshida O. 1975. Pro
Page 109 and 110:
human population and that BPDE-DNA
Page 111 and 112:
demonstrated the tumor initiating a
Page 113 and 114:
Table 4: Bronchoalveolar tumors fro
Page 115 and 116:
Table 5: IARC groupings of PAHs, mi
Page 117 and 118:
Table 6 (continued): IARC Group 3 P
Page 119 and 120:
Potency Equivalency Factors (PEF) f
Page 121 and 122:
This was rounded to a PEF of 0.1. 1
Page 123 and 124:
experiment (Takayama et al., 1985)
Page 125 and 126:
Deutsch-Wenzel RP, Brune H, Grimmer
Page 127 and 128:
Krewski D, Thorslund T and Withey J
Page 129 and 130:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc
Page 131 and 132:
Sorahan et al. (1983) studied cance
Page 133 and 134:
Lijinsky W. 1986. Chronic bioassay
Page 135 and 136:
the drinking water (Schroeder and M
Page 137 and 138:
Table II. Effective dose, upper-bou
Page 139 and 140:
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER CAS No: 111
Page 141 and 142:
IV. DERIVATION OF CANCER POTENCY Ba
Page 143 and 144:
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHER CAS No: 542-
Page 145 and 146:
Table 1. Bis(chloromethyl)ether-ind
Page 147 and 148:
Drew RT, Laskin S, Kuschner M and N
Page 149 and 150:
ates for the 1968 U.S. male populat
Page 151 and 152:
Table 1: Incidence of primary tumor
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
National Institute of Occupational
Page 157 and 158:
was less than 0.05 when controlling
Page 159 and 160:
up period. The final cohort include
Page 161 and 162:
If the cadmium-exposed workers incl
Page 163 and 164:
on personnel records (20%); (3) eva
Page 165 and 166:
were exposed to a continuous (23.5
Page 167 and 168:
procedure (NLIN), the parameters we
Page 169 and 170:
International Agency for Research o
Page 171 and 172:
Two reports were published on cance
Page 173 and 174:
Mendel rats, respectively), and sub
Page 175 and 176:
Eschenbrenner A and Miller E. 1946.
Page 177 and 178:
III. CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS Human Stu
Page 179 and 180:
cancers, were less than expected. T
Page 181 and 182:
and no cases of cancer (although cl
Page 183 and 184:
There was a statistically significa
Page 185 and 186:
NTP (1982a) also conducted an carci
Page 187 and 188:
Several pathologists have independe
Page 189 and 190:
hepatocellular adenoma/carcinoma tu
Page 191 and 192:
carcinogenic potency may decline in
Page 193 and 194:
Cochrane W, Singh J and Miles W. 19
Page 195 and 196:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Page 197 and 198:
CHLORINATED PARAFFINS (average chai
Page 199 and 200:
ased on dose-response data for beni
Page 201 and 202:
chloroform in drinking water with k
Page 203 and 204:
Overall, the present epidemiologica
Page 205 and 206:
female dogs received toothpaste bas
Page 207 and 208:
Calculated q 1 * values from the ab
Page 209 and 210:
Hogan MD, Chi Py, Hoel DG and Mitch
Page 211 and 212:
Table 1. Study design summary for N
Page 213 and 214:
V. REFERENCES California Environmen
Page 215 and 216:
toluidine. Followup of this subcoho
Page 217 and 218:
feeding studies on by NCI (1979) us
Page 219 and 220:
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT) CAS No: 18540
Page 221 and 222:
expected rate may be inflated becau
Page 223 and 224:
Oral Borneff et al. (1968) exposed
Page 225 and 226:
CREOSOTE (COAL TAR-DERIVED) CAS No:
Page 227 and 228:
from an inhalation exposure study (
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Table 1. Study design summary for N
Page 233 and 234:
Methodology Expedited Proposition 6
Page 235 and 236:
Table 1. Experimental design for ca
Page 237 and 238:
Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB
Page 239 and 240:
Table 1: Tumor induction in Fischer
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Table 1. Experimental design of 2,4
Page 245 and 246:
Methodology Expedited Proposition 6
Page 247 and 248:
Additional analysis of these data b
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Jackson RJ, Greene CJ, Thomas JT, M
Page 253 and 254:
Table 1. Tumor incidence in rats ex
Page 255 and 256:
Girard R, Tolot F, Martin P and Bou
Page 257 and 258:
exposed more than 16 years before t
Page 259 and 260:
interpretation of dose extrapolatio
Page 261 and 262:
1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE CAS No: 75-34-3
Page 263 and 264:
Table 1b. Study design for carcinog
Page 265 and 266:
National Cancer Institute (NCI) 197
Page 267 and 268:
mice, hepatocellular carcinoma inci
Page 269 and 270:
V. REFERENCES California Department
Page 271 and 272:
DAB/day by gavage for the life of t
Page 273 and 274:
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE CAS No: 121-14-2
Page 275 and 276:
Ellis et al.(1979) (also reported b
Page 277 and 278:
Final Statement of Reasons for OAL,
Page 279 and 280:
to the small sample size and short
Page 281 and 282:
In an inhalation study, Torkelson e
Page 283 and 284:
V. REFERENCES American Conference o
Page 285 and 286:
EPICHLOROHYDRIN CAS No: 106-89-8 I.
Page 287 and 288:
espiratory tumors were noted in the
Page 289 and 290:
Table 4. Epichlorohydrin-induced fo
Page 291 and 292:
Konishi Y, Kawabata A, Denda A, Ike
Page 293 and 294:
exposed to arsenicals for 20 months
Page 295 and 296:
espectively (all statistically sign
Page 297 and 298:
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE CAS No: 107-06-
Page 299 and 300:
Several factors have been suggested
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
myelogenous leukemias (4 and 8 year
Page 305 and 306:
statistically significant. CDHS not
Page 307 and 308:
combined with the incidence in the
Page 309 and 310:
incidence of primary brain tumors.
Page 311 and 312:
Table 6 (continued): Organ/Sex Mali
Page 313 and 314:
An Upper 95% Confidence Limit (UCL)
Page 315 and 316:
ETHYLENE THIOUREA (ETU) CAS No: 96-
Page 317 and 318:
male and female rats. Tumor inciden
Page 319 and 320:
FORMALDEHYDE CAS No: 50-00-0 I. PHY
Page 321 and 322:
presented an extension of a previou
Page 323 and 324:
Methodology In developing a spectru
Page 325 and 326:
Casanova M, Morgan KT, Steinhagen W
Page 327 and 328:
Tobe M, Kaneko T, Uchida Y, Kamata
Page 329 and 330:
Table 1. Hexachlorobenzene-induced
Page 331 and 332:
50 pups (F 1 ) of each sex were ran
Page 333 and 334:
Ertürk E, Lambrecht RW, Peters HA,
Page 335 and 336:
Table 1. Liver hepatoma incidence i
Page 337 and 338:
1988). An airborne unit risk factor
Page 339 and 340:
HYDRAZINE CAS No: 302-01-2 I. PHYSI
Page 341 and 342:
Methodology Inhalation A linearized
Page 343 and 344:
LEAD AND LEAD COMPOUNDS (INORGANIC)
Page 345 and 346:
and other occupational carcinogens
Page 347 and 348:
y inhalation is similar for rats an
Page 349 and 350:
Goyer RA. 1992. Nephrotoxicity and
Page 351 and 352:
LINDANE (g-Hexachlorocyclohexane) C
Page 353 and 354:
Using these relationships, a human
Page 355 and 356:
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) CAS
Page 357 and 358:
Tumor incidences according to the r
Page 359 and 360:
kidney changes indicative of chroni
Page 361 and 362:
Interspecies scaling for oral doses
Page 363 and 364:
Table 4 (continued): Dose Response
Page 365 and 366:
Experimental Pathology Laboratories
Page 367 and 368:
Animal Studies Male and female HaM/
Page 369 and 370:
Gold L, Sawyer C, Magaw R, Backman
Page 371 and 372:
Using the statistical tests (one-ta
Page 373 and 374:
Table 1: Methylene chloride-induced
Page 375 and 376:
Significant treatment-related incre
Page 377 and 378:
National Toxicology Program (NTP) 1
Page 379 and 380:
noted; however, the study duration
Page 381 and 382:
Crump KS, Howe RB, Van Landingham C
Page 383 and 384:
Table 1. Michler’s ketone-induced
Page 385 and 386:
NICKEL AND NICKEL COMPOUNDS CAS No:
Page 387 and 388:
the high exposure group was 14.0. A
Page 389 and 390:
male and 121 female rats, was expos
Page 391 and 392:
2.1 - 2.6 × 10 -4 (µg/m 3 ) -1 .
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
The increased incidence of bladder
Page 397 and 398:
A linearized multistage procedure w
Page 399 and 400:
N-NITROSO-N-METHYLETHYLAMINE CAS No
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
propylamine in drinking water at 0.
Page 405 and 406:
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE CAS No: 55-18
Page 407 and 408:
Table 2. Treatment groups, concentr
Page 409 and 410:
California Department of Health Ser
Page 411 and 412:
animals and the second generation t
Page 413 and 414:
ationale for selection of the OEHHA
Page 415 and 416:
A unit risk value based upon air co
Page 417 and 418:
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE CAS No: 86-3
Page 419 and 420:
Methodology Dosage estimates of NDP
Page 421 and 422:
Crump KS, Howe RB. 1984. The multis
Page 423 and 424:
Table 1. P-Nitrosodiphenylamine-ind
Page 425 and 426:
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE CAS No: 59-89-2
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE CAS No: 100-75-
Page 431 and 432:
Table 3. N-Nitrosopiperidine-induce
Page 433 and 434:
Crump KS, Howe RB, Van Landingham C
Page 435 and 436:
testicular tumors were noted in the
Page 437 and 438:
PARTICULATE MATTER FROM DIESEL-FUEL
Page 439 and 440:
etired railroad workers who had had
Page 441 and 442:
employment (χ 2 test for trend: p
Page 443 and 444:
elevated smoking-adjusted risk esti
Page 445 and 446:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Miln
Page 447 and 448:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Damb
Page 449 and 450:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Burn
Page 451 and 452:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Raff
Page 453 and 454:
Table 1 (continued): Epidemiologica
Page 455 and 456:
Table 1 (continued): Epidemiologica
Page 457 and 458:
Table 1 (continued): Reference Wegm
Page 459 and 460:
Animal Studies Section 6.1 (Animal
Page 461 and 462:
The variability, or heterogeneity,
Page 463 and 464:
estimate for those studies for whic
Page 465 and 466:
Figure 1: Estimates of Relative Ris
Page 467 and 468:
q 1 * = Excess relative risk × CA
Page 469 and 470:
Table 3: Number of Workers in the E
Page 471 and 472:
u nexposed workers at zero concentr
Page 473 and 474:
for each µg/m 3 of diesel exhaust
Page 475 and 476:
Table 4: Values from Unit Risk for
Page 477 and 478:
their findings that a reasonable es
Page 479 and 480:
Garshick E, Schenker M, Woskie S an
Page 481 and 482:
Lewis T, Green, FH MW, Burg J and L
Page 483 and 484:
Rothman K. 1986. Modern epidemiolog
Page 485 and 486:
PENTACHLOROPHENOL CAS No: 87-86-5 I
Page 487 and 488:
The default lifespan for mice is 10
Page 489 and 490:
documented. An excess risk from ski
Page 491 and 492:
B6C3F 1 mice and F344/N rats were e
Page 493 and 494:
This model, rather than a time depe
Page 495 and 496:
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) CA
Page 497 and 498:
several benign adenomatous lesions
Page 499 and 500:
Ito et al. (1973) exposed groups of
Page 501 and 502:
could not be characterized by chlor
Page 503 and 504:
exposure (all pathways and mixtures
Page 505 and 506:
National Toxicology Program 1993. T
Page 507 and 508:
Table 1. Potassium bromate-induced
Page 509 and 510:
1,3-PROPANE SULTONE CAS No: 1120-71
Page 511 and 512:
Page 513 and 514:
PROPYLENE OXIDE CAS No: 75-56-9 I.
Page 515 and 516:
oxide. In the NTP carcinogenicity s
Page 517 and 518:
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE CAS No: 7
Page 519 and 520:
assumed a body weight of 70 kg and
Page 521 and 522:
total); an untreated control group
Page 523 and 524:
TOLUENE DIISOCYANATE CAS No: 26471-
Page 525 and 526:
Animal Studies The National Toxicol
Page 527 and 528:
Mortillaro PT and Schiavon M. 1982.
Page 529 and 530:
male or female rats. Increases in h
Page 531 and 532:
TRICHLOROETHYLENE CAS No: 79-01-6 I
Page 533 and 534:
A mortality analysis of a cohort of
Page 535 and 536:
elative to that of the controls whi
Page 537 and 538:
applied or metabolized. The range o
Page 539 and 540:
Katz RM and Jowett D. 1981. Female
Page 541 and 542:
10,000 ppm 2,4,6-trichlorophenol in
Page 543 and 544:
Page 545 and 546:
Bionetics Research Laboratories. 19
Page 547 and 548:
control; females: 6/10 exposed, 0/1
Page 549 and 550:
over controls (p < 0.04). Other tum
Page 551 and 552:
was increased (100/314 exposed vs.
Page 553 and 554:
Table 3. Cancer potency estimates f
Page 555 and 556:
Crouch E. 1983. Uncertainties in in
Page 557 and 558:
VINYL CHLORIDE CAS No: 75-01-4 I. P
Page 559 and 560:
Table 1 (continued): A Summary of E
Page 561 and 562:
al., 1983). Histopathology of all o
Page 563 and 564:
Table 3: Tumor incidences in 100 pp
Page 565 and 566:
experiment, animals were exposed to
Page 567 and 568:
Experiment BT1 Most previous risk a
Page 569 and 570:
No statistical analyses of mortalit
Page 571 and 572:
Table 11 gives unit risk estimates
Page 573 and 574:
Bertazzi PA, Villa A, Foa V, Saia B
Page 575 and 576:
Nicholson WJ, Hammond EC, Seidman H
Page 577 and 578:
immunotoxicity, reproductive toxici
Page 579 and 580:
scheme. TEFs for two major noncance
Page 581 and 582:
NATO/CCMS (1988a) Pilot Study on In
Page 583 and 584:
Table 2 Toxicity Equivalency Factor
Page 585 and 586:
Table 4 A Comparison of CTEF- and I
Page 587 and 588:
Office of Environmental Health Haza
Page 589 and 590:
Group 4: The agent is probably not
Page 591 and 592:
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR DESC
Page 593 and 594:
US EPA IRIS Inhalation Unit Risk an
Page 595 and 596:
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR DESC
Page 597 and 598:
as appropriate, and revise IRIS fil
Page 599 and 600:
Chemical Exposure Route Study Type
Page 601 and 602:
Page 603 and 604:
Page 605 and 606:
Methyl tert-butyl ether p. 5: Added
show all

home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?