A Review of Hazard Classifications of PAH-Containing Substances Illustrates the Need for Quantitative Assessment Methods

Abstract

Review of the literature cited in documentation of hazard assessments of PAH-involved industries and PAH-containing materials combined with the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the many occupational exposure studies of PAH-involved industries indicates that authoritative review bodies should revisit hazard assessments and thoroughly update the assessments and documentation for PAH-involved occupations using quantitative methods. Current hazard classifications rely heavily on case reports and studies of uncertain or questionable quality with little documentation of review processes. The classification process should adopt transparent, systematic methods beginning with establishing criteria for inclusion of information in the review and should also assess potential biases. The methods of systematic review and meta-analysis should be adopted when data of sufficient quantity and quality are available. Published systematic reviews of occupational exposure studies conducted in PAH-involved industries demonstrate the feasibility of quantitative methods for assessing exposures to PAH-containing materials, and indicate that current assessments overstate associations with skin, lung, and other types of cancer. The review should include consideration of the ways quantitative measures may be useful in developing hazard classifications.

Keywords:

• Authoritative body reviews
• hazard assessment
• occupational exposure studies
• PAH-containing substances
• PAH-involved industries
• systematic review

Disclosure statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Funding

Preparation of this article was funded by the International Tar Association. The reviews of primary literature cited by EPA in its benzo(a)pyrene assessment¹ or in IARC monographs discussed in this article were performed by Brian Magee and colleagues at Arcadis US Inc. as part of an evaluation of the public review draft of EPA’s document jointly funded and submitted to the US EPA by the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, the American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Asphalt Institute, the Association of American Railroads, Beazer East, Inc., and the Pavement Coatings Technology Council.⁴