4.4 Article

Use of background inorganic arsenic exposures to provide perspective on risk assessment results

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 59-68

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.01.004

Keywords

inorganic arsenic; background exposure; dietary exposure; water exposure; soil exposure; risk assessment; CCA-treated wood

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background exposures provide perspective for interpreting calculated health risks associated with naturally occurring substances such as arsenic. Background inorganic arsenic intake from diet and water for children (ages 1-6 years) and all ages of the U.S. population was modeled stochastically using consumption data from USDA, published data on inorganic arsenic in foods, and EPA data on arsenic in drinking water. Mean and 90th percentile intakes for the U.S. population were 5.6 and 10.5 mu g/day, assuming nationwide compliance with the 10 mu g/L U.S. drinking water standard. Intakes for children were slightly lower (3.5 and 5.9 mu g/day). Based on the current EPA cancer slope factor for arsenic, estimated lifetime risks associated with background diet and water at the mean and 90th percentile are 1 per 10,000 and 2 per 10,000, respectively. By comparison, reasonable maximum risks for arsenic in soil at 20 (higher typical background level) and 100 mg/kg are 4 per 100,000 and 2 per 10,000, using EPA default exposure assumptions. EPA reasonable maximum estimates of arsenic exposure from residential use of treated wood are likewise within background intakes. These examples provide context on how predicted risks compare to typical exposures within the U.S. population, thereby providing perspective for risk communication and regulatory decision-making on arsenic in the environment and in consumer products. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available