A reevaluation of the literature regarding the health assessment of diesel engine exhaust
A reevaluation of the literature regarding the health assessment of diesel engine exhaust
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/08958370490883783
复制
发表时间：
2004-12-01
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Lapin, CA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bunn, WB;Hesterberg, TW;Lapin, CA
虽然国际癌症研究机构（IARC）在1989年将柴油废气（DE）归类为“可能”致癌物，主要基于“足够”的动物数据，但其他研究人员已经得出结论，在大鼠研究中发现的肺肿瘤是颗粒过载的结果。随后的DE健康风险评估没有使用大鼠癌症数据。联合S.环境保护署（EPA）在制定其2002年DE健康评估文件（HAD）时，主要考虑了铁路工人和卡车司机的流行病学研究，以制定DE的健康风险评估。然而，这两套流行病学研究都有严重的缺陷，使其不适合癌症风险评估。主要缺点是缺乏对DE暴露的同期测量，暴露历史重建的困难，以及充分考虑其他暴露，如汽油废气和香烟烟雾。使这些问题更加复杂的是，过去没有，现在仍然没有DE的特定暴露标志物。有趣的是，在地下采矿业中，柴油暴露比铁路工人和卡车司机高得多，肺癌并没有增加。这些问题和担忧导致了美国政府的行动。S. EPA得出结论，虽然DE是一种“可能的”致癌物质，但无法从现有数据计算出单位风险值或风险范围，并且风险可能为零。此外，随着新的排放控制技术的实施，DE排放已经发生变化并将继续发生变化。民政事务总署明白这个事实，并指出需要进一步研究，以评估新柴油引擎的废气排放量。最近对具有催化颗粒过滤器的低排放柴油发动机的化学表征研究表明，几种关注的化学品的排放率甚至低于可比的压缩天然气（CNG）燃料发动机。与CNG相比，新的低排放柴油具有更低的排放量，更好的消防安全性和更高的成本效益，目前限制使用低排放柴油的努力似乎是错误的。
While the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified diesel exhaust (DE) as a "probable" carcinogen in 1989 based primarily on "sufficient" animal data, other investigators have since concluded that the lung tumors found in the rat studies were a result of particle overloading. Subsequent health risk assessments of DE have not used the rat cancer data. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in developing its 2002 Health Assessment Document (HAD) for DE, primarily considered the epidemiology studies of railroad workers and truck drivers to develop health risk assessments of DE. However, both sets of epidemiology studies have serious weaknesses that make them unsuitable for cancer risk assessment. Major shortcomings were the lack of contemporaneous measurements of exposures to DE, difficulties with exposure history reconstruction, and adequately accounting for other exposures such as gasoline exhaust and cigarette smoke. To compound these problems, there was not, and there is still not, a specific exposure marker for DE. Interestingly, in the underground mining industry, where diesel exposures are much higher than observed in railroad workers and truck drivers, there was no increase in lung cancer. These problems and concerns led the U. S. EPA to conclude that while DE was a "likely" carcinogen, a unit risk value or range of risk cannot be calculated from existing data and that the risk could be zero. In addition, the DE emissions have changed and continue to change with the implementation of new emission control technologies. The HAD recognized this fact and noted that further studies are needed to assess new diesel engine emissions. Recent chemical characterization studies on low-emitting diesel engines with catalyzed particulate filters have shown emissions rates for several chemicals of concern that are even lower than comparable compressed natural gas (CNG)-fueled engines. With lower emissions, better fire safety, and improved cost-effectiveness of new low-emitting diesels compared to CNG, current efforts to restrict use of low-emitting diesels seems misguided.