ToxSci Advance Access originally published online on July 3, 2007
Toxicological Sciences 2007 100(2):318-327; doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfm170
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Complexities of Air Pollution Regulation: the Need for an Integrated Research and Regulatory Perspective
* National Center for Environmental Assessment
National Risk Management Research Laboratory ORD, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Center for Air Resources Engineering and Science, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York 13699-5708
NYU School of Medicine, Tuxedo, New York 10987
¶ Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105-6099
|| ORD, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Cellular, Organs and Systems Pathobiology Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, Mail Drop-EC-23, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Fax: (919) 541-5064. E-mail: Nadadurs{at}niehs.nih.gov.
Received March 5, 2007; accepted June 14, 2007
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The Clean Air Act mandates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to periodically reassess existing and new science that underlie the regulation of major ambient pollutants—particulate matter (PM) and tropospheric ozone being most notable. While toxic effects have been ascribed individually to these and other pollutants in the air, it is clear that mixtures of these contaminants have the potential to interact and thereby influence their overall toxic outcomes. It follows that a more comprehensive assessment of the potential health effects of the air pollution complex might better protect human health; however, traditional regulatory drivers and funding constraints have impeded progress to such a goal. Despite difficulties in empirically conducting studies of complex mixtures of air pollutants and acquiring relevant exposure data, there remains a need to develop integrated, interdisciplinary research and analytical strategies to provide more comprehensive (and relevant) assessments of associated health outcomes and risks. The research and assessment communities are endeavoring to dissect this complexity using varied approaches Here we present five interdisciplinary perspectives of this evolving line of thought among researchers and those who use such data in assessment: (1) analyses that coordinate air quality-health analyses utilizing representative polluted U.S. air sheds to apportion source and component-specific health risks; (2) novel approaches to characterize air quality in terms of emission sources and how emission reduction strategies might effectively impact pollutant levels; (3) insights from present-day studies of effects of single ambient pollutants in animal and controlled clinical toxicology studies and how these are evolving to address air pollution; (4) refinements in epidemiologic health assessments that take advantage of the complexities of existent air quality conditions; and (5) new approaches to integrative analyses to establish the criteria for regulation of PM and other criteria pollutants. As these examples illustrate, implementing multidisciplined and integrative strategies offer the promise of more realistic and relevant science, greater reductions in uncertainty, and improved overall air pollution assessment. The regulatory mandate may lag behind the science, but real gains both in public health benefit and the science to dissect complex problems will result.
Key Words: Air pollution; criteria pollutants; PM; monitoring; toxicity; epidemiology; regulation.
Disclaimer: This article has been reviewed by the National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency nor mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. The views expressed by two authors who are also members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) should not be taken to reflect the views of CASAC.