26.03.2013 Views

Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions - NSCEP | US ...

Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions - NSCEP | US ...

Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions - NSCEP | US ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

1 Mutagenicity data have been applied both to issues of heritable genetic risk and somatic<br />

2 cell effects, most notably cancer. For heritable genetic effects, the U.S. Environmental<br />

3 Protection Agency's Guidelines <strong>for</strong> Mutagenicity Risk <strong>Assessment</strong> (U.S. EPA, 1987) are<br />

4 applicable here. The mammalian germ-cell studies measuring defined genetic endpoints<br />

5 conducted on diesel emissions have shown negative results, but the sample size in the heritable<br />

6 translocation test is too small <strong>for</strong> a meaningful conclusion. In the absence of definitive<br />

7 mammalian germ-cell results, the guidelines recommend that mutagenic activity and the ability<br />

8 ·to interact with mammalian germ cells be evaluated separately. As stated, the presence of a large<br />

9 number of mutagenic chemicals in diesel emissions is unambiguous. Sperm abnormality assays<br />

1 0 are presumably the only other source of data on the interaction of diesel emissions with<br />

11 mammalian germ cells. The negative response in the mouse is in apparent conflict with the<br />

12 positive observation in the hamster, and there is not sufficient in<strong>for</strong>mation to resolve this<br />

13 discrepancy. Hence, the questions of germ-cell interaction and the potential <strong>for</strong> human germ-cell<br />

14 mutagenic risk of diesel emissions remain unanswered.<br />

15 The application of genotoxicity in<strong>for</strong>mation to the question of the potential<br />

16 carcinogenicity of chemical agents was initially based on the premise that somatic mutation is an<br />

17 integral step in the carcinogenic process. However, unlike the situation <strong>for</strong> germ-cell<br />

18 mutagenicity, assays are not weighted strictly by their biological relationship to the partkular<br />

19 species, sex, or tissue site of cancer. The size of the database and the degree of correlation of<br />

· -20 genotoxicity test results with animal cancer bioassays are frequently given great weight. Indeed,<br />

21 a common conclusion of the ef<strong>for</strong>ts of the National Toxicology Program on the use of in vitro<br />

22 assays is that no single in vitro genotoxicity test or battery of tests (among the four assays in their<br />

23 program) improves on the per<strong>for</strong>mance of the Salmonella assay in predicting rodent<br />

24 carcinogenicity of an untested chemical. When rodent carcinogenicit):' data are available,<br />

25 phylogenetic and other biological aspects of the genotoxicity data are important considerations in<br />

26 the weight-of-evidence process. With diesel emissions, additional complications arise because of<br />

27 the chemical complexity of the material being tested. Although it is clear that several of the<br />

28 individual chemical constitUents of diesel exhaust have been demonstrated to be both mutagenic<br />

29 and carcinogenic, it is likely that the constituents responsible <strong>for</strong> the mutational increases<br />

30 observed in bacteria are different from those responsible <strong>for</strong> the observed increases in CHO cells<br />

31 (Li and Dutcher, 1983) or in human hepatoma-derived cells (Eddy et al., 1986). Chapter 10 deals<br />

32 more thoroughly with metabolism and mechanisms of carcinogenesis.<br />

211/98 . 9-6 DRAFT--DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!