Repository hosted by TU Delft Library

Advancing our knowledge on the toxicology of combined exposures to chemicals and implementation of this knowledge in guidelines for health risk assessment of such combined exposures are necessities dictated by the simple fact that humans are continuously exposed to a multitude of chemicals. A prerequisite for successful research and fruitful discussions on the toxicology of combined exposures (mixtures of chemicals) is the use of defined terminology implemented by an authoritative international body such as, for example, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) Toxicology Committee. The extreme complexity of mixture toxicology calls for new research methodologies to study interactive effects, taking into account limited resources. Of these methodologies, statistical designs and mathematical modelling of toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics seem to be most promising. Emphasis should be placed on low-dose modelling end experimental validation. The scientifically sound so-called bottom-up approach should be supplemented with more pragmatic approaches, focusing on selection of the most hazardous chemicals in a mixture and careful consideration of the mode of action and possible interactive effects of these chemicals. Pragmatic approaches may be of particular importance to study and evaluate complex mixtures; after identification of the 'top ten' (most risky) chemicals in the mixture they can be examined and evaluated as a defined (simple) chemical mixture. In setting exposure limits for individual chemicals, the use of an additional safety factor to compensate for potential increased risk due to simultaneous exposure to other chemicals, has no clear scientific justification. The use of such an additional factor is a political rather than a scientific choice.

This report compares cancer classification systems, health risk assessment approaches, and procedures used for establishing occupational exposure limits (OELs), in various European countries and scientific organizations. The objectives were to highlight and compare key aspects of these processes and to identify the basis for differences in cancer classifications and OELs between various scientific organizations and countries. Differences in cancer classification exist in part due to differences in the ultimate purpose of classification and to the relative importance of different types of data (i.e., animal vs human data, mechanistic data, and data from benign vs malignant tumors). In general, the groups surveyed tend to agree on classification of chemicals with good evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, and agree less on classification of chemicals with positive evidence in animals and inadequate or limited evidence in humans. Most entities surveyed distinguish between genotoxic and nongenotoxic chemicals when conducting risk assessments. Although the risk assessment approach used for nongenotoxic chemicals is fairly similar among groups, risk assessment approaches for genotoxic carcinogens vary widely. In addition to risk assessment approaches, other factors which can affect OELs include selection of the critical effect, use of health-based vs technology-based exposure limits, and consideration of technological feasibility and socioeconomic factors. © 2001 Academic Press.

We monitored the exposure of hairdressers to oxidative hair dyes for 6 working days under controlled conditions. Eighteen professional hairdressers (3/day) coloured hairdresser's training heads bearing natural human hair (hair length: approximately 30 cm) for 6 h/working day with a dark-shade oxidative hair dye containing 2% [14C]-para-phenylenediamine (PPD). Three separate phases of hair dyeing were monitored: (A) dye preparation/hair dyeing, (B) rinsing/shampooing/conditioning and (C) cutting/drying/styling. Ambient air and personal monitoring samples (vapours and particles), nasal and hand rinses were collected during all study phases. Urine (pre-exposure, quantitative samples for the 0-12, 12-24, 24-48 h periods after start of exposure) and blood samples (blank, 4, 8 or 24 h) were collected from all exposed subjects. Radioactivity was determined in all biological samples and study materials, tools and washing liquids, and a [14C]-mass balance was performed daily. No adverse events were noted during the study. Waste, equipment, gloves and coveralls contained 0.41 ± 0.16%, dye mixing bowls 2.88 ± 0.54%, hair wash 45.47 ± 2.95%, hair + scalp 53.46 ± 4.06% of the applied radioactivity, respectively. Plasma levels were below the limit of quantification (≤10 ng PPDeq/mL). Total urinary 0-48 h excretion of [14C] levels ranged from a total of <2-18 μg PPDeq and was similar in subjects exposed during the different phases of hair dyeing. Minimal air levels at or slightly above the limit of quantification were found in a few personal air monitoring samples during the phases of hair dyeing and hair cutting, but not during the rinsing phase. Air area monitoring samples or nasal rinses contained no measurable radioactivity. Hand residues ranged from 0.006 to 0.15 μg PPDeq/cm2, and were found predominantly after the cutting/drying phase. The mean mass balance of [14C] across the six study days was 102.50 ± 2.20%. Overall, the mean, total systemic exposure of hairdressers to oxidative hair dyes during a working day including 6 hair dyeing processes was estimated to be <0.36 μg PPDeq/kg body weight/working day. Our results suggest that (a) current safety precautions for the handling of hair dyes offer sufficient protection against local and systemic exposure and (b) professional exposure to oxidative hair dyes does not pose a risk to human health. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.