Asbestos: toxicology and risk assessment for the general population in The Netherlands

Within the scope of the preparation of Integrated Criteria Documents for priority compounds in The Netherlands, the possible health effects of oral and inhalatory exposure to asbestos for the general population were evaluated. It was concluded from the results of experiments in animals that exposure to asbestos by the oral route is not carcinogenic and is not expected to present a health risk to the general population. Inhaled asbestos, however, is distinctly carcinogenic to man, giving rise to lung tumours, and mesotheliomas of the pleura and peritoneum. Chrysotile asbestos appears to be less potent in inducing mesotheliomas than the amphiboles, but all types of asbestos appear to have a similar potency for inducing lung cancer. The risk of mesothelioma is not expected to be influenced by smoking, whereas the risk of lung cancer is expected to be ten times higher in smokers than in non-smokers exposed to the same asbestos concentrations. Risk-assessment models for the inhalatory route, for the general population, are based on linear non-threshold extrapolation of occupational exposure to much lower environmental concentrations. These models give only a rough approximation of the risk of environmental exposure to asbestos. In accordance with the Air Quality Guidelines of the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, 1987), it was estimated that an extra risk of lung cancer of one in 10(6) (in the general population, with 30% smokers) may be presented by lifetime exposure to asbestos fibres longer than 5 microns, measured by electron microscopy, at concentrations of 100-1000/m3. It was further estimated that an extra risk of mesothelioma of one in 10(6) may be presented by lifetime exposure to 10-100 amphibole fibres/m3 or to a range of 100-10000 chrysotile fibres/m3 (fibres longer than 5 microns). From the current asbestos concentrations, the risk of mesothelioma for the general population in The Netherlands appears to be negligible; the extra risk of lung cancer is expected to be higher than 1 in 10(6) near asbestos sources, whereas it appears to be negligible in background areas and in most large cities and industrial areas. However, it must be borne in mind that the validity of the risk figures given is difficult to judge.