Comparing the lung cancer burden of ambient particulate matter using scenarios of air quality standards versus acceptable risk levels

Alberto Castro (), Thomas Götschi, Beat Achermann, Urs Baltensperger, Brigitte Buchmann, Denise Felber Dietrich, Alexandre Flückiger, Marianne Geiser, Brigitte Gälli Purghart, Hans Gygax, Meltem Kutlar Joss, Lara Milena Lüthi, Nicole Probst-Hensch, Peter Strähl and Nino Künzli
Additional contact information
Alberto Castro: University of Zurich
Thomas Götschi: University of Zurich
Beat Achermann: Formerly Swiss Federal Office for the Environment
Urs Baltensperger: Paul Scherrer Institute
Brigitte Buchmann: Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology
Denise Felber Dietrich: Formerly Swiss Federal Office for the Environment
Alexandre Flückiger: University of Geneva
Marianne Geiser: University of Bern
Brigitte Gälli Purghart: Swiss Federal Office for the Environment
Hans Gygax: Formerly State of Fribourg
Meltem Kutlar Joss: Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute
Lara Milena Lüthi: Swiss Federal Office for the Environment
Nicole Probst-Hensch: Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute
Peter Strähl: Formerly Swiss Federal Office for the Environment
Nino Künzli: Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute

International Journal of Public Health, 2020, vol. 65, issue 2, No 3, 139-148

Abstract: Abstract Objectives Ambient particulate matter (PM) is regulated with science-based air quality standards, whereas carcinogens are regulated with a number of “acceptable” cases. Given that PM is also carcinogenic, we identify differences between approaches. Methods We assessed the lung cancer deaths for Switzerland attributable to exposure to PM up to 10 µm (PM10) and to five particle-bound carcinogens. For PM10, we used an epidemiological approach based on relative risks with four exposure scenarios compared to two counterfactual concentrations. For carcinogens, we used a toxicological approach based on unit risks with four exposure scenarios. Results The lung cancer burden using concentrations from 2010 was 10–14 times larger for PM10 than for the five carcinogens. However, the burden depends on the underlying exposure scenarios, counterfactual concentrations and number of carcinogens. All scenarios of the toxicological approach for five carcinogens result in a lower burden than the epidemiological approach for PM10. Conclusions Air quality standards—promoted so far by the WHO Air Quality Guidelines—provide a more appealing framework to guide health risk-oriented clean air policymaking than frameworks based on a number of “acceptable” cases.

Keywords: Air pollution; Particulate matter; Lung cancer; Epidemiology; Toxicology; Health impact assessment; Carcinogens (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00038-019-01324-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:ijphth:v:65:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s00038-019-01324-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/00038

DOI: 10.1007/s00038-019-01324-y

Access Statistics for this article

International Journal of Public Health is currently edited by Thomas Kohlmann, Nino Künzli and Andrea Madarasova Geckova

More articles in International Journal of Public Health from Springer, Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().