Exposure to major volatile organic compounds and carbonyls in European indoor environments and associated health risk

• Published in: Environment international 2011-05, Vol.37 (4), p.743-765
• Main Authors: Sarigiannis, Dimosthenis A., Karakitsios, Spyros P., Gotti, Alberto, Liakos, Ioannis L., Katsoyiannis, Athanasios
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Air Pollutants - analysis; Air Pollution, Indoor - statistics & numerical data; Air quality; Aldehydes - analysis; Benzene - analysis; Benzene Derivatives - analysis; Cancer; Carcinogens - analysis; Cyclohexenes - analysis; Europe; Exposure assessment; Exposure limits; Formaldehyde; Health risk; Humans; Indoor; Indoor air quality; Inhalation Exposure - statistics & numerical data; Monoterpenes - analysis; Naphthalenes - analysis; Organic compounds; Risk; Risk Assessment; Risk management; Sampling; Terpenes - analysis; Volatile organic compounds; Volatile Organic Compounds - analysis
• ISSN: 0160-4120; 1873-6750
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.005

This paper summarizes recent data on the occurrence of major organic compounds (benzene, toluene, xylenes, styrene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, naphthalene, limonene, α-pinene and ammonia, classified by the European Commission's INDEX strategy report as the priority pollutants to be regulated) and evaluates accordingly cancer and non-cancer risks posed by indoor exposure in dwellings and public buildings in European Union (EU) countries. The review process indicated that significant differences in indoor air quality exist within and among the countries where data were available, indicating corresponding differences in sources and emission strength of airborne chemicals, identified or not. Conservative exposure limits were not exceeded for non-carcinogenic effects, except for formaldehyde; for carcinogenic agents the estimated risks were up to three orders of magnitude higher than the one (10 − 6 ) proposed as acceptable by risk management bodies. However, the risk assessment evaluation process faces crucial difficulties, either due to the relative paucity of indoor air quality measurements in many EU countries, or by the lack of sampling consistency in the already existing studies, indicating the need for additional measurements of indoor air quality following a harmonized sampling and analytical protocol. Additionally, uncertainties embodied in the cancer potency factors and exposure limit values impose further difficulties in substance prioritization and risk management. ► Large within- and inter-city variation in exposure. ► Cancer risk higher than 10E-6. ► Non-cancer risk lower than threshold. ► Need for harmonization sampling. ► Combination of active and passive sampling recommended.