1,4-dioxane

From

Summary

TBD.

Studies and Reports

• Ernsgard L et al., Acute effects of exposure to vapours of dioxane in humans, Hum Exp Toxicol. 2006 Dec;25(12):723-9.
  • Abstract. " Information on the acute effects associated with the handling of 1,4-dioxane is sparse. Our aim was to evaluate the acute effects of 1,4-dioxane vapours. In a screening study, six healthy volunteers rated symptoms on a visual analogue scale (VAS), while exposed to stepwise increasing levels of 1,4-dioxane, from 1 to 20 ppm. The initial study indicated no increased ratings at any of the exposure levels; we decided to use 20 ppm (72 mg/m3) as a tentative no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). In the main study, six female and six male healthy volunteers were exposed to 0 (control exposure) and 20 ppm 1,4-dioxane vapour, for 2 hours at rest. The volunteers rated 10 symptoms on VAS before, during, and after the exposure. Blink frequency was monitored during exposure. Pulmonary function, and nasal swelling, was measured before, and at 0 and 3 hours after exposure. Inflammatory markers in plasma (C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6) were measured before and at 3 hours after exposure. In conclusion, exposure to 20 ppm 1,4-dioxane for 2 hours did not significantly affect symptom ratings, blink frequency, pulmonary function, nasal swelling, or inflammatory markers in the plasma of the 12 volunteers in our study." (Emphasis added)
• Makino R et al., Estimating health risk from exposure to 1,4-dioxane in Japan, Environ Sci. 2006;13(1):43-58.
  • Abstract. " Exposure to 1,4-dioxane from the atmosphere around high-emission plants and from consumer products used in daily life that contain the substance may have adverse health effects; however, its emission into the atmosphere is not regulated. In this study, the health risk posed by 1,4-dioxane is assessed to investigate whether measures should be undertaken to reduce exposure to 1,4-dioxane. The notion of the margin of exposure (MOE), given by the ratio of no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) to actual or projected exposure level, is used to assess risk. In exposure assessment, two types of exposure channel are considered: (a) the use of consumer products that contain 1,4-dioxane and (b) the inhalation of air around high-emission plants. To estimate exposure via channel (a), we measured the concentration of 1,4-dioxane in consumer products and estimated the interindividual variability of exposure by Monte Carlo simulation that reflects the measured data. To estimate exposure via channel (b), we employed a local-level atmospheric dispersion model to estimate the concentration of 1,4-dioxane immediately around high-emission plants. For hazard assessment, we derived the inhalatory and oral NOAELs for liver adenomas and carcinomas and the uncertainty factor. The results suggest that measures are not needed to reduce exposure to 1,4-dioxane from consumer products. As for inhalation exposure around high-emission plants, some residents may be exposed to health risks if certain conservative analytical conditions are assumed. Even in this case, we conclude that it is not necessary for Plant A to stop the use of 1,4-dioxane immediately and that medium- to long-term emission reduction measures should be sufficient." (Emphasis added)
• Leung H and Paustenbach D, Cancer risk assessment for dioxane based upon a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic approach, Toxicol Lett. 1990 Apr;51(2):147-62.
  • Abstract. "A cancer bioassay conducted in 1974 (Kociba et al.) indicated that rats given drinking water containing dioxane at a dose of 1184 mg.kg-1.d-1 produced an increased incidence of liver tumors. Applying the linearized multistage extrapolation model to these data, the administered dose estimated to present a human cancer risk of 1 in 100,000 (10(-5)) was 0.01 mg.kg-1.d-1. As in customary regulatory policy, this estimate assumed that humans were about 5.5 times more sensitive than rats on a mg/kg basis. However, this approach did not consider that the metabolism of dioxane is saturable at high doses. Based on experience with similar chemicals, it is known that the conventional risk extrapolation method may overestimate the most likely human cancer risk. In order to determine more accurately the likely human response following lifetime exposure to dioxane, a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PB-PK) model was developed. The objective of this study was to establish a quantitative relationship between the administered dose of dioxane and the internal dose delivered to the target organ. Using this PB-PK model, and assuming that the best dose surrogate for estimating the liver tumor response was the time-weighted average lifetime liver dioxane concentration, the cancer risk for humans exposed to low doses of dioxane was estimated. The dose surrogate in humans most likely to be associated with a tumorigenic response of 1 in 100,000 is 280 mumol/l, equivalent to an administered dose of about 59 mg.kg-1.d-1. The 95% lower confidence limit on the dose surrogate at the same response level is 1.28 mumol/l, equivalent to an administered dose of 0.8 mg.kg-1.d-1. This PB-PK analysis indicated that conventional approaches based on the administered doses in the rodent bioassay, if uncorrected for metabolic and physiological differences between rats and humans, will overestimate the human cancer risk of dioxane by as much as 80-fold." (Emphasis added)
• Buffler P et al., Mortality follow-up of workers exposed to 1,4-dioxane, J Occup Med. 1978 Apr;20(4):255-9.
  • Abstract. "As a result of recent interest in the carcinogenic effect of dioxane, a mortality study was conducted on employees exposed to this compound at a major chemical company plant. Standard follow-up techniques were used to ascertain the vital status of a total of 165 employees ever exposed to dioxane since 1954. Observed deaths from overall cancer were not significantly different from the expected number of deaths. The observations were based on small numbers of deaths of employees who were apparently exposed at low levels and for relatively short exposures."

Additional Resources

• 1,4-Dioxane, Personal Care Products Council.
• 1,4-Dioxane, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, July 3, 2007.
• Butterworth T, Babies, Bathtime, and Cancer?, STATS.org, March 13, 2009.