Aims: To investigate the validity of empirical models of exposure to bitumen fume and benzo(a)pyrene, developed for a historical cohort study of asphalt paving in Western Europe. Methods: Validity was evaluated using data from the USA, Italy, and Germany not used to develop the original models. Correlation between observed and predicted exposures was examined. Bias and precision were estimated. Results: Models were imprecise. Furthermore, predicted bitumen fume exposures tended to be lower (−70%) than concentrations found during paving in the USA. This apparent bias might be attributed to differences between Western European and USA paving practices. Evaluation of the validity of the benzo(a)pyrene exposure model revealed a similar to expected effect of re-paving and a larger than expected effect of tar use. Overall, benzo(a)pyrene models underestimated exposures by 51%. Conclusions: Possible bias as a result of underestimation of the impact of coal tar on benzo(a)pyrene exposure levels must be explored in sensitivity analysis of the exposure-response relation. Validation of the models, albeit limited, increased our confidence in their applicability to exposure assessment in the historical cohort study of cancer risk among asphalt workers. I ncreasingly in occupational and environmental epidemiology the quality of studies and their subsequent usefulness for risk assessors and regulators depends on the validity of their exposure assessment. This trend is in part a result of the recognition of the fact that most of the remaining unidentified health risks from occupational and environmental factors are likely to be low (relative risks of the order of 2-3) and can be easily missed because of misclassification of exposure.1 These weak associations, however, can have a profound public health impact if their causative agents are highly prevalent.
1Two examples illustrate the crucial role that exposure assessment plays in modern occupational epidemiology. Between 1976 and 1993, 20 studies of cancer risk among asphalt workers (mostly road pavers) have been conducted, many of which suggested that this occupation entailed an increased lung cancer risk.2 However, these studies suffered from failure to differentiate between coal tar and bitumen (or asphalt, as it is known in the USA) exposures. As a result, this substantial 17 year research effort has been proven to be of limited use in the evaluation of carcinogenicity of the main agent that asphalt workers are currently exposed to-bitumen, 3 4 hampering any preventive measures through setting scientifically based exposure limits and exposure controls.Another example is that of exposure to electromagnetic fields and occupational cancer. A study's ability to detect an association between electromagnetic fields and increased cancer risks to a large extent depends on assumptions made in exposure modelling, emphasising the importance of validating exposure models. [5][6][7] Consequently, analyses of sensitivity of risk estimates to assumptions made in exposure assessment are be...