Abstract
The 16 EPA PAHs have played an exceptionally large role above all in environmental and analytical sciences in the last 40 years, but now there are good reasons to question their utility in many circumstances even though their use is so established and comfortable. Here we review the reasons why the list has been so successful and why sometimes it is seen as less relevant. Three groups of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC) are missing: larger and highly relevant PAHs, alkylated PACs, and compounds containing heteroatoms. Attempts to improve the situation for certain matrixes are known and here: (1) an updated list of PAHs (including the 16 EPA PAHs) for the evaluation of the toxicity in the environment (40 EnvPAHs); (2) a list of 23 NSO-heterocyclic compounds and 6 heterocyclic metabolites; and (3) lists of 10 oxy-PAHs and 10 nitro-PAHs are proposed for practical use in the future. A discussion in the scientific community about these lists is invited. Although the state of knowledge has improved dramatically since the introduction of the 16 EPA PAHs in the 1970s, this summary also shows that more research is needed about the toxicity, occurrence in the environment and chemical analysis, particularly of alkylated PAHs, higher molecular weight PAHs and substituted PACs such as amino-PAHs, cyano-PAHs, etc.. We also suggest that a long overdue discussion of an update of regulatory environmental PAH analysis is initiated.