Human Health Risk based Priority Ranking for Hazardous Air Pollutants

대기중 유해 화학 물질의 인체 위해도 우선순위 선정 연구

  • 박화성 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 김예신 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 이동수 (서울대학교 환경대학원) ;
  • 신동천 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소)
  • Published : 2004.03.01

Abstract

Although it is suggested that risk -based management plan is needed to manage air pollution effectively, we have no resources enough to evaluate all aspects of substances and set priorities. So we need to develop a logical and easy risk-based priority setting method. However, it if impossible that only one generic system that is consistent with all the use is developed. In this study, we proposed a human health risk based priority-setting method for hazardous air pollutants, and ranked priorities for this method. First of all, after investigating previous chemical ranking and scoring systems, we chose appropriate indicators and logics to goal of this study and made a chemical priority ranking method using these. As results, final scores in priority ranking method were derived for 25 substances, and ethylene oxide, acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride were included in high ranks. In addition, same substances were highly ranked when using default values like when using no default, but the scores of hydrofluoric acid and ryan and compounds were sensitive to default values. This study could be important that priorities were set including toxicity type and quality and local inherent exposure conditions and we can set area-specific management guidelines and survey plans as a screening tool.

References

  1. 김예신, 박화성, 이동수, 신동천. 화학물질 우선순위 선정기법에 대한 비교 분석 연구, 한국환경독성학회지 2003; 18(3): 183-191
  2. 김종석. 대기 환경 기준 설정 배경에 관하여, 한국대기보전학회지 1991; 7(1): 67-71
  3. 박화성. 대기중 유해화학물질의 위해도 우선순위 선정 기법과 적용성 연구, 연세대학교 보건대학원 석사학위논문, 2003
  4. 아주대학교. 대기오염의 위해성평가 연구 및 관리를 위한중 · 장기 연구계획, 환경부 2003
  5. 연세대학교 환경공해연구소 환경 위해성 평가 및 관리기술-대기오염물질의 위해성 평가 및 관리기술 개발, 환경부 1998
  6. 화학물질정보센터 (KCIC, Korean Chemicals InformationCenter). http://kcic. nier.go. la-/, 2003
  7. 환경부. 수도권 대기질 개선 특별대책(시안)-수도권 대기질 개선에 관한 공개토론회 발표자료, 수도권대기질개선추진기획단, 2002a
  8. 환경부. 환경 백서, 2002b
  9. 환경부. 화학물질 배출량 조사 결과(1999-2000), 2002c
  10. ECB (European Chemical Bureau). http://ecb.jrc.it, 2003
  11. Environment Canada. The ARET substance selection Pro-cess and guideline, 1994
  12. Erin MS, Shane AS, John PG et al. SCRAM : A Scoring and Ranking System for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Substances for the North American Great Lakes-Part I : Structure of the Scoring and Ranking System, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2000; 7(1): 1-11 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987640
  13. EU (European Union). IUCLID (International Uniform Chemical Information Database), 1996
  14. Gary AD, Mary BS and Sheila J. Comparative evaluation of chemical ranking and scoring methodologies, US EPA 1994
  15. Hansen BG, Haelst AL et al. Priority setting for existing chemicals: The European Union risk ranking method, Environmental Toxicity and chemistry 1999; 18: 772-779 https://doi.org/10.1897/1551-5028(1999)018<0772:PSFECE>2.3.CO;2
  16. HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank). http://toxnet. nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/ sis/htmlgen?HSDB, 2003
  17. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). http://www.iarc.fr/, 2003
  18. Layton DW et al. Deriving allowable daily intakes for systemic toxicants lacking chronic toxicity data, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 1987; 7: 96-112 https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2300(87)90050-X
  19. Mary BS and Adam CS. Chemical ranking and scoring : Guidelines for relative assessment of chemicals, SETAC press, 1997a
  20. Mary BS, Gary AD, Lori EK et al. A screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1997b; 16(2): 372-383 https://doi.org/10.1897/1551-5028(1997)016<0372:ASMFRA>2.3.CO;2
  21. NTP (Natioanl Toxicology Program). http://ntp-server. niehs.nih.gov/, 2003
  22. Rachel RM, Cheryl LS, Shari AB et al. SCRAM: A Scoring and Ranking System for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic Subslances for the north american great lakes resulting chemical scores and rankings, Human and Eco-logical Risk Assessment 2002; 8(3): 537-557 https://doi.org/10.1080/10807030290879817
  23. US EPA IRIS. www.epa.gov/iris, 2003
  24. US EPA. EPIwin (Estimation Programs Interface for Win- dows), 2001
  25. US EPA. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment, 1999
  26. US EPA. Guidelines for neurotoxicity risk assessment, 1998a
  27. US EPA. Chemical Screening Report for the RCRA PBT List Docket, 1998b
  28. US EPA. Guidelines for reproductive toxicity risk assess-ment, 1996
  29. US EPA. Comparative evaluation of chemical ranking and scoring methodology, 1994a
  30. US EPA. Chemical hazard evaluation for management strate gies; A method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts, 1994b
  31. US EPA. Guidelines for developmental toxicity risk assess-ment, 1991
  32. US EPA. Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment, 1986