Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

Korean Society of Environmental Health (한국환경보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exposure Assessment on Sub-Populations of the Local Community following a Hydrofluoric Acid Accident

불산 누출사고에 따른 지역사회 구성원들의 노출평가

  • Kim, Sunshin (Environmental Health Center for Hazardous Gas Exposure, Gumi Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Woo, Kuck-Hyeun (Environmental Health Center for Hazardous Gas Exposure, Gumi Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yoon, Seong-Yong (Environmental Health Center for Hazardous Gas Exposure, Gumi Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lim, Hyun-Sul (Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Dongguk University) ;
  • Kim, Geun-Bae (Environmental Health Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Yu, Seung-Do (Environmental Health Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Cho, Yong-Sung (Research Development Education Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Lee, Seokyong (Department of Occupational Health, Catholic University of Daegu) ;
  • Lee, Hyunsu (Department of Occupational Health, Catholic University of Daegu) ;
  • Yang, Wonho (Department of Occupational Health, Catholic University of Daegu)
  • 김순신 (순천향대학교 구미병원 유해가스노출 환경보건센터) ;
  • 우극현 (순천향대학교 구미병원 유해가스노출 환경보건센터) ;
  • 윤성용 (순천향대학교 구미병원 유해가스노출 환경보건센터) ;
  • 임현술 (동국대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 김근배 (국립환경과학원 환경보건연구과) ;
  • 유승도 (국립환경과학원 환경보건연구과) ;
  • 조용성 (화학물질안전원) ;
  • 이석용 (대구가톨릭대학교 산업보건학과) ;
  • 이현수 (대구가톨릭대학교 산업보건학과) ;
  • 양원호 (대구가톨릭대학교 산업보건학과)
  • Received : 2014.12.26
  • Accepted : 2015.02.12
  • Published : 2015.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to propose an indirect exposure assessment method using a questionnaire survey at a time when direct exposure assessment would be impossible after a chemical accident. Methods: About two weeks after an accident, a questionnaire survey was performed with 1,264 persons from the local community. Variables related to exposure were extracted from the survey contents, weighted and then graded for comparison with subjective symptoms in order to evaluate the extent of exposure. Survey items suitable for reflecting the previous exposure level during the accident were extracted, weighted and divided into quartile ranges. Subjective symptoms showed an increasing tendency with higher exposure level when compared with final exposure level (p<0.01). Results: For the relationship between the final exposure grade and subjective symptoms, as the exposure grade was increasing the rates complaining of symptom also showed an increasing tendency. However, when adjusted for demographic characteristics, there was a tendency for the eye irritation symptom to appear higher in women, and respiratory organ irritation appeared higher in smokers. Conclusions: When the problem of recall bias is considered, this study may not have completely unraveled exposure and the characteristics of the participants can affect subjective symptoms. Nevertheless, the exposure rating method of using a questionnaire showed a significant relationship with symptom level. It can be deemed that assessment of past exposure may be successfully evaluated by questionnaire in cases such as chemical accidents.

Keywords

References

  1. Gumi City. Gumi City, Report of explosion accident in HUBE Global Inc. Gumi: Gumi City Press; 2012.
  2. Yang WH. Case study of Gumi chemical accident and future study. Seoul: Symposium in Chemical Safety Press; 2014.
  3. Wing JS, Brender JD, Sanderson LM, Perrota DM, Beauchamp R. Acute health effects in a community after a release of hydrofluoric acid. Arch Environ Health. 1991; 46(3): 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1991.9937443
  4. Dayal HH, Brodwick M, Morris R, Baranowski T, Trieff N, Harrison JA, et al. A community based epidemiologic study of health sequelae of exposure to hydrofluoric acid. Ann Epidemiol. 1992; 2(3): 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/1047-2797(92)90054-T
  5. Dayal HH, Baranowski T, Li YH, Morris R. Hazardous chemicals: psychological dimensions of the health sequelae of a community exposure in Texas. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1994; 48(6): 560-568. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.48.6.560
  6. Nieuwenhuijsen M, Paustenbach D, Duarte-Davidson R. New developments in exposure assessment: the impact on the practice of health risk assessment and epidemiology studies. Environ Int. 2006; 32(8): 996-1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.015
  7. Manini P, Palma GD, Mutti A. Exposure assessment at the workplace: implications of biological variability. Toxicol Lett. 2007; 168(3): 210-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2006.09.014
  8. National Institute for Chemical Studies (NICS). Effectiveness of shelter-in-place: examples from across the country. Kanawha: NICS Press; 1961, 1976, 1977, 1986, 1987, 1991. 304-6264.
  9. Levenson M, Rahn FJ. Is evacuation the best policy?. Science. 1980; 208(4440): 131-132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4440.131
  10. World Health Organization. Guideline for air quality, World Health Organization document. Geneva: WHO Press; 2000.
  11. Liu W, Zhang J, Korn LR, Zhang L, Weisel CP, Turpin B, et al. Predicting personal exposure to airborne carbonyls using residential measurements and time/activity data. Atmos Environ. 2007; 41(25): 5280-5288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.05.089
  12. Sexon K, Mongin SJ, Adgate JL, Pratt GC, Ramachandran G, Stock TH, et al. Estimating volatile organic compound concentration in selected microenvironments using time-activity and personal exposure data. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007; 70(5): 465-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287390600870858
  13. National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS). Hydrofluoric acid (HF), priority existing chemical assessment report. Sydney: NICNAS Press; 2001.
  14. Fluorides, Environmental Health Criteria. Geneva: WHO Press; 2002. p.227.
  15. Canadian Transport Emergency Centre (CANUTEC). Emergency response guidebook. Canada: CANUTEC Press; 2012.
  16. Forsberg B, Stjernberg N, Wall S. People can detect poor air quality well below guideline concentrations: a prevalence study of annoyance reactions and air pollution from traffic. Occup Environ Med. 1997; 54(1): 44-48. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.54.1.44
  17. Hoppe P, Martinac I. Indoor climate and air quality. Int J Biometeorol. 1998; 42: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004840050075
  18. Klaeboe R, Kolbenstvedt M, Clench-Aas J, Bartonova A. Oslo traffic study-part 1: an integrated approach to assess the combined effects of noise and air pollution on annoyance. Atmos Environ. 2000; 34(27): 4727-4736. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00304-6
  19. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Guideline on occupational exposure reconstruction. VA: AIHA Press; 2008.
  20. Daval B, Christopher JL, Samson L, Mark S, Michael F, Peter WJ, et al. Prostate cancer risk and exposure to ultraviolet radiation: further support for the protective effect of sunlight. Cancer Letters. 2003; 192(31): 145-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3835(02)00710-3
  21. National Institute of Environmental Research. Emergency Response Guidebook. Incheon: NIER Press; 2012.
  22. Lee KM, Sun JB, Park DU, Lee WJ. Methods to minimize or adjust for healthy worker effect in occupational epidemiology. J Environ Health Sci. 2011; 37(5): 342-347.

Cited by

  1. Psychological effects of a disastrous hydrogen fluoride spillage on the local community vol.29, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-017-0196-6