DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Human Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination from Two Abandoned Metal Mines Using Metal Mine-specific Exposure Parameters

국내 폐금속 광산에 특화된 노출인자를 이용한 두 폐금속 광산 중금속 오염에 대한 인체위해성평가 비교

  • Lim, Tae-Yong (Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural Science(RINS), Gyeongsang National University(GNU)) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Woo (Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural Science(RINS), Gyeongsang National University(GNU)) ;
  • Cho, Hyen Goo (Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural Science(RINS), Gyeongsang National University(GNU)) ;
  • Kim, Soon-Oh (Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural Science(RINS), Gyeongsang National University(GNU))
  • 임태용 (경상대학교 지질과학과 및 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 이상우 (경상대학교 지질과학과 및 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 조현구 (경상대학교 지질과학과 및 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 김순오 (경상대학교 지질과학과 및 기초과학연구소)
  • Received : 2016.08.02
  • Accepted : 2016.10.31
  • Published : 2016.12.31

Abstract

There are numerous closed and abandoned mines in Korea, from which diverse heavy metals (e.g., As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn) are released into the surrounding soil, groundwater, surface water, and crops, potentially resulting in detrimental effects on the health of nearby residents. Therefore, we performed human risk assessments of two abandoned metal mines, Yanggok (YG) and Samsanjeil (SJ). The exposure parameters used in this assessment were specific to residents near mines and the included exposure pathways were relevant to areas around metal mines. The computed total excess carcinogenic risks for both areas exceeded the acceptable carcinogenic risk ($1{\times}10^{-6}$), indicating that these areas are likely unsafe due to a carcinogenic hazard. In contrast, the non-carcinogenic risks of the two areas differed among the studied receptors. The hazard indices were higher than the unit risk (=1.0) for male and female adults in YG and male adults in SJ, suggesting that there are non-carcinogenic risks for these groups in the study areas. However, the hazard indices for children in YG and female adults and children in SJ were lower than the unit risk. Consumption of groundwater and crops grown in the area were identified as major exposure pathways for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic hazards in both areas. Finally, the dominant metals contributing to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were As and As, Cu, and Pb, respectively. In addition, the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks of YG were evaluated to be 10 and 4 times higher than those of SJ, respectively, resulted from the relatively higher exposure concentration of As in groundwater within SJ area. Because of lacking of several exposure parameters, some of average daily dose (ADD) could not be computed in this study. Furthermore, it is likely that the ADDs of crop-intake pathway included some errors because they were calculated using soil exposure concentrations and bioconcentration factor (BCF) rather than using crop exposure concentrations.

현재 국내에는 많은 휴 폐광산들이 존재하며, 이로부터 다양한 중금속 오염물질(As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn)들이 광산 주변 토양, 지하수, 지표수, 농작물로 유입되어 주민들의 건강에 심각한 위해를 끼치고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 국내 폐금속 광산에 거주하는 주민들의 특성에 맞는 노출인자를 추출하고, 적합한 노출경로를 설정하여, 국내 폐금속 광산인 양곡광산과 삼산제일광산 지역 두 곳을 선정하여 중금속오염에 대한 인체위해성평가를 수행하였다. 최종적으로 얻은 발암위해도의 경우 두 광산 모두 허용 가능한 발암위해도인 $1{\times}10^{-6}$의 값을 초과하여 발암위해성이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고, 비발암위해도의 경우 수용체별로 차이를 보였는데, 양곡광산의 성인남자와 성인여자, 삼산제일광산의 성인남자의 위해지수가 1보다 큰 값을 나타내어 비발암위해성이 있는 것으로 조사되었다. 양곡광산의 어린이, 삼산제일광산의 성인여자와 어린이를 대상으로 한 위해지수는 1보다 작은 값을 나타내어 비발암위해성이 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 발암위해성을 유발하는 주요 노출경로는 지하수섭취와 농작물섭취이며, 주요한 중금속 오염물질은 비소인 것으로 밝혀졌다. 비발암위해성을 유발하는 주요 노출경로도 발암위해성과 동일하게 지하수섭취와 농작물섭취이며, 주요 중금속 오염물질은 비소, 구리, 납인 것으로 조사되었다. 두 광산의 발암위해도를 비교해 보면 양곡광산이 삼산제일광산보다 10배 정도 높게 나타났으며, 비발암위해도의 경우에도 양곡광산이 삼산제일광산보다 4배 정도 높게 평가되었다. 이러한 결과는 양곡광산의 상대적으로 매우 높은 비소 지하수노출농도로부터 기인하는 것으로 판단된다. 본 연구에서 수행한 국내 폐금속 광산 중금속 오염에 대한 인체 위해성평가는 여러 노출인자의 부재로 인해 노출량을 산정하지 못하는 한계가 있었다. 또한 농작물섭취경로에 의한 노출량 산정 시 농작물을 직접 분석하여 얻는 농작물노출농도 대신에 토양노출농도와 토양-농작물 생 축적계수(bioconcentration factor, BCF)를 이용하였는데 이로 인한 오차가 발생할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. An YJ, Baek YW, Lee WM, Jeong SW, Kim TS. 2007. Comparative study of soil risk assessment models used in developed countries. J Soil Groundw Environ. 12(1): 53-63. [Korean Literature]
  2. Brand E, Otte PF, Lijzen JPA. 2007. CSOIL 2000: an exposure model for human risk assessment of soil contamination(A model description).
  3. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2006. A protocol for derivation of environmental and human health.
  4. Choi JW, Yoo KJ, Koo MS, Park JH. 2012. Comparison of heavy metal pollutant exposure and risk assessments in an abandoned mine site. KSCE J Civil Engineers. 32(4B): 261-266. [Korean Literature]
  5. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Environmental Agency (EA). 2002. The contaminated land exposure assessment model (CLEA): Technical basis and algorithms.
  6. Environmental Agency (EA), 2005, CLEA UK Handbook (Draft): Support document for the CLEA UK software Beta Version 1.0
  7. Health Canada. 2007. Federal contaminated site risk assessment in Canada. Part I: Guidance on human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment.
  8. Hwang EH, Wee SM, Lee PK, Choi SH. 2000. A study on the heavy metal contamination of paddy soil in the vicinity of the seosung Pb-Zn mine. J Soil Groundw Environ. 5(2): 67-85. [Korean Literature]
  9. Jung MC, Jung MY. 2006. Evaluation and management method of environmental contamination from abandoned metal mines in Korea. J Korean Soc Mineral Energy Res. 43(5): 383-394. [Korean Literature]
  10. Kim JY, Lee JH, Kunhikrishnan A, Kang DW, Kim MJ, Yoo JH, Kim DH, Lee YJ. Transfer factor of heavy metals from agricultural soil to agricultural products. Korean J Environ Agric. 31(4): 300-307. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.5338/KJEA.2012.31.4.300
  11. Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS). 2013. KOSIS 100 indices. http://kosis.kr/nsportalStats/nsportalStats_0102Body.jsp?menuId=6&NUM=156. [Korean Literature]
  12. Lee JY. 2005. A study on the body surface area of Korean adults. Ph.D Thesis. Seoul National University, Korea. [Korean Literature]
  13. Lee JS, Kwon HH, Shim YS, Kim TH. 2007. Risk assessment of heavy metals in the vicinity of the abandoned metal mine areas. J Soil Groundw Environ. 12(1): 97-102. [Korean Literature]
  14. Lee JS, Kim YN, Kim KH. 2010. Suitability assessment for agriculture of soils adjacent to abandoned mining areas using different human risk assessment models. Korean J Soil Sci Fert. 43(5): 674-683. [Korean Literature]
  15. Ministry of Environment (ME). 2004. Investigation of soil contamination in abandoned mine. [Korean Literature]
  16. Ministry of Environment (ME). 2005. Investigation of soil contamination in abandoned mine. [Korean Literature]
  17. Ministry of Environment (ME). 2006. Guidelines for risk assessment of soil contaminants. [Korean Literature]
  18. Ministry of Environment (ME). 2007. Korean exposure factor handbook. [Korean Literature]
  19. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2007. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
  20. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2008. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
  21. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2009. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
  22. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2010. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
  23. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2011. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
  24. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). 1999. Guideline on exposure scenarios and exposure Setting.
  25. Research for Nana and Environment (RIVM). 2001. Evaluation and Revision of the CSOIL Parameter Set: Proposed parameter set for human exposure modelling and deriving intervention values for the first series of compounds.
  26. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1989. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part A)
  27. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991a. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part B, Development of risk-based preliminary remediation goals)
  28. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991b. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part C, Risk evaluation of remedial alternatives)
  29. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1996. Soil screening guidance: Technical background document.
  30. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1992. Dermal exposure assessment: Principles and applications.
  31. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1997. Exposure factor handbook.
  32. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001a. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part D, Standardized planning, reporting, and review of superfund risk assessments)
  33. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001b. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume III: Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Part A)
  34. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2004. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part E, Supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment)
  35. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part F, Supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment)
  36. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA in california). 2009. Technical support document for cancer protency Factors.
  37. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2011. Exposure factor handbook: 2011 edition.

Cited by

  1. Risk Assessment for Co-contaminated Soil Including As and Hg in the Vicinity of Abandoned Metal Mine vol.42, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4491/ksee.2020.42.2.75
  2. Cadmium phytotoxicity, related physiological changes in Pontederia cordata: antioxidative, osmoregulatory substances, phytochelatins, photosynthesis, and chlorophyll fluorescence vol.27, pp.33, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10002-z
  3. 강원도 횡성지역의 지하수 수질 모니터링 및 인체 위해성 평가 vol.47, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5668/jehs.2021.47.4.356