• Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.12-29
• /
• 2011

Risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) of some pollutants for residential adults were derived with risk assessment tools developed by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and Korea Ministry of Environment (KMOE) and compared each other. To make the comparison simple, ingestion of soil, dermal contact with soil, outdoor inhalation of vapors, indoor inhalation of vapors, and inhalation of soil particulates were chosen as exposure pathways. The results showed that the derived RBSLs varied for every exposure pathway. For direct exposure pathways (i.e., ingestion of soil and dermal contact with soil), the derived RBSLs varied mainly due to the different default values for exposure factors and toxicity data. When identical default values for the parameters were used, the same RBSLs could be derived regardless of the assessment tools used. For inhalation of vapors and inhalation of soil particulates, however, different analysis methods for cross-media transfer rates were used and different assumptions were established for each tool, identical RBSLs could not be obtained even if the same default values for exposure factors were used. Especially for inhalation of soil particulates pathway, screening level derived using KMOE approach (most conservative) was approximately 5000~10000 times lower than the screening level derived using ASTM approach (least conservative). Our results suggest that, when deriving RBSL using a specific tool, it is a prerequisite to technically review the analysis methods for cross-media transfer rates as well as to understand how the assessment tool derives the default values for exposure factors.

• Biomedical Science Letters
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.199-206
• /
• 2016

Pesticides are widely used to prevent loss of agricultural production but extensive exposure can induce health problems to pesticide operators. This study was performed to evaluate the health risk of highly produced pesticides used in fruit growing farm land by comparison of estimated exposure level with AOEL using KO-POEM program. AOEL was driven based on NOAEL of each pesticide evaluated by JMPR, EFSA or KRDA. In calculation of exposure level, types of formulation, dilution factors, spraying duration and motor type and exposure protection device were allocated according to actual condition of use. Dermal absorption rate was differently applied among EFSA default values (25% or 75%), general default value (10%) or real test result values to know the plausibility of default values and safety of pesticide to operators in outline. Twenty pesticide ingredients (fungicides and insecticides) were produced more than 30 tons per year, which were mancozeb, chlorothalonil, imidaclopirid and etc in order. Dermal absorption rates obtained from studies were various from 0.07 to 81% but mostly under 10%. The estimated exposure levels showed big differences more than 10 times higher when using EFSA default rate and up to 5 times higher when using general rate of 10% comparing using rates of test results. Mancozeb, chlorthalonil, diazinon and chlorpyrifos presented still higher exposure level than AOEL even when using test absorption rate from study, which suggests that re-evaluation of AOEL or dermal exposure absorption rate or strict management are required for health protection of operators who use those four pesticides in farm land.