DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Working Environment and Risk Assessment of Biphenyl in Workplace

Biphenyl 취급사업장의 작업환경 및 유해성 평가

  • Kim, Hyeon-Yeong (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency)
  • 김현영 (한국산업안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원)
  • Received : 2014.02.21
  • Accepted : 2014.04.29
  • Published : 2014.04.30

Abstract

In this study, we evaluated the measurement of working environment, the amount of exposure, the hazards and risks of biphenyl, that was registered as 2A in IARC. Based on the exposure scenario, it was calculated that the exposure amounts are $1.0{\times}10^{-2}$, $4.2{\times}10^{-4}$, $7.0{\times}10^{-6}mg/m^3$, respectively, and the $RfC_{work}$ is 0.21, 2.13, 0.53 $0.31mg/m^3$ as carcinogenicity, target toxicity (oral), target toxicity (inhalation), developmental toxicity, respectively. According to these hazards evaluation and risk assessments, it was estimated that 0.57, 0.39 as carcinogenicity and non-carcinogenicity (developmental toxicity), respectively. It was also estimated relatively lower risks below 1. But since biphenyl is hazardous used much amounts, and could be exposed to workers directly, it was determined to require exposure monitoring to protect workers' health.

본 연구는 고무 화학제품의 제조에 연화제로 많이 사용되며 국제암연구소(IARC)에 발암추정물질(2A)로 등록되어 있는 Biphenyl에 대해 국내 취급사업장에 대한 작업환경 측정과 근로자 노출량 산출, 그리고 유해성에 따른 위험성을 결정하였다. 노출시나리오를 바탕으로 노출량 산출 결과는 각각 $1.0{\times}10^{-2}$, $4.2{\times}10^{-4}$, $7.0{\times}10^{-6}mg/m^3$이었으며, 위해성 분류에 따라 산출한 $RfC_{work}$는 발암성 0.21, 표적독성(경구) 2.13, 표적독성(흡입) 0.53, 발달독성 $0.31mg/m^3$으로 산출되었다. 유해성 및 노출평가의 결과를 바탕으로 한 위험성은 발암성 0.57, 비발암성(발달독성) 0.39로 도출되어, 1이하의 비교적 낮은 위험도로 나타났으나, Biphenyl은 일부 유해성이 확인되었으며 사용량이 많고 취급 부주의시 근로자에 직접 노출될 수 있어 취급근로자의 건강장해 예방을 위해 노출 감시가 필요한 물질로 판단되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Employment and Labor, Chemical Risk Assessment Regulations(Employment and Labor Regulations Chapter10), (2011)
  2. Moody, JD., Doerge, DR., Freeman, JP., Cerniglia, CE., Degradation of biphenyl by Mycobacterium sp. strain PYR-1, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 58: 364-369, (2002) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-001-0878-3
  3. Boehncke, A., Koennecker, G., Mangelsdorf, I., Wibbertmana, A., Biphenyl Concise International Chemical Assessment Document, 6, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1-31, (1999)
  4. Sandmeyer, EE. Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Wiley, New York, 3325-3330, (1981)
  5. Ambrose, AM., Booth, AN., DeEds, F., Cox, AJ. A toxicological study of biphenyl a citrus fungistat Food Res, 25, 328-336, (1960) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1960.tb00338.x
  6. Hakkinen I., Jokinen M., Tast J., The winter breeding of the feral pigeon Columba livia domestica at Tampere in 1972/73, Ornis Fennica, 50: 83-88, (1973)
  7. HSDB, 2-Chloro-1,3-Butadiene: Chemical/phy sical properties, Retrieved February 12, 2010 from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen HSDB, (2009)
  8. OSHA"Occupational Safety and Health Act," Pub. Law 91-596, Section 2193. 91st Congress, Dec. 29, 1970; as amended, Pub. Law 101-552, Section 3101, Nov. 5, (1990)
  9. ACGIH, Documentation of the threshold limit values for chemical substances, (2006)
  10. US EPA, Integrated Risk for Information System, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC, Available from:URL:http://www.epa.gov/iris, (2003)
  11. Nicas M., Hubbard A., A risk analysis approach to selecting respiratory protection against airborne pathogens used for bioterrism, Am I Ind Hyg Assoc, 64(1):95 101, (2003) https://doi.org/10.1080/15428110308984797

Cited by

  1. A Study on Application Design Scenarios for the Gas Safety Field Workers -focused on the pipe work- vol.14, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2016.14.5.273
  2. 가스안전 작업자들의 IoT 기반 앱 개발을 위한 작업유형 분류 및 인터랙션 기능설계 vol.8, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.15207/jkcs.2017.8.5.045