Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Prioritization of Chemicals for Chronic/Carcinogenic Inhalation Testing

만성발암성 흡입독성시험 우선순위 물질 선정 연구

  • Rim, Kyung-Taek (Chemicals Research Bureau, Occupational Safety & Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency) ;
  • Lim, Cheol-Hong (Chemicals Research Bureau, Occupational Safety & Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency) ;
  • Kim, Hyeon-Yeong (Chemicals Research Bureau, Occupational Safety & Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency) ;
  • Cha, Shin-Woo (Korea Institute of Toxicology) ;
  • Heo, Yong (Department of Occupational Health, Catholic University of Daegu) ;
  • Yoon, Jin-Ha (College of Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Hyung-A (College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 임경택 (안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 산업화학연구실) ;
  • 임철홍 (안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 산업화학연구실) ;
  • 김현영 (안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 산업화학연구실) ;
  • 차신우 (한국화학연구원 부설 안전성평가연구소) ;
  • 허용 (대구가톨릭대학교 산업보건학과) ;
  • 윤진하 (연세대학교 의과대학) ;
  • 김형아 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학)
  • Received : 2016.09.01
  • Accepted : 2017.01.26
  • Published : 2017.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: In this study, we seek to perform a priority selection for test substances for chronic inhalation toxicity studies, including acute and subchronic inhalation toxicity studies, which are to be performed after the construction of a chronic/carcinogenicity inhalation toxicity study facility and enactment of pertinent legislation. Methods: Through this study, qualitative and quantitative priority evaluation of test substances according to acute, subchronic and chronic categories were respectively performed and priorities were suggested by expert group review, redundancy and other methods. Meanwhile, a draft on test substance selection criteria, procedures and methods referring to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) system was proposed. Results: This study selected priorities for candidate substances for chronic inhalation toxicity studies to be conducted from 2016. Conclusions: In the future, by assessing in advance the toxicological effects of chemicals to which workers can be potentially exposed in the workplace via long-term inhalation, expected health disturbances among workers will be reduced and it is anticipated that occupational disease induced by chemicals will be effectively prevented.

Keywords

References

  1. World Health Organization(WHO). Global health estimates: Deaths by cause, age and country, 2000-2012. 2014.
  2. National Cancer Information Center(NCIC). Statisitics of Cancer in Korea [serial online] 2012 [cited 2016 May 24]. Available from: http://www.cancer.go.kr/mbs/cancer/subview.jsp?id=cancer_040101000000
  3. Statistics Korea. Cancer mortality(http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=2770), 2015.
  4. Rim KT, Kim SJ. Creating of Standard Operating Procedures for Chronic Inhlation and Carcinogenicity Test. Creating of Standard Operating Procedures for Chronic Inhlation and Carcinogenicity Test. Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2014; 24(4): 578-586. https://doi.org/10.15269/JKSOEH.2014.24.4.578
  5. Rim KT, Lim CH, Ahn BJ. Selection of Candidate Materials and their Prioritization for Chronic Inhalation and Carcinogenicity Test. Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2014; 24(4): 587-612. https://doi.org/10.15269/JKSOEH.2014.24.4.587
  6. Minstry of environment(ME). Investigation of chemicals in circulation. 2010.
  7. Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA). Domestic business survey. 2014.
  8. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
  9. Hansen BG, van Haelst AG, van Leeuwen K et al. Priority setting for existing chemicals: European Union Risk Ranking Method. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1999; 18: 772-779. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620180425
  10. Ministry of employment and labor(MOEL). Guideline for chemical hazard evaluation and risk assessment. 2014 An established rule No. 66.
  11. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). Specific provisions for chemical risk assessment. 2014 An established rule No. 48.
  12. Swanson MB, Davis GA, Kincaid LE, Schultz TW, Bartmess JE, John SL, George EL. A screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts. Environ Toxicol & Chem. 1997; 16(2): 372-383. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620160237
  13. U.S. EPA. Chemical hazard evaluation for management strategies; A method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human and environmental impacts. 1994.
  14. US EPA. Comparative evaluation of chemical ranking and scoring methodologies. 1994.
  15. Environment Canada(EC). The ARET substance selection process and guidelines. 1994.
  16. EU(European Union). General classification and labelling requirements for dangerous substances and preparations. Official J European Communities L. 2001; 225-263.
  17. An YJ, Jeong SW, Kim TS, Lee WM, Nam SH et al. Assessment factors for the selection of priority soil contaminants based on the comparative analysis of chemical ranking and scoring systems. Korean Soc Soil Groundwater Environ. 2008; 13(6): 62-71.
  18. Yang JY, Jang JY, Kim SH, Kim YK, Lee HM et al. Development of Korean Food-Chemical Ranking and Scoring System(Food-CRS-Korea) and its application to prioritizing food toxic chemicals associated with environmental pollutants. J Environ Toxicol. 2010; 25(1): 41-55.
  19. World Health Organization(WHO). Risk management and food safety-FAO Food and nutrition. 1997.