한국환경보건학회지 (Journal of Environmental Health Sciences)

  • 제46권5호
  • /
  • Pages.576-587
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1738-4087(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-8616(eISSN)
한국환경보건학회 (Korean Society of Environmental Health)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

CalTOX 모델에 의한 휘발성유기화합물의 대기 중 예측 농도와 실측 농도간의 타당성 분석에 관한 연구

A Study on Analyzing the Validity between the Predicted and Measured Concentrations of VOCs in the Atmosphere Using the CalTOX Model

  • Kim, Ok (Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University) ;
  • Lee, Minwoo (Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University) ;
  • Park, Sanghyun (Chungnam Institute) ;
  • Park, Changyoung (Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University) ;
  • Song, Youngho (Environmental Safety & Management Division Chungcheongnam-do, Provincial Government) ;
  • Kim, Byeongbin (Korea Federation for Environmental Movements in Dangjin) ;
  • Choi, Jinha (Chungcheongnam-do Health & Environment Research institute) ;
  • Lee, Jinheon (Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2020.09.10
  • 심사 : 2020.10.20
  • 발행 : 2020.10.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: This study calculated local residents exposures to VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) released into the atmosphere using the CalTOX model and carried out uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis. The model validity was analyzed by comparing the predicted and the actual atmospheric concentrations. Methods: Uncertainty was parsed by conducting a Monte Carlo simulation. Sensitivity was dissected with the regression (coefficients) method. The model validity was analyzed by applying r2 (coefficient of determination), RMSE (root mean square error), and the Nash-Sutcliffe EI (efficiency index) formula. Results: Among the concentrations in the atmosphere in this study, benzene was the highest and the lifetime average daily dose of benzene and the average daily dose of xylene were high. In terms of the sensitivity analysis outcome, the source term to air, exposure time, indoors resting (ETri), exposure time, outdoors at home (ETao), yearly average wind speed (v_w), contaminated area in ㎡ (Area), active breathing rate (BRa), resting breathing rate (BRr), exposure time, and active indoors (ETai) were elicited as input variables having great influence upon this model. In consequence of inspecting the validity of the model, r2 appeared to be a value close to 1 and RMSE appeared to be a value close to 0, but EI indicated unacceptable model efficiency. To supplement this value, the regression formula was derived for benzene with y=0.002+15.48x, ethylbenzene with y ≡ 0.001+57.240x, styrene with y=0.000+42.249x, toluene with y=0.004+91.588x, and xylene with y=0.000+0.007x. Conclusions: In consequence of inspecting the validity of the model, r2 appeared to be a value close to 1 and RMSE appeared to be a value close to 0, but EI indicated unacceptable model efficiency. This will be able to be used as base data for securing the accuracy and reliability of the model.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Korea Industrial Complex Corporation. Available: http://www.kicox.or.kr [accessed 5 October 2018].
  2. Lee BJ, Heo J, Jung DY, Kim SS, Ryu HS, Shuai JF, et al. Correlation relationship between personal exposure and biological monitoring for airborne toluene in an industrial complex and general environments. J Environ Health Sci. 2017; 43(4): 324-333.
  3. Lopez-Aparicio S, Guevara M, Thunis P, Cuvelier K, Tarrason L. Assessment of discrepancies between bottom-up and regional emission inventories in norwegian urban areas. Atmos Environ. 2017; 154: 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.02.004
  4. Phetxumphou K, Dietrich AM, Shanaiah N, Smiley E, Gallagher DL. Subtleties of human exposure and response to chemical mixtures from spills. Environ Pollut. 2016; 214: 618-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.04.056
  5. Kim HJ, Im JY, Yun JH, Lee JH, Jeon JH, Lee CS. A Study on the characteristics of chemicals in major industrial complexes. J Environ Health Sci. 2018; 44(6): 515-523.
  6. Park JH, Yoon CS. Model algorithms for estimates of inhalation exposure and comparison between exposure estimates from each model. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2019; 29(3): 358-367. https://doi.org/10.15269/JKSOEH.2019.29.3.358
  7. US NRC. Frontiers in assessing human exposures to environmental toxicants. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1991.
  8. WHO. 2000. Available: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc214.htm [accessed 5 June 2018].
  9. WHO. Harmonization project strategic plan: harmonization of approaches to the assessment of risk from exposure to chemicals. 2012.
  10. Robert G. Sargent. Verification and validation of simulation models. Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Winter Simulation Conference. 1998.
  11. Thomas E. McKone, Matthew MacLeod. Tracking multiple pathways of human exposure to persistent multimedia pollutants: regional, continental, and global-scale models. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2003; 28: 463-492. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105623
  12. US NRC. Models in environmental regulatory decision making. Washington, DC. The National Academies Press; 2007.
  13. US EPA. Guidance on the development, evaluation, and application of environmental models. Office of the Science Advisor. Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling. 2009.
  14. US EPA. Guidelines for human exposure assessment. Washington, DC. Risk Assessment Forum. 1992.
  15. Schlesinger S. Terminology for model credibility. Simulation. 1979; 32(3): 103-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/003754977903200304
  16. US EPA. Framework for human health risk assessment to inform decision making. Office of the Science Advisor. Risk Assessment Forum. 2014.
  17. Beven JK. Rainfall-runoff modelling-the primer. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester. 2001.
  18. Yang JY. Estimation of human exposure to dioxins in korean urban residents by mulitimedia/multiroute model. [Seoul]: Yonsei University; 2001.
  19. Moon JY, Yang JY, Lim YW, Park SE. Estimating human exposure to benzo(a)pyrene through multimedia/ multiroute exposure scenario. J. Environ. Toxicol. 2003; 18(4): 255-269.
  20. Kim O. A multimedia & multiple pathway estimating human exposure of benzo(a)pyrene by using CalTOX model, focused on the fuel combustion in Seosan area. [Gongju]: Kongju National University; 2017.
  21. Kim O, Lee MW, Song YH, Choi JH, Park SH, Park CY, et al. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of human aggregate risk assessment of benzene using the CalTOX Model. J Environ Health Sci. 2020; 46(2): 136-149.
  22. Song YH. Assessment of integrated human risk of heavy metals emitted from coal-fired power plant using 3MRA model, [Gongju]: Kongju National University; 2018.
  23. Ministry of environment. Available: http://icis.me.go.kr/prtr/prtrInfo/entrpsSearch.do [accessed 5 May 2020].
  24. Kim O, Song YH, Choi JH, Park SH, Park CY, Lee MW, et al. Human exposure to BTEX and its risk assessment using the CalTOX model according to the probability density function in meteorological input data. J Environ Health Sci. 2019; 45(5): 497-510. https://doi.org/10.5668/JEHS.2019.45.5.497
  25. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I-A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology. 1970; 10(3): 282-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
  26. Xiaohui Zhong, Utpal Dutta. Engaging Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency and model efficiency factor indicators in selecting and validating effective light rail system operation and maintenance cost models. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. 2015; 3: 255-265.
  27. Krause P, Boyle DP, Base F. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv. Geosci. 2005; 5: 89-97. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005
  28. Lee SB, Yoon CG, Jung KW, Hwang HS. Comparative evaluation of runoff and water quality using HSPF and SWMM. Water Sci Technol. 2010; 62(6) 1401-1409. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.302
  29. Legates DR, McCabe GJ. Evaluating the use of ‘Goodness-of-Fit’ measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research. 1999; 35(1): 233-241. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998WR900018
  30. ASCE. Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. J Irrig Drain Eng. 1993; 119(3): 429-442. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1993)119:3(429)
  31. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Binger RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic qualification of accuracy in watershed simulations. American Society of Agricultural and Biological engineers. 2007; 50(3): 885-900.
  32. Servat E, Dezetter A. Selection of calibration objective functions in the context of rainfall-runoff modeling in a sudanese savannah area. Hydrological Science Journal. 1991; 36(4): 307-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669109492517
  33. US EPA. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: human health evaluation manual (Part F, supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment). Washingon, D.C., Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. 2009.
  34. Delmaar JE, Bremmer HJ. The ConsExpo spray model-Modelling and experimental validation of the inhalation exposure of consumers to aerosols from spray cans and trigger sprays. RIVM. 2009.
  35. Delmaar J, Bokkers B, ter Burg W, Van Engelen JGM. First tier modeling of consumer dermal exposure to substances in consumer articles under reach: A quantitative evaluation of the ECETOC TRA for consumers tool. Regul Toxicol Pharm. 2013; 65(1): 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.10.015
  36. Riedmann R, Gasic B, Vernez D. Sensitivity analysis, dominant factors, and robustness of the ECETOC TRA v3, Stoffenmanager 4.5, and ART 1.5 occupational exposure models. Risk Anal. 2015; 35(2): 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12286
  37. Park JH, Yoon CH. Model algorithms for estimates of inhalation exposure and comparison between exposure estimates from each model. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2019; 29(3): 358-367. https://doi.org/10.15269/JKSOEH.2019.29.3.358
  38. McKone TE. CalTOX, A Multimedia Total Exposure Model for Hazardous-Waste Sites Part I: Executive Summary. California Environmental Protection Agency DTSC. 1993.
  39. Davis PA, Olague NE, Goodrich MT. Approaches for the validation of models used for performance assessment of high-level nuclear waste repositories. 1991.
  40. Park JH, Yang SY, Park YK, Ryu HS, Kim EC, Choe YT, et al. Exposure and risk assessment of benzene and PM10 for sub-populations using monte-carlo simulations. J Environ Health Sci. 2019; 45(3): 247-257.
  41. Ryu HS, Yoon HJ, Eom IC, Park JH, Kim SS, Cho MS, et al. Time-activity pattern assessment for korean students. J Environ Health Sci. 2018; 44(2): 143-152.
  42. Lee BR, Ban HK, Jang YL, Lee KY. Measurement of time/location for personal exposure assessment of air pollutants. J Environ Health Sci. 2016; 42(5): 314-323.
  43. National Institute of Environmetal Research. Annual Report of Quality in Korea 2018. Incheon. National Institute of Environmetal Research. 2019.
  44. National Institute of Environmental Research. National air pollutant emission calculation method manual (III). Incheon. National Institute of Environmental Research. 2013.
  45. Hwang MY, Hong SY, Kwon YM, Jo HJ, Park CH. Differences of chemical exposure levels according to residential and personal life-style characteristics of korean adult population-from korean national environmental health survey. J Environ Health Sci. 2019; 45(2): 142-153.
  46. Korea Meteorological Administration. ASOS. Available: https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do[accessed 1 April 2019].
  47. Korea Ststistical Information Service. Available: http://kosis.kr/index/index.do[accessed 1 December 2019].
  48. National Institute of Environmental Research. Korean exposure factors handbook. Incheon. 2019.
  49. McKone TE. CalTOX, A multimedia total-exposure model for hazardous-waste sites Part III: The multiple-pathway exposure model. California Environmental Protection Agency DTSC. 1992.
  50. National Institute of Environmental Research. Korean exposure factors handbook for children. 2019.