Browse > Article

Human Health Risk based Priority Ranking for Hazardous Air Pollutants  

Park Hoa-sung (연세대학교 환경공해연구소)
Kim Ye-shin (연세대학교 환경공해연구소)
Lee Dong-soo (서울대학교 환경대학원)
Shin Dong-chun (연세대학교 환경공해연구소)
Publication Information
Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology / v.19, no.1, 2004 , pp. 81-91 More about this Journal
Abstract
Although it is suggested that risk -based management plan is needed to manage air pollution effectively, we have no resources enough to evaluate all aspects of substances and set priorities. So we need to develop a logical and easy risk-based priority setting method. However, it if impossible that only one generic system that is consistent with all the use is developed. In this study, we proposed a human health risk based priority-setting method for hazardous air pollutants, and ranked priorities for this method. First of all, after investigating previous chemical ranking and scoring systems, we chose appropriate indicators and logics to goal of this study and made a chemical priority ranking method using these. As results, final scores in priority ranking method were derived for 25 substances, and ethylene oxide, acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride were included in high ranks. In addition, same substances were highly ranked when using default values like when using no default, but the scores of hydrofluoric acid and ryan and compounds were sensitive to default values. This study could be important that priorities were set including toxicity type and quality and local inherent exposure conditions and we can set area-specific management guidelines and survey plans as a screening tool.
Keywords
priority ranking; human toxicity; Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); Hazardous Air Pollutants(HAPs);
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김예신, 박화성, 이동수, 신동천. 화학물질 우선순위 선정기법에 대한 비교 분석 연구, 한국환경독성학회지 2003; 18(3): 183-191
2 화학물질정보센터 (KCIC, Korean Chemicals InformationCenter). http://kcic. nier.go. la-/, 2003
3 환경부. 수도권 대기질 개선 특별대책(시안)-수도권 대기질 개선에 관한 공개토론회 발표자료, 수도권대기질개선추진기획단, 2002a
4 Erin MS, Shane AS, John PG et al. SCRAM : A Scoring and Ranking System for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Substances for the North American Great Lakes-Part I : Structure of the Scoring and Ranking System, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2000; 7(1): 1-11   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Rachel RM, Cheryl LS, Shari AB et al. SCRAM: A Scoring and Ranking System for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic Subslances for the north american great lakes resulting chemical scores and rankings, Human and Eco-logical Risk Assessment 2002; 8(3): 537-557   DOI
6 Gary AD, Mary BS and Sheila J. Comparative evaluation of chemical ranking and scoring methodologies, US EPA 1994
7 환경부. 환경 백서, 2002b
8 IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). http://www.iarc.fr/, 2003
9 NTP (Natioanl Toxicology Program). http://ntp-server. niehs.nih.gov/, 2003
10 아주대학교. 대기오염의 위해성평가 연구 및 관리를 위한중 · 장기 연구계획, 환경부 2003
11 US EPA. Chemical hazard evaluation for management strate gies; A method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts, 1994b
12 Environment Canada. The ARET substance selection Pro-cess and guideline, 1994
13 Layton DW et al. Deriving allowable daily intakes for systemic toxicants lacking chronic toxicity data, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 1987; 7: 96-112   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Mary BS, Gary AD, Lori EK et al. A screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1997b; 16(2): 372-383   DOI
15 US EPA. Guidelines for developmental toxicity risk assess-ment, 1991
16 EU (European Union). IUCLID (International Uniform Chemical Information Database), 1996
17 ECB (European Chemical Bureau). http://ecb.jrc.it, 2003
18 US EPA. Chemical Screening Report for the RCRA PBT List Docket, 1998b
19 US EPA. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment, 1999
20 US EPA IRIS. www.epa.gov/iris, 2003
21 박화성. 대기중 유해화학물질의 위해도 우선순위 선정 기법과 적용성 연구, 연세대학교 보건대학원 석사학위논문, 2003
22 US EPA. Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment, 1986
23 김종석. 대기 환경 기준 설정 배경에 관하여, 한국대기보전학회지 1991; 7(1): 67-71
24 연세대학교 환경공해연구소 환경 위해성 평가 및 관리기술-대기오염물질의 위해성 평가 및 관리기술 개발, 환경부 1998
25 Mary BS and Adam CS. Chemical ranking and scoring : Guidelines for relative assessment of chemicals, SETAC press, 1997a
26 HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank). http://toxnet. nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/ sis/htmlgen?HSDB, 2003
27 Hansen BG, Haelst AL et al. Priority setting for existing chemicals: The European Union risk ranking method, Environmental Toxicity and chemistry 1999; 18: 772-779   DOI   ScienceOn
28 US EPA. Comparative evaluation of chemical ranking and scoring methodology, 1994a
29 환경부. 화학물질 배출량 조사 결과(1999-2000), 2002c
30 US EPA. Guidelines for reproductive toxicity risk assess-ment, 1996
31 US EPA. EPIwin (Estimation Programs Interface for Win- dows), 2001
32 US EPA. Guidelines for neurotoxicity risk assessment, 1998a