Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5668/JEHS.2019.45.5.497

Human Exposure to BTEX and Its Risk Assessment Using the CalTOX Model According to the Probability Density Function in Meteorological Input Data  

Kim, Ok (Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University)
Song, Youngho (Environmental Conservation Division Chungcheongnam-do, Provincial Government)
Choi, Jinha (Chungcheongnam-do Health & Environment Research Institute)
Park, Sanghyun (Chungnam Institute)
Park, Changyoung (Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University)
Lee, Minwoo (Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University)
Lee, Jinheon (Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Environmental Health Sciences / v.45, no.5, 2019 , pp. 497-510 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to secure the reliability of using the CalTOX model when evaluating LADD (or ADD) and Risk (or HQ) among local residents for the emission of BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene) and by closely examining the difference in the confidence interval of the assessment outcomes according to the difference in the probability density function of input variables. Methods: The assessment was made by dividing it according to the method ($I^{\dagger}$) of inputting the probability density function in meteorological variables of the model with log-normal distribution and the method of inputting ($II^{\ddagger}$) after grasping the optimal probability density function using @Risk. A T-test was carried out in order to analyze the difference in confidence interval of the two assessment results. Results: It was evaluated to be 1.46E-03 mg/kg-d in LADD of Benzene, 1.96E-04 mg/kg-d in ADD of Toluene, 8.15E-05 mg/kg-d in ADD of Ethylbenzene, and 2.30E-04 mg/kg-d in ADD of Xylene. As for the predicted confidence interval in LADD and ADD, there was a significant difference between the $I^{\dagger}$ and $II^{\ddagger}$ methods in $LADD_{Inhalation}$ for Benzene, and in $ADD_{Inhalation}$ and ADD for Toluene and Xylene. It appeared to be 3.58E-05 for risk in Benzene, 3.78E-03 for HQ in Toluene, 1.48E-03 for HQ in Ethylbenzene, and 3.77E-03 for HQ in Xylene. As a result of the HQ in Toluene and Xylene, the difference in confidence interval between the $I^{\dagger}$ and $II^{\ddagger}$ methods was shown to be significant. Conclusions: The human risk assessment for BTEX was made by dividing it into the method ($I^{\dagger}$) of inputting the probability density function of meteorological variables for the CalTOX model with log-normal distribution, and the method of inputting ($II^{\ddagger}$) after grasping the optimal probability density function using @Risk. As a result, it was identified that Risk (or HQ) is the same, but that there is a significant difference in the confidence interval of Risk (or HQ) between the $I^{\dagger}$ and $II^{\ddagger}$ methods.
Keywords
BTEX; CalTOX model; LADD; ADD; Risk; HQ;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 7  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 U.S. EPA. Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A); 1989.
2 Seo JK, Kim TS, Kim PJ. Aggregate Risk Assessment on Xylene and Ethylbenzene. Journal of Environmental Science International. 2013; 22(2): 163-171.   DOI
3 US EPA. Risk Assessment Forum White Paper: Probabilistic Risk Assessment Method and Case Studies. 2014.
4 World Health Organization. International programme on chemical safety. Uncertainty and data quality in exposure assessment, Part 1: Guidance document on characterizing and communicating uncertainty in exposure assessment. Geneva, Press; 2008. p.15-66.
5 Roy, W.W. Methodology for chracterization of uncertainty in exposure assessments. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C. Press; 1985.
6 European Food Safety Authority. Guidance of the scientific committee on a request from EFSA related to uncertainties in dietary exposure assessment. Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/scdocs/doc/438.pdf. [accessed 10 October].
7 Lee JH, Kim CK, Park JH, Park PS, Lee TW, Kim SH, et al. Multi-media and multi pathway aggregate risk assessment (II): Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and Formaldehyde. National Institute of Environmental Research Press; 2012.
8 Jo AR, Kim TS, Seo JK, Yoon HJ, Kim PJ, Choi KH. Uncertainty Analysis and Application to Risk Assessment. J Environ Health Sci. 2015; 41(6): 425-437.
9 Choi KH, Kim SK, Moon HB, Park JI, Kim KT. Multi-media and multi pathway aggregate risk assessment (III): Bisphenol A and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers. National Institute of Environmental Research Press; 2013.
10 Lee JH, Kim CK, Park JH, Jung JW, Kim SH, Seol HS, et al. Multi-media and multi pathway aggregate risk assessment (IV): Lean, Arsenic, and Cadmium. National Institute of Environmental Research Press; 2014.
11 California EPA DTSC. CalTOX, A Multimedia Total Exposure Model for Hazardous Waste Sites Part III: The Multiple Pathway Exposure Model. 1993.
12 Korea Food & Drug Administration. Guidelines for risk assessment. 2011. p.27-56.
13 Joo YS. Probabilistic risk assessment. Korea Food & Drug Administration press; 2013. p.28-39.
14 Jang BY, Jeong DI, Lee HJ. Comparison of Deterministic and Probabilistic Approaches through Cases of Exposure Assessment of Child Products. J Environ Health Sci. 2017; 43(3): 223-232.
15 National Institute of Environmental Research. National Air Pollutant Emission Calculation Method Manual (III). 2013.
16 Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers. https://icis.me.go.kr/prtr/main.do [accessed 1 April. 2019].
17 Song YW. Estimation of the Body Surface Area of the Korean Adults Using the Recent Anthropometric Data. Journal of Natural Science Research. 2015; 13(1). 187-192.
18 Kim JW, Kim HS, Lee DJ, Kim GH. Analysis of Water Use Characteristics by Household Demand Monitoring. Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Engineers. 2007; 29(8): 864-869.
19 National Institute of Toxicological Research. Guidance for human exposure assessement. 2007. p.61-69.
20 Ministry of Environment. Korean Exposure Factors Handbook. 2007.
21 Korea Meteorological Administration. https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do [accessed 1 April 2019].
22 SARA timeseries Utility. http://www.aquaterra.com/resources/downloads/saratsutility.php [accessed 1 May 2019].
23 Nam BH, Yoon MJ, Lee JH, Choi JS, Baek SO. Goodness-of-fit Test of Distribution of Airborne Concentration for Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment. 1998; 134-135.
24 Lee JL, Kim YS, Ryu YT, Yu IS. A Study on the Health Risk Assessment of Volatile Organic Compounds in a Petrochemical Complex. Journal of Korea Air Pollution Research Association. 1997; 13(4): 257-267.
25 Charles N. Haas. Importance of Distributional Form in Characterizing Inputs to Monte Carlo Risk Assessments. Risk Analysis. 1997; 19(1): 107-113.   DOI
26 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.
27 Yang JY. Estimation of human exposure to dioxins in Korean urban residents by mulitimedia/multiroute model. [Seoul]: Yonsei University; 2001.
28 National Institute of Environmetal Research. Media-Intergrated Risk Assessment of Life Empathy Toxic Substances (I)-Benzene-. 2011.
29 Park JP, 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.
30 National Institute of Environmetal Research. A Sutdy on the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) of Yeosu.Gwangyang area. 2009.
31 National Institute of Environmetal Research. A Sutdy on the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) of Ulsan area. 2010.
32 Jang YC, Lee Sw, Shin YS, Kim Hk, Lee Jh. Human Health Risk Assessment of Benzene from Industrial Complexes of Chungcheong and Jeonla Province. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment. 2011; 20(4): 497-507.   DOI
33 Kim JH, Kwak BK, Shin CB, Jeon WJ, Yi JH. Prediction of Exposure and Risks of Environmental Pollutants via Emission Assessment and Multimedia Transport Modeling. Korean Chemical engineering research. 2009; 47(2): 248-257.
34 US ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). Toxicological Profile for Benzene. 2007.
35 Beck, U., Ritter, M., Brown, J. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Environmental Values. 1993; 2(4): 367-368.
36 Kim HJ, lm JY, Yun JH, Lee JH, Jeon JH, Lee CS. A Study on the Characteristics of Chemical in Major Industrial Complexes. J Environ Health Sci. 2018; 44(6): 515-523.
37 Im JY, Kim HJ, Kim MS, Lee JH, Lee SM, Lee CS. A Study on the Variation of Hazardous Pollutant Emissions in Korea from 2006 to 2015. J Environ Health Sci. 2018; 44(1): 15-23.
38 Seo JK, Kim TS, Kim PJ. Aggregate Risk Assessment on Xylene and Ethylbenzene. Journal of Environmental Science International. 2013; 22(2): 163-171.   DOI
39 EPA. IRIS Assesssments. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/atoz.cfm?list_type=alpha [accessed 31 July 2019].
40 US ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). Toxicological Profile for Toluene. 2017.
41 US ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). Toxicological Profile for EthylBenzene. 2010.
42 US ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). Toxicological Profile for Xylene. 2007.
43 Shin HS, Ahn HS. The study on the measurement of volatile organic compounds in the air of A and B industrial area. Analytical Science & Technology. 2004; 17(2): 130-144.