• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제17권7호
• /
• pp.498-504
• /
• 2017

치아를 칫솔질하거나 치약을 사용하는 것과 같은 구강 건강 행위는 구강 건강을 개선하며, 따라서 삶의 질을 향상시키는 중요한 부분이다. 그러나 화학 물질에 대한 연구도 필요한 실정이다. 따라서 본 연구는 구강 건강 행위로 인해 야기되어지는 불소 노출에 미치는 요인을 조사하여 정확한 구강 건강 지침을 제공하고자 한다. ConsExpo 5.0 모델에서 불소 화합물의 경구 노출을 적용한 결과, 일일 불소 인체노출량 추정은 성인남성의 모델 결과 oral external dose는 0.000196 mg/kg, oral acute(internal) dose는 0.000196 mg/kg, oral chronic(internal)dose는 0.000465 mg/kg/day로 추정되었다. 성인여성은 연구결과 oral external dose는 $4.1{\times}10^{-6}mg/kg$, oral acute(internal) dose $4.1{\times}10^{-6}mg/kg$, oral chronic(internal) dose $9.99{\times}10^{-6}mg/kg/day$로 추정되었다.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제22권7호
• /
• pp.663-669
• /
• 2022

본 연구는 세치제에 함유되어지는 불소의 함유량이 1500ppm이하로 상향됨에 따라 시판되어지는 세치제의 불소 함유량도 향상되었다. 이에 따라 인체에 노출되어지는 불소의 양을 예측하고 이를 소비자에게 제공하여 안전한 세치제의 사용에 대한 대안을 제시하는데 목적이 있다. 본 연구는 2021년 3월부터 2주간 1300명을 대상으로 일반적 특성과 구강건강행위를 설문조사하였다. 조사한 결과를 ConsExpo Web 1.0.2. 노출평가하기 위한 입력변수로 사용하였다. 그 결과 불소가 1500ppm함유된 세치제를 사용할 경우남자는 External dose on day of exposure가 2.3×10-2 mg/kg/day, 여자의 경우 2.9×10-2 mg/kg/day, 2-3세 아동은 7.3×10-2 mg/kg/day로 추정되었다. 본 연구결과 시중에 유통되어지는 세치제의 불소함유량이 증가됨에 따라 소비자들의 안전한 사용을 위한 기준을 제시하는데 기초자료로 사용될 것이라 사료되어진다.

• 한국환경보건학회지
• /
• 제50권1호
• /
• pp.43-53
• /
• 2024

Background: Exposure assessment is an important part of risk assessment for consumer products. Exposure models are used when estimating consumer exposures by considering exposure routes, subjects, and circumstances. These models differ based on their tiers, types, and target populations. Consequently, exposure estimates may vary between models. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the results of different exposure models using identical exposure factors. Methods: Chemical exposure from consumer products was calculated using four consumer exposure assessment models: Targeted Risk Assessment 3.1, Consumer Exposure Model 2.1 (CEM), ConsExpo web 1.1.1, and the Korean Exposure Algorithm (primary and detailed) issued by the Ministry of Environment, No. 972 (MOE). The same exposure factors were used in each model to calculate inhalation and dermal exposures to acetaldehyde, d-limonene, and naphthalene in all-purpose cleaners, leather coating sprays, and sealants. Results: In the results, TRA provided the highest estimate. Generally, MOE (detailed), CEM and ConsExpo showed lower exposures. The inhalation exposure for leather coating spray showed the largest differences between models, with differences reaching up to 1.2×10⁷ times. Since identical inputs were used for the calculations, it is likely that the models significantly influenced the estimated results. Conclusions: Despite using the same exposure factors to calculate dermal and inhalation exposures, the results varied substantially based on the model's exposure algorithm. Therefore, selecting an exposure model for assessing consumer products should be done with careful consideration.

• 한국산업보건학회지
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.358-367
• /
• 2019

Objectives: This study aimed to review model algorithms and input parameters applied to some exposure models and to compare the simulated estimates using an exposure scenario from each model. Methods: A total of five exposure models which can estimate inhalation exposure were selected; the Korea Ministry of Environment(KMOE) exposure model, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Targeted Risk Assessment(ECETOC TRA), SprayExpo, and ConsExpo model. Algorithms and input parameters for exposure estimation were reviewed and the exposure scenario was used for comparing the modeled estimates. Results: Algorithms in each model commonly consist of the function combining physicochemical properties, use characteristics, user exposure factors, and environmental factors. The outputs including air concentration ($mg/m^3$) and inhaled dose(mg/kg/day) are estimated applying input parameters with the common factors to the algorithm. In particular, the input parameters needed to estimate are complicated among the models and models need more individual input parameters in addition to common factors. In case of CEM, it can be obtained more detailed exposure estimates separating user's breathing zone(near-field) and those at influencing zone(far-field) by two-box model. The modeled exposure estimates using the exposure scenario were similar between the models; they were ranged from 0.82 to $1.38mg/m^3$ for concentration and from 0.015 to 0.180 mg/kg/day for inhaled dose, respectively. Conclusions: Modeling technique can be used for a useful tool in the process of exposure assessment if the exposure data are scarce, but it is necessary to consider proper input parameters and exposure scenario which can affect the real exposure conditions.