Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Investigation of the Guidance Levels for Protecting Populations from Chemical Exposure and the Estimation of the Level of Concern Using Acute Toxicity Data

화학사고 시 수용체 보호를 위한 독성끝점 농도와 급성독성 자료를 활용한 우려농도 예측값 조사

  • Lee, Jiyun (Department of Environmental Health, Graduate School at Yongin University) ;
  • Kim, Sunshin (Gumi Environmental Health Center for Hazardous Gas Exposure) ;
  • Yang, Wonho (Department of Occupational Health, Catholic University of Daegu) ;
  • Yoon, Junheon (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Ryu, Jisung (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Kim, Jungkon (Accident Prevention and Assessment Division, National Institute of Chemical Safety) ;
  • Ji, Kyunghee (Department of Environmental Health, Graduate School at Yongin University)
  • 이지윤 (용인대학교 일반대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 김순신 (순천향대학교 구미병원 환경보건센터) ;
  • 양원호 (대구가톨릭대학교 산업보건학과) ;
  • 윤준헌 (화학물질안전원) ;
  • 류지성 (화학물질안전원) ;
  • 김정곤 (화학물질안전원) ;
  • 지경희 (용인대학교 일반대학원 환경보건학과)
  • Received : 2018.01.16
  • Accepted : 2018.02.06
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: To protect individuals working at the site as well as the surrounding general population from a chemical accident, several emergency exposure guidance levels have been used to set a level of concern for certain chemicals. However, a level of concern has not been established for many substances that are frequently used or produced in large quantities in Korean workplaces. In the present study, we investigated the guidance levels for protecting populations from chemical exposure and the estimation of level of concern using acute inhalation and oral toxicity data. Methods: The number of chemicals to which emergency exposure guidance levels (e.g., ERPG-2, AEGL-2, PAC-2, and IDLH) can be applied were determined among 822 hazardous chemicals according to the 'Technical Guidelines for the Selection of Accident Scenarios (revised December 2016)'. The ERPG and AEGL values were compared across all three tiers for the 31 substances that appeared on both lists. We examined the degree of difference between the emergency exposure guidance levels and the estimates of level of concern calculated from acute inhalation or acute oral toxicity data. Results: Among the 822 hazardous chemicals, emergency exposure guidance levels can be applied to 359 substances, suggesting that the estimates of level of concern should be calculated using acute toxicity data for 56.3% of the hazardous chemicals. When comparing the concordance rates of ERPG and AEGL for 31 substances, the difference between the two criteria was generally small. However, about 40% of the substances have values diverging by more than three-fold in at least one tier. Such discrepancies may cause interpretation and communication problems in risk management. The emergency exposure guidance levels were similar to the estimates of level of concern calculated using acute inhalation toxicity data, but the differences were significant when using acute oral toxicity data. These results indicate that the level of concern derived from acute oral toxicity data may be insufficient to protect the population in some cases. Conclusion: Our study suggests that the development of standardized guidance values for emergency chemical exposure in the Korean population should be encouraged. It is also necessary to analyze acute toxicity data and fill the information gaps for substances that are important in Korean workplace situations.

Keywords

References

  1. Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry. CAS Registry-The Gold Standard for Chemical Substance Information. Available: https://www.cas.org/ content/chemical-substances [accessed 30 December 2017].
  2. Yoon CS. Criteria for emergency (leakage, accident) of chemical substances. Korean Industrial Health Association. Monthly Occupational Health; 2016. 22-31.
  3. Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information. Available: http://www.Bhopal.com [accessed 01 February 2018].
  4. Rusch GM. The history and development of emergency response planning guidelines. J Hazard Mat. 1993; 33(2): 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3894(93)85053-H
  5. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Available: http://www.acgih.org [accessed 30 December 2017].
  6. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Available: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/ tablez-1.html [accessed 30 December 2017].
  7. Cavender F, Phillips S, Holland M. Development of emergency response planning guidelines (ERPGs). J Med Toxicol. 2008; 4(2): 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160967
  8. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Documentation for Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations (IDLH's) (NTIS PB94-195047). Cincinnati: NIOSH; 1994.
  9. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Values. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/intridl4.html [accessed 30 December 2017].
  10. Cavender F, Gephart LA. Emergency response planning. J Air Waste Management. 1994; 11: 111-122.
  11. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Emergency Response Planning GuidelinesTM. Available: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuideline Foundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/ Pages/default.aspx [accessed 30 December 2017].
  12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Emergency Response Planning Guidelines TM. Available: https://www.epa.gov/aegl/access-acute-exposure- guideline-levels-aegls-values#chemicals [accessed 30 December 2017].
  13. Craig DK, Davis JS, Hansen DJ, Petrocchi AJ, Powell TJ, Tuccinardi Jr. TE. Derivation of temporary emergency exposure limits (TEELs). J Appl Toxicol. 2000; 20: 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1263(200001/02)20:1<11::AID-JAT622>3.0.CO;2-Q
  14. Hansen DJ. DOE emergency planning & emergency management using emergency response planning guidelines (ERPGs) and temporary emergency exposure levels (TEELs). Drug Chem Toxicol. 1999; 22(1): 15-23. https://doi.org/10.3109/01480549909029721
  15. Office of Environment, Health, Safety & Security. Protective Action Criteria (PAC) with AEGLs, ERPGs, & TEELs: Rev. 29 for Chemicals of Concern-Mary 2016. Available: https://energy.gov/ehss/protective-action-criteria-pac-aegls-erpgs-teels-rev-29- chemicals-concern-may-2016 [accessed 30 December 2017].
  16. Klimisch HJ, Andreae M, Tillmann U. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1997; 25(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.1996.1076
  17. oberg M, Palmen N, Johanson G. Discrepancy among acute guideline levels for emergency response. J Hazard Mater. 2010; 184(1-3): 439-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.08.054
  18. Lester D, Greenberg LA, Adams WR. Effects of single and repeated exposures of humans and rats to vinyl chloride. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1963; 24(3):265-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028896309342963
  19. Pauluhn J. Acute inhalation toxicity of ammonia: revisiting the importance of RD50 and LCT01/50 relationships for setting emergency response guideline values. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2013; 66(3): 315-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.05.008
  20. Lavelle KS, Schnatter AR, Travis KZ, Swaen GM, Pallapies D, Money C, et al. Framework for integrating human and animal data in chemical risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012; 62: 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.10.009