국내외 소비자 제품 노출평가모델을 이용한 노출량 비교
Comparison of Exposure Estimates Using Consumer Exposure Assessment Models and the Korean Exposure Algorithm
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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 inf luenced 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.
Abstract
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 inf luenced 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.
참고문헌 (16)
- Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IPCS), "IPCS risk assessment terminology. Part 1: IPCS", OECD key generic terms used in chemical hazard, World Health Organization, pp.2004, ~
- Guidelines for exposure assessment, "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)", EPA, ~, pp.EPA (1992), 600[DOI]
- "Exposure calculation formula (related to Article 9-3). Regulations on the subject and method of risk assessment of consumer chemical products"[URL]
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Predictive models and tools for screening chemicals under TSCA: consumer exposure models 1.5", EPA, ~ (2017)
- ConsExpo Web. Consumer exposure models - model documentation: update for ConsExpo Web 1.0.2, "Dam-Deisz WDC", National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), ~, pp.RIVM Report 2017-0197 (2017)
- Addendum to TR114: technical basis for the TRA v3.1, "European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC)", ECETOC, ~, pp.Technical Report No. 124 (2014)
- Park J, "Comparison of modeled estimates of inhalation exposure to aerosols during use of consumer spray products", Int J Hyg Environ Health, 221(6), pp.941~950 (2018)
- Delmaar C, "Modeling consumer exposure to spray products : an evaluation of the ConsExpo Web and ConsExpo nano models with experimental data", J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 30(5), pp.878~887 (2020)
- Lee S, "Comparison of quantitative exposure models for occupational exposure to organic solvents in Korea", Ann Work Expo Health, 63(2), pp.197~217 (2019)
- COnsumer products exposure and risk assessment, "Lee K", Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute, ~, pp.20130011370001 (2016)
- Kim S, "PubChem 2023 update", Nucleic Acids Res, 51(D1), pp.D1373~D1380 (2023)
- National Institute of Environmental Research(NIER), "Korean exposure factors handbook", NIER, ~ (2019)
- "General exposure factors (related to Article 9-5). Regulations on the subject and method of risk assessment of consumer chemical products"[URL]
- Pest control products fact sheet - to assess the risks for the consumer:updated version for ConsExpo 4, "Bremmer HJ", National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), ~, pp.RIVM Report 320005002 (2016)
- Cleaning products fact sheet - default parameters for estimating consumer exposure: updated version 2018, "Meesters JAJ", National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), ~, pp.RIVM Report 2016-0179 (2018)
- Park J, "Model algorithms for estimates of inhalation exposure and comparison between exposure estimates from each model", J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg, 29(3), pp.358~367 (2019)