JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Analysis on the Risk-Based Screening Levels Determined by Various Risk Assessment Tools (III): Proposed Methodology for Lead Risk Assessment in Korea
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Analysis on the Risk-Based Screening Levels Determined by Various Risk Assessment Tools (III): Proposed Methodology for Lead Risk Assessment in Korea
Jung, Jae-Woong; Nam, Kyoungphile;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The most critical health effect of lead exposure is the neurodevelopmental effect to children caused by the increased blood lead level. Therefore, the endpoint of the risk assessment for lead-contaminated sites should be set at the blood lead level of children. In foreign countries, the risk assessment for lead-contaminated sites is conducted by estimating the increased blood lead level of children via oral intake and/or inhalation (United States Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA), or by comparing the estimated oral dose to the threshold oral dose of lead, which is derived from the permissible blood lead level of children (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM). For the risk assessment, USEPA employs Integrated-Exposure-Uptake-Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model to check whether the estimated portion of children whose blood lead level exceeds 10 µg/dL, threshold blood lead level determined by USEPA, is higher than 5%, while Dutch RIVM compares the estimated oral dose of lead to the threshold oral dose (2.8 µg/kg-day), which is derived from the permissible blood lead level of children. In Korea, like The Netherlands, risk assessment for lead-contaminated sites is conducted by comparing the estimated oral dose to the threshold oral dose; however, because the threshold oral dose listed in Korean risk assessment guidance is an unidentified value, it is recommended to revise the existing threshold oral dose described in Korean risk assessment guidance. And, if significant lead exposure via inhalation is suspected, it is useful to employ IEUBK Model to derive the risk posed via multimedia exposure (i.e., both oral ingestion and inhalation).
 Keywords
Lead;Risk Assessment;Blood lead level;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Brand, E., Otte, P.F., and Lijzen, J.P.A., 2007, CSOIL 2000: An Exposure Model for Human Risk Assessment of Soil Contamination, RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, RIVM Report 711701054/2007.

2.
CalEPA, 2009, Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for Derivation, Listing of Available Values, and Adjustments To Allow for Early Life Stage Exposures, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch, CA, USA.

3.
EFSA, 2010, Scientific Opinion on Lead in Food, EFSA Journal, 8(4):1570, 1-151.

4.
IARC, 2006, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 87: Inorganic and Organic Lead Compounds, IARC, Lyon, France.

5.
KMOE, 2003, Research on the Preparation of Soil Standards and Remediation Goal with respect to Land Use.

6.
KMOE, 2015, Risk Assessment Guidance for Soil Contaminants, KMOE Notice 2015-64.

7.
Lijzen, J.P.A., Baars, A.J., Otte, P.F., Rikken, M.G.J., Swartjes, F.A., Verbruggen, E.M.J., and van Wezel, A.P., 2001, Technical Evaluation of the Intervention Values for Soil/sediment and Groundwater: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment and Derivation of Risk Limits for Soil, Aquatic Sediment and Groundwater, RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands.

8.
Markus, A.H. and Schwartz, J., 1987, Dose response curves for erythrocyte protoporphyrin vs. blood lead: Effects of iron status, Environ. Res., 44(2), 221-227. crossref(new window)

9.
Pennington, J.A.T., 1983, Revision of the total diet study food list and diets, J. Am. Dietetic Assoc., 82(2), 166-173.

10.
RIVM, 2012, Soil Remediation Circular 2009, available at http://rwsenvironment.eu/subjects/soil/legislation-and/soil-remediation./

11.
USCDC, 2005, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children, CDC, Atlanta, USA.

12.
USEPA, 1986, Air Quality Criteria, Volume I of IV, Draft Final, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, EPA-600/8-83/028aF.

13.
USEPA, 1989a, Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Exposure Analysis Methodology and Validation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, EPA-450/2-89/011.

14.
USEPA, 1989b, Exposure Factors Handbook, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, USA, EPA/600/8-89/043.

15.
USEPA, 1990, Report on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee on Its Review of the OAQPS Lead Staff Paper, EPA-SAB-CASAC-90-002.

16.
USEPA, 1994, Guidance Manual for the IEUBK Model for Lead in Children, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA, OSWER 9285.7-15-1.

17.
USEPA, 2002, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA, OSWER 9355.4-24.

18.
USEPA, 2003, Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites Handbook, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA, OSWER 9285.7-50.

19.
USEPA, 2015a, Learn about Lead, available at http://www2.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#exposed.

20.
USEPA, 2015b, Lead and Compounds (Inorganic) (CASRN 7439-92-1), IRIS, available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm.

21.
WHO, 1972, Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and the Contaminants: Sixteenth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (WHO Technical Report Series 505), WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

22.
WHO, 1993, Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Contaminants: Forty-first Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (WHO Technical Report Series 837), WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.