Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Exposure Estimates Using Consumer Exposure Assessment Models and the Korean Exposure Algorithm

국내외 소비자 제품 노출평가모델을 이용한 노출량 비교

  • Sohyun Kang (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Miyoung Lim (Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kiyoung Lee (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
  • 강소현 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 임미영 (서울대학교 보건환경연구소) ;
  • 이기영 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과)
  • Received : 2024.02.07
  • Accepted : 2024.02.22
  • Published : 2024.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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 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.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 환경부의 재원으로 한국환경산업기술원의 생활화학제품 안전관리기술개발사업의 지원(RS-2021-KE001353)을 받아 수행된 연구이며 이에 감사드립니다.

References

  1. 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/risk assessment. Part 2: IPCS glossary of key exposure assessment terminology. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
  2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Guidelines for exposure assessment. Washington, D.C.: EPA; 1992 May. Report No.: EPA/600/Z-92/001.
  3. National Institute of Environmental Research. Exposure calculation formula (related to Article 9-3). Regulations on the subject and method of risk assessment of consumer chemical products. Available: https://dlib.nier.go.kr/NIER/cop/bbs/selectNoLoginBoardArticle.do?menuNo=13001&bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000031&nttId=30410&Command=READ [Accessed 23 February 2024].
  4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Predictive models and tools for screening chemicals under TSCA: consumer exposure models 1.5. Washington, D.C.: EPA; 2017.
  5. Dam-Deisz WDC, Schuur AG. ConsExpo Web. Consumer exposure models - model documentation: update for ConsExpo Web 1.0.2. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); 2017. Report No.: RIVM Report 2017-0197.
  6. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC). Addendum to TR114: technical basis for the TRA v3.1. Brussels: ECETOC; 2014 Jun. Technical Report No. 124.
  7. Park J, Yoon C, Lee K. Comparison of modeled estimates of inhalation exposure to aerosols during use of consumer spray products. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018; 221(6): 941-950.
  8. Delmaar C, Meesters J. Modeling consumer exposure to spray products: an evaluation of the ConsExpo Web and ConsExpo nano models with experimental data. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2020; 30(5): 878-887.
  9. Lee S, Lee K, Kim H. Comparison of quantitative exposure models for occupational exposure to organic solvents in Korea. Ann Work Expo Health. 2019; 63(2): 197-217.
  10. Lee K. COnsumer products exposure and risk assessment. Seoul: Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute; 2016 Jun. Report No.: 20130011370001.
  11. Kim S, Chen J, Cheng T, Gindulyte A, He J, He S, et al. PubChem 2023 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023; 51(D1): D1373-D1380.
  12. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). Korean exposure factors handbook. Incheon: NIER; 2019.
  13. National Institute of Environmental Research. General exposure factors (related to Article 9-5). Regulations on the subject and method of risk assessment of consumer chemical products. Available: https://dlib.nier.go.kr/NIER/cop/bbs/selectNoLoginBoardArticle.do?menuNo=13001&bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000031&nttId=30410&Command=READ [Accessed 23 February 2024].
  14. Bremmer HJ, Blom WM, van Hoeven-Arentzen PH, Prud'homme de Lodder LCH, van Raaij MTM, Straetmans EHFM, et al. Pest control products fact sheet - to assess the risks for the consumer: updated version for ConsExpo 4. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); 2016. Report No.: RIVM Report 320005002.
  15. Meesters JAJ, Nijkamp MM, Schuur AG, Te-Biesebeek JD. Cleaning products fact sheet - default parameters for estimating consumer exposure: updated version 2018. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); 2018. Report No.: RIVM Report 2016-0179.
  16. Park J, Yoon C. Model algorithms for estimates of inhalation exposure and comparison between exposure estimates from each model. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2019: 29(3): 358-367.