[ Log In | Register]
! Skip Navigation Links
Skip Navigation Links
Image of Journal of Applied Nonlinear Dynamics
ISSN:2325-6192 (print)
ISSN:2325-6206 (online)
Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management
António Mendes Lopes (editor), Jiazhong Zhang(editor)
António Mendes Lopes (editor)

University of Porto, Portugal

Email: aml@fe.up.pt

Jiazhong Zhang (editor)

School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710049, China

Fax: +86 29 82668723 Email: jzzhang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn

A Framework for Screening and Risk Assessment for Priority Assessment Chemicals in China

Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 8(2) (2020) 151--166 | DOI:10.5890/JEAM.2020.06.004

Xiangyi Yu, Yan Mao, Jun Lin

Solid Waste and Chemicals Management Center of Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing 100029, China

Download Full Text PDF

 

Abstract

The abuse of toxic and hazardous chemicals has caused environmental pollution and harmed human health. As a result, chemical risk management has become a hot research topic around the world, and sound chemicalmanagement has become a key objective of sustainable development. Based on the concept of chemical risk management, many developed countries have identified toxic and harmful chemicals among their existing chemicals, and have prioritized assessment of the most dangerous chemicals and of chemicals that create a high risk of environmental exposure. Their goal has been to support a comprehensive risk assessment that will guide the implementation of risk management. This management model has been widely recognized by the international community, particularly in developed nations, but has not been fully implemented in developing nations. By analyzing three mature international risk assessment methods, we identified potential solutions for establishing methods that are most suitable for the current situation in China. Based on our literature review, we propose a screening method, the “criteria comparison method”, and a two-stage risk assessment method to prioritize the assessment of chemicals in China. The screening method proposed in this paper focuses on the hazards created during their manufacture and use based on the internationally accepted Globally Harmonized System hazard classification theory and principles, to ensure that the method is scientific and easy to operate. The proposed two-stage risk assessment method is mainly based on risk theory (risk = hazard × exposure), which fully considers the technical capability of chemical risk assessment in China. The screening and risk assessment methods will help decision-makers to screen potentially hazardous chemicals and carry out risk assessment for China’s priority assessment chemicals, thereby providing support for improving management of chemical risks in China.

References

  1. [1]  Commission EU (1993), Council Regulation (EEC), No. 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the Evaluation and Control of the Risks of Existing Substances, Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/ EN/TXT/?qid=1560907987983&uri=CELEX:31993R0793 (accessed January 2019).
  2. [2]  Davis, G.A., Kincaid, L., Swanson, M., Schultz, T., Barmess, J., Griffith, B., and Jones, S. (1994), Chemical hazard evaluation for management strategies: A method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts, EPA/600/R-94/177, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati.
  3. [3]  ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2008), Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, European Chemicals Agency: Helsinki.
  4. [4]  ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2011), Selection Criteria to Prioritise Substances for Substance Evaluation, European Chemicals Agency: Helsinki.
  5. [5]  ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2012), Community Rolling Action Plan. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency, Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/evaluation/community-rolling-action-plan (accessed January 2019).
  6. [6]  Egeghy, P.P., Vallero, D.A., and Cohen Hubal, E.E. (2011), Exposure-based prioritization of chemicals for risk assessment, Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 950-964.
  7. [7]  European Commission (1996, 2003), Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment, European Commission: Ispra.
  8. [8]  European Union (2007), Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/ EN/TXT/?qid=1560908135391&uri=CELEX:32006R1907 (accessed January 2019).
  9. [9]  Giubilato, E., Zabeo, A., Critto, A., Giove, S., Bierkens, J., Den Hond, E., and Marcomini, A. (2014), A risk-based methodology for ranking environmental chemical stressors at the regional scale, Environment International, 65, 41-53.
  10. [10]  Government of Japan (2009), Act on the Regulation of Manufacture and Evaluation of Chemical Substances, Available at: http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?ft=1&re=02&dn=1&x=46&y=11&co=01&ia=03&ky=act+on+the +regulation+of+manufacture&page=13 (accessed March 2019).
  11. [11]  Kumamoto, H. (2007), Satisfying Safety Goals by Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Springer-Verlag London Limited: London.
  12. [12]  Lerche, D., Sørensen, P.B., Larsen, H.S., Carlsen, L., and Nielsen, O.J. (2002), Comparison of the combined monitoringbased and modelling-based priority setting scheme with partial order theory and random linear extensions for ranking of chemical substances, Chemosphere, 49(6), 637-649.
  13. [13]  MEE (Ministry of Ecology and the Environment) (2013), Inventory of the Existing Chemical Substances in China (in Chinese), Beijing: Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China.
  14. [14]  METI (Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry) (2009), About screening evaluation, Available at: https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/chemical management/kasinhou/information/ra index.html (accessed March 2019).
  15. [15]  METI (Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry) (2010), Details of screening evaluation methods (Draft), Available at: https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/chemical management/kasinhou/files/information/ra/ screening detail.pdf (accessed March 2019).
  16. [16]  MOE (Ministry of the Environment),METI (Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry),MHLW(Ministry of Health,Welfare and Labor) of Japan (2012, 2014), Methods for the Risk Assessment of Priority Assessment Chemical Substances, Tokyo: MOE, METI, MHLW.
  17. [17]  Sheldon, L.S.S. and Cohen Hubal, E.A. (2009), Exposure as part of a systems approach for assessing risk, Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(8), 1181-1184.
  18. [18]  Shin, S., Moon, H.I., Lee, K.S., Hong, M.K., and Byeon, S.H. (2014), A Chemical risk ranking and scoring method for the selection of harmful substances to be specially controlled in occupational environments, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(11), 12001-12014.
  19. [19]  State Council of the People’s Republic of China (2018), Opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on Strengthening Ecological Environment Protection and Resolutely Fighting Pollution Prevention and Control, Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-06/24/content 5300953.htm (accessed March 2019).
  20. [20]  Swanson, M.B., Davis, G.A., Kincaid, L.E., Schultz, T., Bartmess, J.E., Jones, S., and George, E.L. (1997), A screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 16(2), 372-383.
  21. [21]  US NAS (National Academy of Sciences) (1983), Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  22. [22]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1986a), Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment, Washington DC: USEPA.
  23. [23]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1986b), Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures, Washington DC: USEPA.
  24. [24]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1991), Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment, Washington DC: USEPA.
  25. [25]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1992), Guidelines for Exposure Assessment, Washington DC: USEPA.
  26. [26]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1996), Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment, Washington DC: USEPA.
  27. [27]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1998a),Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment,Washington DC: USEPA.
  28. [28]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1998b), Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment, Washington DC: USEPA.
  29. [29]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2005), Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment,Washington DC: USEPA.
  30. [30]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2007), Framework for Metals Risk Assessment, Washington DC: USEPA.
  31. [31]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2009), Prioritizing Existing Chemicals for Risk Evaluation, Available at: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/prioritizing-existing-chemicals-riskevaluation (accessed March 2019).
  32. [32]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2011), Exposure Factors Handbook,Washington DC: USEPA.
  33. [33]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2012), TSCA work plan chemicals: methods document, Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/work plan methods document web final.pdf (accessed March 2019).
  34. [34]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2014a), TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 Update,Washington DC: USEPA.
  35. [35]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2014b), Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies, Washington DC: USEPA.
  36. [36]  USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2016), About Risk Assessment, Available at: https://www.epa.gov/risk (accessed March 2019).
  37. [37]  WHO (World Health Organization) (2004), IPCS Risk Assessment Terminology, Geneva: World Health Organization.
  38. [38]  Yu, X.Y., Mao, Y., Sun, J.Y., and Shen, Y.W. (2014), Prioritizing chemicals for environmentalmanagement in China based on screening of potential risks, Frontiers of Earth Science, 8(1), 104-114.

Copyright © 2011-2024 L & H Scientific Publishing. All rights reserved. Wildcard SSL Certificates