高级搜索

化学品健康风险评估过程中的数据质量评估技术概述

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 

downloadPDF

上一篇

下一篇

李潍, 周崇胜, 于相毅, 毛岩, 张效伟, 于红霞, 史薇. 化学品健康风险评估过程中的数据质量评估技术概述[J]. 环境化学, 2021, (2): 416-426. doi: 10.7524/j.issn.0254-6108.2020030602
引用本文: 李潍, 周崇胜, 于相毅, 毛岩, 张效伟, 于红霞, 史薇. 化学品健康风险评估过程中的数据质量评估技术概述[J]. 环境化学, 2021, (2): 416-426. doi: 10.7524/j.issn.0254-6108.2020030602
shu
LI Wei, ZHOU Chongsheng, YU Xiangyi, MAO Yan, ZHANG Xiaowei, YU Hongxia, SHI Wei. Overview of data quality assessment techniques during chemical health risk assessment[J]. Environmental Chemistry, 2021, (2): 416-426. doi: 10.7524/j.issn.0254-6108.2020030602
Citation: LI Wei, ZHOU Chongsheng, YU Xiangyi, MAO Yan, ZHANG Xiaowei, YU Hongxia, SHI Wei. Overview of data quality assessment techniques during chemical health risk assessment[J]. Environmental Chemistry, 2021, (2): 416-426. doi: 10.7524/j.issn.0254-6108.2020030602
shu

化学品健康风险评估过程中的数据质量评估技术概述

  • 1. 污染控制与资源化研究国家重点实验室, 南京大学环境学院, 南京, 210023;

  • 2. 生态环境部固体废物与化学品管理技术中心, 北京, 100029

    • 通讯作者: 史薇, E-mail: njushiwei@nju.edu.cn
  • 基金项目:

    国家重点研发计划（2018YFC1801604，2018YFC1801503），国家自然科学基金优秀青年基金（21922603），江苏省优秀青年基金（BK20170077）和国家重大水专项（2017ZX07202-001，2017ZX07602-002）资助.

Overview of data quality assessment techniques during chemical health risk assessment

  • 1. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China;

  • 2. Solid Waste and Chemical Management Center of Ministry of Environmental Protection, Beijing, 100029, China

    • Corresponding author: SHI Wei, njushiwei@nju.edu.cn
  • Fund Project: Supported by the National Key Research and Development Project (2018YFC1801604, 2018YFC1801503), National Natural Science Foundation of China Excellent Youth Fund Project (21922603), Jiangsu Province Excellent Youth Fund (BK20170077), and National Major Water Project (2017ZX07202-001,2017ZX07602-002).

  • 摘要: 自1938年美国首先颁布管控化学品的法律以来，健康风险评估逐步发展，各个国家和地区相继颁布文件，并已形成较为完善的评估框架.由于在化学品健康风险评估的过程中，存在大量收集引用的数据及信息，因此数据质量评估是保证风险评估结果可信的关键.目前为止美国环保署（environmental protection agency，EPA）和欧盟《化学品的注册、评估、授权和限制》（regulation concerning the registration，evaluation，authorization and restriction of chemicals，REACH）法规均对数据质量评估方法进行了详细的规定.两个地区均采用数据评分（1—4）与证据权重（weight of evidence，WOE）（1/2）相结合的评估方法，不同之处在于欧盟更侧重于对数据整体的相关性、可靠性和充分性进行评估和打分，U.S EPA则更为细致具体，其侧重于不同情境下的数据分组分析，根据不同的评分领域和指标，规定高置信度、中置信度、低置信度和数据不可接受的标准.通过总结对比欧盟及美国的数据质量评估方法，建议我国采用数据打分与证据权重相结合的定量评估方法，并明确规定不同情景下不同数据来源的打分规则和标准，使数据质量评估过程系统化.
    Abstract: Since the United States first promulgated laws and regulations on chemicals in 1938, health risk assessment has gradually developed. Various countries and regions have issued documents and have formed a relatively complete assessment framework. Because of a large number of data and information collected during the human health risk assessment, data quality assessment is the key to ensuring the credibility of risk assessment results. Until now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and EU's Regulation Concerning the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulations have both carried out data quality assessment methods. Both regions use the method that combine data scoring (1—4) and weight of evidence (WOE) (1/2). The difference is that the EU focuses more on the overall relevance, reliability and adequacy of the data, and the U.S EPA is more detailed and specific. EPA focuses on the analysis of data grouping in different scenarios, and stipulates high confidence, medium confidence, low confidence and unacceptable data. By summarizing and comparing the data quality assessment methods of the European Union and the United States, it is recommended that China adopt a quantitative assessment method that combines data scoring and weight of evidence, and clearly stipulate scoring rules and standards for different data sources in different scenarios to systematically evaluate the data quality.
  • 加载中
  • [1] 胡建英. 化学物质的风险评价[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2010. HU J Y. Risk assessment of chemical substances[M]. Beijing:Science Press, 2010(in Chinese).
    [2] SWARTIES F A, CORNELIS C. Human Health Risk Assessment[J]. Dealing with Contaminated Sites, 2004, 283(2 Supplement):107-172.
    [3] PASTOOR T P, BACHMAN A N, BELL D R, et al. A 21st Century roadmap for human health risk assessment[J]. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2014, 44(S3):1-5.
    [4] 于云江. 环境污染的健康风险评估与管理技术[M]. 北京:中国环境科学出版社, 2011. YU L J. Health risk assessment and management techniques of environmental pollution[M]. Beijing:China Environmental Science Press, 2011(in Chinese).
    [5] United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment[R]. Washington DC:Effects Identificationand Characterization Group, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 1991.
    [6] United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment[R]. Washington DC:Effects Identificationand Characterization Group, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 1986.
    [7] United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment[R]. Washington DC:Effects Identification and Characterization Group, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 1998.
    [8] United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment[R]. Washington DC:Effects Identification and Characterization Group, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 1996.
    [9] YOUNES M. Specific issues in health risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals and international activities[J]. Chemosphere, 1999, 39(8):1253-1257.
    [10] 毛小苓, 刘阳生. 国内外环境风险评价研究进展[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报, 2003, 11(3):266-273.

    MAO X L, LIU Y S. Research progress on environmental risk assessment at home and abroad[J]. Journal of Applied Basic and Engineering Sciences, 2003, 11(3):266-273(in Chinese).

    [11] 周永煦. REACH法案对中国化工产品出口欧盟的影响及对策研究[D]. 昆明:云南大学, 2012. ZHOU Y X. REACH acts influence and counter measure research for China chemical products exports to the EU[D]. Kunming:Yunnan University, 2012(in Chinese).
    [12] FUNARI E, TESTAI E. Human health risk assessment related to cyanotoxins exposure[J]. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2008, 38(2):97-125.
    [13] KIMMEL G, VU V. Framework for human health risk assessment[J]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment:An International Journal, 2001, 7(1):153-156.
    [14] 赵启宇. Latest development in human health risk assessment[C]//武汉:中国毒理学会第七次全国毒理学大会暨第八届湖北科技论坛, 2015. ZHAO Q Y. Latest development in human health risk assessment[C]//Wuhan:The Seventh National Toxicology Conference of the Chinese Society of Toxicology and the Eighth Hubei Science and Technology Forum, 2015(in Chinese).
    [15] KAVLOCK R J, AUSTIN C P, TICE R R. Toxicity testing in the 21st Century:Implications for human health risk assessment[J]. Risk Analysis, 2009, 29(4):485-487.
    [16] HIPPENSTEEL D L. Institutional control:Impacts on human health risk assessment exposure scenario development[J]. Environmental Geosciences, 1999, 6(1):53-57.
    [17] TSAI P J, SHIEH H Y, LEE W J, et al. Health-risk assessment for workers exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in a carbon black manufacturing industry[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2001, 278(1/3):137-150.
    [18] European Commission. Technical guidance document on risk assessment[R]. Institute for Health and Consumer Protection,2003.
    [19] WONG D C L, ARNOLD W R, RAUSINA G A, et al. Development of a freshwater aquatic toxicity database for ambient water quality criteria for methyl tertiary-butyl ether[J]. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 2001, 20(5):1125-1132.
    [20] ASCHBERGER K, JOHNSTON H J, STONE V, et al. Review of carbon nanotubes toxicity and exposure-appraisal of human health risk assessment based on open literature[J]. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2010, 40(9):759-790.
    [21] ONOUE S, KATO M, YAMADA S. Development of an albuminous reactive oxygen species assay for photosafety evaluation under experimental biomimetic conditions[J]. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 2014, 34(2):158-165.
    [22] KAVCAR P, SOFUOGLU A, SOFUOGLU S C. A health risk assessment for exposure to trace metals via drinking water ingestion pathway[J]. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 2009, 212(2):216-227.
    [23] TRITSCHER A M. Human health risk assessment of processing-related compounds in food[J]. Toxicology Letters (Shannon), 2004, 149(1/3):177-186.
    [24] ZHOU J, YOU Y, BAI Z, et al. Health risk assessment of personal inhalation exposure to volatile organic compounds in Tianjin, China[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2011, 409(3):452-459.
    [25] 任红萍, 唐哲兵, 唐潇. 环境监测数据质量评估体系框架研究[J]. 化工管理, 2017(10):36-37. REN H P, TANG Z B, TANG X, Research on the evaluation framework of environmental monitoring data quality assessment system[J].Chemical Enterprise Management, 2017

    (10):36-37(in Chinese)

    [26] 王立萍, 刘洪林, 曲玲, 等.权重质量系数在水环境质量评价中的应用[J]. 山东师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 19(4):68-71. WANG L P, LIU H L, QU L, et al. Study on the appliance of weighty and quality ratio in water environmental quality assessment[J].Journal of Shandong Normal Univercity(Natural Science), 2004, 19(4):68-71(in Chinese)
    [27] FINLEY B, PROCTOR D, SCOTT P, et al. Recommended distributions for exposure factors frequently used in health risk assessment[J]. Risk analysis:An official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 1994, 14(4):533-553.
    [28] TCHOUNWOU P B, CENTENO J A, PATLOLLA A K. Arsenic toxicity, mutagenesis, and carcinogenesis:A health risk assessment and management approach[J]. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 2004, 255(1/2):47-55.
    [29] FILIPSSON A F, SAND S, NILSSON J, et al. The benchmark dose method-review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment[J]. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2003, 33(5):505-542.
    [30] FOSTER P, AUTON T R. Application of benchmark dose risk assessment methodology to developmental toxicity:An industrial view[J]. Toxicology Letters (Shannon), 1995, 82/83:555-559.
    [31] VERMEIRE T, STEVENSON H, PEITERS M N, et al. Assessment factors for human health risk assessment:A discussion paper[J]. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 1999, 29(5):439-490.
    [32] NOEL P R. Toxicity Testing, hazard assessment and data quality assurance for chemical regulatory purposes[J]. Developments in Toxicology & Environmental Science, 1980, 8:453-463.
    [33] CHANG L K. An Assessment of satellite image data requirements for large area land cover monitoring in queensland[C]. Surveying & Spatial Sciences Institute Biennial International Conference. Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute, 2009.
    [34] FUNARI E, TESTAI E. Human health risk assessment related to cyanotoxins exposure[J]. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2008, 38(2):97-125.
    [35] GALLOWAY T S. Biomarkers in environmental and human health risk assessment[J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2006, 53(10/12):606-613.
    [36] JUHASZ A L, SMITH E, WEBER J, et al. In Vivo assessment of arsenic bioavailability in rice and its significance for human health risk assessment[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2006, 114(12):1826——1831.
    [37] HADDAD S, M BÉLIVEAU, TARDIF R, et al. A PBPK modeling-based approach to account for interactions in the health risk assessment of chemical mixtures[J]. Toxicological Sciences, 2001, 63(1):125-131.
    [38] HFER T, GERNER I, GUNDERT-REMY U, et al. Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new european chemicals regulation[J]. Archives of Toxicology, 2004, 78(10):549-564.
    [39] GRAMATICA P. Principles of QSAR models validation:Internal and external[J]. QSAR & Combinatorial Science, 2007, 26(5):694-701.
    [40] ERDAL S, BUCHANAN S N. A quantitative look at fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and intake in children using a health risk assessment approach[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2004, 113(1):111-117.
    [41] JOHNSON B B, SLOVIC P. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment:Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust[J]. Risk Analysis, 2010, 15(4):485-494.
    [42] TOPUZ E, TALINLI I, AYDIN E. Integration of environmental and human health risk assessment for industries using hazardous materials:A quantitative multi criteria approach for environmental decision makers[J]. Environment International, 2011, 37(2):393-403.
    [43] BOURGEOIS M, JOHNSON G, HARBISON R. Human health risk assessment[J]. International Encyclopedia of Public Health, 2017:84-94.
    [44] SAMUEL O, PHILIP Y, SHILOH O, et al. Human Health risk assessment of artisanal miners exposed to toxic chemicals in water and sediments in the presteahuni valley district of ghana[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2016, 13(1):139-148.
    [45] SUN J, HU G, YU R, et al. Human health risk assessment and source analysis of metals in soils along the G324 Roadside, China, by Pb and Sr Isotopic Tracing[J]. Geoderma, 2017, 305:293-304.
    [46] WAYNE G L, KIMBERLEY K A, ANNIE F J, et al. The multiple stressor ecological risk assessment for the mercury-contaminated south river and upper shenandoah river using the bayesian network-relative risk model[J]. Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, 2017, 13(1):85-99.
    [47] LI Q, LI F, XIAO M S, et al. Bioaccessibility and human health risk assessment of lead in soil from daye city[J]. IOP Conference Series:Earth and Environmental Science, 2018, 108:042116.
  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • 文章访问数:  1868
  • HTML全文浏览数:  1868
  • PDF下载数:  46
  • 施引文献:  0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2020-03-06

化学品健康风险评估过程中的数据质量评估技术概述

    通讯作者: 史薇, E-mail: njushiwei@nju.edu.cn
  • 1. 污染控制与资源化研究国家重点实验室, 南京大学环境学院, 南京, 210023;
  • 2. 生态环境部固体废物与化学品管理技术中心, 北京, 100029
  • 收稿日期:  2020-03-06
基金项目:

国家重点研发计划（2018YFC1801604，2018YFC1801503），国家自然科学基金优秀青年基金（21922603），江苏省优秀青年基金（BK20170077）和国家重大水专项（2017ZX07202-001，2017ZX07602-002）资助.

摘要: 自1938年美国首先颁布管控化学品的法律以来，健康风险评估逐步发展，各个国家和地区相继颁布文件，并已形成较为完善的评估框架.由于在化学品健康风险评估的过程中，存在大量收集引用的数据及信息，因此数据质量评估是保证风险评估结果可信的关键.目前为止美国环保署（environmental protection agency，EPA）和欧盟《化学品的注册、评估、授权和限制》（regulation concerning the registration，evaluation，authorization and restriction of chemicals，REACH）法规均对数据质量评估方法进行了详细的规定.两个地区均采用数据评分（1—4）与证据权重（weight of evidence，WOE）（1/2）相结合的评估方法，不同之处在于欧盟更侧重于对数据整体的相关性、可靠性和充分性进行评估和打分，U.S EPA则更为细致具体，其侧重于不同情境下的数据分组分析，根据不同的评分领域和指标，规定高置信度、中置信度、低置信度和数据不可接受的标准.通过总结对比欧盟及美国的数据质量评估方法，建议我国采用数据打分与证据权重相结合的定量评估方法，并明确规定不同情景下不同数据来源的打分规则和标准，使数据质量评估过程系统化.

English Abstract

    全文HTML

参考文献 (47)

目录

/

返回文章
返回

Copyright © 2019 中国科学院生态环境研究中心