화학물질우선순위선정기법 (CRSKorea) 의개발과적용 박화성, 김예신 1, 이동수 2,, 신용승 3, 최승필 2, 박성은 4, 김명현 4, 양지연 5 신동천 5 국립환경연구원, 1 리스컴, 2 서울대학교환경계획연구소, 3 한국환경정책 평가연구원 4 ( 주 ) 엔바이오니아, 5 연세대학교환경공해연구소 J. ENVIRON. TOXICOL. Vol. 20, No. 2, 109~121 (2005) Development of Korean Chemical Ranking and Scoring System (CRSKorea) and its Application to Prioritizing National Toxic Chemicals Hoasung Park, Yeshin Kim 1, Dong Soo Lee 2,, Yongseung Shin 3, Seungpil Choi 2, Seongeun Park 4, Myunghyun Kim 4, Jiyeon Yang 5 and Dongchun Shin 5 National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon 404708, Korea 1 Riskcom, Gyeonggi 435040, Korea 2 Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University, Seoul 151742, Korea 3 Korea Environment Institute, Seoul 122706, Korea 4 Envioneer, Seoul 135978, Korea 5 Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University, Seoul 120752, Korea ABSTRACT A chemical ranking and scoring (CRSKorea) system was developed and proposed to use as the first step to prioritize the toxic chemicals for the purpose of monitoring and detailed risk assessment that might follow as necessary. The CRSKorea system takes a basic concept of risk assessment (both human health risk and ecological risk) in that risk score is determined by the product of toxicity score and exposure score. Included in the toxicity category are acute toxicity, chronic/subchronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, and other toxicity. The exposure category consists of quantity released to the environment, bioconcentration, and persistence. A consistent scheme and a comprehensive chemical data base are offered in the CRSKorea system to calculate a score for the each component in the two categories by using specific physicochemical, fate, and toxic properties and the quantity of the chemical used. The toxicity score is obtained by adding up all the individual scores for the components in the toxicity category. The exposure score is determined by multiplication of the score of the quantity released with the sum of persistent score and bioconcentration score. Equal weight is given to the toxicity score and the exposure score. As the CRSKorea system was applied to identify 50 national priority chemicals, it was found that significant data gap exists on toxicity and fate properties and that To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +8228808522, Email: leeds@snu.ac.kr 109
110 J. ENVIRON. TOXICOL. Vol. 20, No. 2 the uncertainty associated with estimating the quantity released to the environment is notably high. The proposed CRS system is only a screening tool in the first step toward the priority setting and should be used with expert judgement and other considerations necessary. Key words : chemical ranking and scoring system, toxic chemicals, priority, risk 서 론 화학물질의위해성은기본적으로그물질의독성이나위험성 (toxicity or hazard) 과그물질에대한노출 (exposure) 에의해크게좌우된다. 따라서화학물질에의한위해도를최소화하기위한방안은독성과노출을고려한위해성평가 (risk assessment) 를기초로해야한다 ( 국립환경연구원, 1996). 그러나현재사용중에있거나가까운장래에사용될모든화학물질에대해위해성을평가하여상세한정보를생산하는것은큰비용과시간을필요로하기때문에, 현실적으로이루기어려우며한정된자원을고려하여우선순위가높은물질을먼저관리하는것이효과적이다. 이에위해도가보다큰물질을선별하고그에대해관리를위한노력을집중할수있도록하는방안의개발이지속적으로강조되어왔다 (Gary et al., 1994). 여러개발국가에서는위해도에따른화학물질의우선순위를확립하기위해첫단계에서우선순위가높은물질들을크게걸러내고려대상이되어야할물질의수를일차적으로줄인다음이들을대상으로필요한세부적인평가에필요한여러작업을진행시키는단계적접근방식이사용된다 (primary references). 이때그첫단계에서흔히활용되는도구가 CRS (Chemical Ranking and Scoring) 시스템으로서구체적목적에따라다양한 CRS 시스템들이개발되어사용되었다 (US EPA, 1994a). European Union Risk Ranking Method (EURAM) (Hansen et al., 1999), Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management Strategies (CHEMS1) (US EPA, 1994b), Chemical Scoring and Ranking Assessment Model (SCRAM) (Erin et al., 2000; Rachel et al., 2002), Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET) (Environment Canada, 1994, 2003) 등이그중요한사례이다. 그러나국내의경우는이러한개념이도입되어 실행되는초기단계에있다고할수있는데화학물질의위해성관리측면에서이들선정기법에대한제도적인정착이필요하다. 따라서본연구에서는기존의국제적인우선순위기법들을토대로국내상황에적합한우선순위선정시스템을개발하고, 현재화학물질관리법상유독물로지정된물질들을대상으로이들시스템에적용하여, 우선순위물질을도출하고자하였다. 연구방법 화학물질우선순위선정을위한기법을구성할때에는그목적에대해명확히정의하는것이매우중요하다 (Mary et al., 1997a). 본연구에서는유독물로지정된화학물질중관리우선순위가높은물질을결정하는과정인세단계, 즉, 스크리닝 전문가평가 위해성평가, 중첫단계인스크리닝을위한 CRS 시스템을개발하고자하였다. 또한추후대상화학물질의범위가유독물이외의일반화학물질에대해서도확대적용될수있도록고려하였다. 이를위해우선기존의다양한 CRS 시스템에대해각각의개발목적, 기법의정교함, 적용변수들의특성, 기법의타당성등을중심으로비교 분석하여국내기법개발시적용가능성을검토하였다 (Environment Canada, 1994, 2003; US EPA, 1994a, b; Hansen et al., 1999; Rachel et al., 2002; 김예신등, 2003). 이를참고로화학물질의물리화학적성질, 인체및생태독성, 환경중거동특성및화학물질의국내사용과배출자료등주요평가인자들을선정하였다. 또한이들의특성에따라점수를부여하는방식을검토하였다. 또한개발된기법을편리하게사용할수있도록프로그램된 CRS 시스템을만들어서유해화학물질관리법상의유독물 (534 여종, 2002 년 11 월현재 ) ( 환경부, 2003) 에대한데이터베이스를구축하여
June 2005 Park et al. : 우선순위선정기법 111 포함시켰다. 결과및토의 1. 우선순위선정기법의틀 화학물질우선순위선정을위한전체체계는위해성평가의틀을유지하는것을원칙으로하였다. 따라서인체위해성과생태위해성모두기본적으로독성과노출의곱의관계를기본구조로한다. 또한인체위해성과생태위해성의비중을동일한것으로하여각각의점수를합쳐서최종점수를산정하고최종점수에근거하여순위를결정한다 (Fig. 1) (Hansen et al., 1999). 각항목의점수는다섯등급으로구간을나누고구간별점수를부여하는방식으로정하였으며또한의음성 (false negative) 영향을배제하기위하여각항목의구간최소값을 0 점으로하지않고 1 점으로설정하였다. 2. 인체위해성 인체위해성은노출과독성의곱으로평가하며 100 점을만점으로하고, 이때노출과독성의점수의비중을같게유지하기위하여노출과독성모두각각 10 점을만점으로하였다 (Fig. 1). 1) 인체독성본연구에서고려된인체독성항목은급성독성 (acute toxicity), 아 / 만성독성 (sub/chronic toxicity), 발암성 (carcinogenicity), 기타독성 (other toxicity) 등모두 4 가지범주로이들항목의점수합을인체독성점수로이용하였다. 각각의범주는 5 점을만점으로하며독성점수는각범주의점수를합한뒤 2 로나누어최대값을 10 점으로조정하였다. 급성독성에대해서는포유류에대한반수치사량 (lethal dose (LD 50) or lethal concentration (LC 50)) 수치를이용하였다. 이때랏트와마우스에대한자료를가장우선순위로두되 (US EPA, 1994b), 입력자료의범위를최대화하기위하여이용가능한다른포유류의자료역시조사하여이들중가장민감한수치를이용하였다. 아 / 만성독성에대해서는포유류에대한 No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) 이나 Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 자료를사용하여평가하였다. 이에대한자료입력시에도급성독성에서와같은방법을적용하였다. 발암성에대한점수는미국환경보호청 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 이하 US EPA), 국제암연구회 (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 이하 IARC) 등의발암성분류결과를이용하였다. 이때제공자료의신뢰성및물질포함정도등을고려하여 EPA 와 IARC 의자료를주로사용하고 (Mary et al., 1997b), 자료의결손을방지하기위하여 ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists), NTP (National Toxicology Program), EC (European Commission) 에서의발암분류등급역시고려하였다 ( 박화성등, 2004). Combined score [0.8~200] Human risk score [0.4~100] ± Ecological risk score [0.4~100] Aquatic ecological score [0.2~50] ± Terrestrial ecological score [0.2~50] Human exposure score [0.2~10] Human toxicity score [2~10] Aquatic ecological exposure score [0.2~10] Aquatic ecological toxicity score [2~10] Terrestrial ecological exposure score [0.2~10] Terrestrial ecological toxicity score [2~10] Fig. 1. Chemical ranking and scoring scheme proposed in this study.
112 J. ENVIRON. TOXICOL. Vol. 20, No. 2 Table 1. Scoring criteria for acute and sub/chronic human toxicity Acute toxicity Sub/Chronic toxicity Endpoints Score 5 4 3 2 1 Oral LD 50 (mg/kg) 5 50 500 5,000 5,000 Inhalation LC 50 (mg/m 3 ) 15 150 1,500 15,000 15,000 Oral NOAEL (mg/kgday) 1 10 100 1,000 1,000 Inhalation NOAEL (mg/m 3 ) 3 30 300 3,000 3,000 *LD 50 (lethal dose); LC 50 (lethal concentration); NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) Table 2. Scoring criteria for carcinogenecity Score Data sources* 5 4 3 2 1 IRIS A B (B1, B2) C D E IARC 1 2A 2B 3 4 ACGIH A1 A2 A3 A4 NTP a b EC 1 2 3 *IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System); IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer); ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists); NTP (National Toxicology Program); EC (European Commission) 위와같이인체독성의세부항목별등급과구간에따른점수를다음 Table 1 과 2 에정리하였다. 마지막으로기타독성은변이원성 / 유전독성 (mutagenicity or genotoxicity), 생식독성 (reproductive toxicity), 발육독성 (developmental toxicity), 신경행태독성 (neurobehavioral toxicity), 그리고면역독성 (immunotoxicity) 등다섯가지의세부항목으로구성되어있으며이들독성이있는각각의세부항목에대해양성의독성결과가보고된것이있으면 1 점, 없으면 0 점을부여하여세부항목의점수를모두더하여평가하였다. 단세부항목의총점이 0 점인경우에도기타독성영향이배제되지않도록하기위하여, 즉의음성영향을배제하기위하여최저점을 1 점으로부여하였다. 2) 인체노출 인체노출평가는기본적으로환경으로인한노출의평가를기본으로하였다. 환경에서노출의정도는배출량, 자연환경중의잔류성, 생물농축성등세가지항목을이용해서평가한다. 잔류성과생물농축성은서로합의관계에두고이들두항목의 합과배출량은곱의관계로설정하였다. 잔류성과생물농축성의최대값은각각 5 점이며배출량의최대값은 10 점으로노출평가의최대점수는 100 점이되나, 독성점수와의합산을위해계산된점수를 10 으로나누어최대점수를 10 점으로조정하였다. 화학물질의잔류성은환경매질중의반감기로서평가하였다 (US EPA, 1994b). 대상매질은대기, 토양, 물, 퇴적토이며이들대상매질가운데가장민감한값을사용하도록하였다. 생물농축성은자료의이용가능성에의한제약때문에수생생물의생물농축성자료를이용하기로하였다. 대상수생생물에는어류, 조류, 물벼룩, 무척추동물등을모두포함시켰으며, 이에따라여러개의생물농축성값이존재할때는가장민감한값을선택하여이용하도록하였다 (Table 3). 배출량의경우이상적으로는화학물질의매질별배출량을사용해야한다. 우리나라의매질별배출량의보고는대상업종을기준으로취급량이연간 1 톤이상인물질에대해서이루어져왔으나 ( 환경부, 2004), 대상물질가운데유독물의수가매우제한적이며배출량자료의신뢰도에대한평가가제대로이루어지지않고있기때문에본연구에서사용하기어려웠다. 이에배출량의대리지표로서 EURAM 의방법에근거하여사용량자료를배출량으로환산하는방법과사용량을직접활용하는방법을비교한결과큰차이가없었으므로본연구에서는사용량자료를배출량자료의대리지표로직접사용하는것으로결정하였다. 이방법은사용이간단하며추정과정에서용도의다양성이나불확실성으로발생하는추정치의불확실성을없앨수있다는장점을가지고있으나용도에따라배출량이달라지기때문에불확실성이특히큰부분이다. 한편사용량은그수치의변이가매우
June 2005 Park et al. : 우선순위선정기법 113 Table 3. Scoring criteria for persistence and bioaccumulation Endpoints Halflife (in air, soil, water, sediment) Persistence (days) BCF (bioconcentration factor) Bioaccumulation (unitless) Score 5 4 3 2 1 4 20 50 100 100 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 100,000 Table 4. Scoring criteria for chemical quantity released to environment Score Endpoints 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Amount of Use 5,000,000 5,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 100,000 50,000 10,000 5,000 1,000 500 (ton/year) Table 5. Scoring criteria for acute and sub/chronic aquatic toxicity Score Endpoints** 5 4 3 2 1 Acute toxicity LC 50 (mg/l)* 1 10 100 1,000 1,000 Sub/Chronic toxicity NOEL (mg/l)* 0.1 1 10 100 100 *LC 50 (lethal concentration); NOEL (No Observed Effect Level); **Test species are fish, algae, daphnia, and invertebrates. 크기때문에다른항목과는달리배출량의경우모두 10 등급으로나누고최대점수를 10 점으로부여하였다 (Table 4). 3. 생태위해성 생태위해성은수생생물에대한항목과육상생물에대한항목의합으로구성하였다. 각각의위해성은노출과독성의곱으로평가하며생태위해성점수의최대값을 100 점으로조정하기위하여각각 50 점을만점으로한다 (Fig. 1). 이때역시노출과독성의점수의비중을동일하게유지하기위하여노출, 독성모두각각 10 점을만점으로하여계산한뒤 2 로나누었다. 1) 생태독성본연구에서고려된생태독성항목은크게수생생태독성과육상생태독성으로분류할수있으며, 각각은급성독성및아 / 만성독성으로구성된다. 생태독성에대해서는이들항목에대한점수의합으로평가하기로하고, 각각은인체독성과마찬 가지로 5 점을만점으로하며, 최대값은 10 점이되도록조정하였다. 우선수생생태독성의경우급성독성에대해서는어류, 조류, 물벼룩, 무척추동물등에대한실험결과중 LC 50 값을이용하였으며, 아 / 만성독성에대해서는앞서제시된수생생물종에대한 NOEL (No Observed Effect Level) 자료를사용하여평가를한다. 여러종에대한실험결과치가동시에존재하는경우가장민감한수치를사용하였다. 항목별등급과구간에따른점수는 Table 5 에제시하였다. 육상생태독성은인체와마찬가지로포유류에대한실험결과를이용하였다 (Table 1). 2) 생태노출평가생태노출부분역시인체노출과마찬가지로환경에서노출의정도는배출량, 자연환경에서의잔류성, 생물농축성등세가지항목을이용해서평가하였다. 물질의잔류성및생물농축성은인체노출평가와동일하게환경매질의반감기및수생생물에대한생물농축성자료를이용하여평가하
114 J. ENVIRON. TOXICOL. Vol. 20, No. 2 Table 6. Database for priority ranking of toxic chemicals Variables (unit) Additional contents Data sources* Molecular weight (g) 1, 2 Boiling point ( C, 1atm) 1, 2 Vapot pressure (mmhg, 25 C) Experimental Temperature 1, 2 Physicochemical Henry constant (atmm 3 /mole) Experimental Temperature 1, 2 property Solubility (g/l) Experimental Temperature 1, 2 Octanolwater coefficient 1, 2 Bioconcentration factor 1, 2 Halflife (days) in Air/Water/Soil/Sediment 1, 2 Human toxicity Acute toxicity LD 50 (mg/kg), LC 50 (mg/m 3 ) (for Rat, Mouse, Rabbit, Guinea pig etc.) 1, 2, 3, 4 Oral NOAEL/LOAEL (mg/kg/day), Sub/Chronic toxicity Inhalation NOAEL/LOAEL (mg/m 3 ) 4, 5 (for Rat, Mouse, Rabbit, Guinea pig etc.) Carcinogenicity EPA, IARC, ACGIH, NTP, EC 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 Mutagenicity or Genotoxicity Reproductive toxicity Other toxicity Developmental toxicity Neurobehavioral toxicity 1, 2, 3 Immunotoxicity Acute toxicity LC 50 (for Fish, Algae, Daphnia, Invertebrates) 1, 2 Ecological toxicity Chronic toxicity NOEL (for Fish, Algae, Daphnia, Invertebrates) 1, 2 Amount of Use (ton/year) Year (1999~2001) 7 *Data sources 1: HSDB, 2003; 2: ME (the Ministry of Environment, Korea), 2003; 3: NTP, 2003; 4: EU, 1996; 5: US EPA IRIS, 2003; 6: IARC, 2003; 7: ME, 2002a 였으며, 자료선정기준및점수척도역시동일하게적용하였다 (Table 3). 또한배출량의대리지표로서사용량을그대로사용하였다. 단, 생태노출평가를위해서는전체배출량가운데수계 ( 물과퇴적층 ) 로배출되는양과육상으로배출되는양을구분해야한다. 이를위해 Mackay Level I 모형을사용하여매질별분배율을구하였다 (Hansen et al., 1999). 배출량구간에따른점수는 Table 4 와동일하다. 잔류성과생물농축성은서로합의관계에있으며이들두항목의합과배출량은곱의관계에두었다. 점수배점은인체노출에서와마찬가지로잔류성과생물농축성의각각의최대값은 5 점, 배출량의최대값은 10 점으로하였다. 노출평가의최대점수는수생생태와육상생태각각 100 점이되나, 최종적으로각 10 점으로조정하기위해계산된점수를 10 으로나누어주었다. 4. 연구대상물질및데이터베이스구축 본연구에서개발된기법을우선적으로국내유해화학물질관리법에의해지정된유독물을대상으로적용하기위해이들물질에대해필요한특성자료를모아데이터베이스를구축하였다 (Table 6). 연구대상물질의물리 화학적성질에대해서는주로환경부, HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank) 를활용하였으며, 이때자료의우선순위는 HSDB 에두었다. 또한각변수들에대해서는문헌값과예측값으로구분하여정리하였고, 문헌값이없을경우는 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (US EPA, 2000) 에서제공하고있는 EPI WIN (Estimation Program Interface for Windows) (EPA s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics & Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) from US EPA (2000)) 패키지를이용하여값을예측하였다. 인체독성부분에서는해당지표에대한구체적
June 2005 Park et al. : 우선순위선정기법 115 Table 7. Change in the priority with default value To water : 10% Default = 1 To water : 10% Default = 5 CASRN Chemical name Score Ranks CASRN Chemical name Score Ranks 000071432 Benzene 72.9 1 007664417 Ammonia 85.2 1 007723140 Phosphorus 65.7 2 007738945 Chromic acid 73.2 2 007664417 Ammonia 63.6 3 000071432 Benzene 72.9 3 000107131 Acrylonitrile 61.3 4 000107131 Acrylonitrile 70.3 4 000108952 Phenol 59.1 5 000067561 Methanol 68.9 5 Chromic trioxide, 001333820 Chromium trioxide, 58.2 6 000095476 oxylene 68.4 6 Chromic anhydride 000108883 Toluene 56.7 7 007723140 Phosphorus 65.7 7 000088733 1Chloro2 Hydrochloric acid 56.3 8 007647010 nitrobenzene (Hydrogen Chloride) 62.1 8 007647010 Hydrochloric acid (Hydrogen Chloride) 54.9 9 000141786 Ethyl acetate 60.0 9 000101688 4, 4 Methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) 52.8 10 001310732 Sodium hydroxide 60.0 9 000141786 Ethyl acetate 50.4 11 000108952 Phenol 59.1 11 Chromic trioxide, 000098953 Nitrobenzene 47.4 12 001333820 Chromium trioxide, 58.2 12 Chromic anhydride 007738945 Chromic acid 45.6 13 000108883 Toluene 56.7 13 000095476 oxylene 44.4 14 007790945 Chlorosulfonic acid 56.7 13 000050000 Formaldehyde 44.0 15 000088733 1Chloro2nitrobenzene 56.3 15 007664939 Sulfuric acid 43.4 16 000095705 2, 5Diaminotoluene 55.2 16 000075569 Propylene oxide, Methyloxirane 42.8 17 001345046 Antimony trisulfide 54.0 17 000067663 Chloroform 38.4 18 000101688 4, 4 Methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) 52.8 18 000106898 Epichlorohydrin 36.6 19 007726956 Bromine 52.8 18 000062533 Aniline 36.3 20 000075445 Phosgene 52.2 20 000095487 ocresol 36.3 20 007719097 Thionyl chloride 51.9 21 007790945 Chlorosulfonic acid 36.3 20 000098953 Nitrobenzene 47.4 22 000095705 2, 5Diaminotoluene 36.0 23 000302012 Hydrazine/Hydrazine sulfate 46.9 23 000075218 Ethylene oxide 36.0 23 007632000 Sodium nitrite 46.5 24 000056235 Carbon tetrachloride 33.9 25 000100696 2Vinylpyridine 46.0 25 000127184 Tetrachloroethylene 32.1 26 000301042 Lead acetate 45.9 26 000107062 1, 2Dichloroethane 31.0 27 000050000 Formaldehyde 44.0 27 000067561 Methanol 29.3 28 007664939 Sulfuric acid 43.4 28 000301042 Lead acetate 29.1 29 000075569 Propylene oxide, Methyloxirane 42.8 29 007632000 Sodium nitrite 28.5 30 007697372 Nitric acid 42.0 30 000056359 Bis (tributyl tin) oxide 27.2 31 007803578 Hydrazine, monohydrate 41.7 31 000095545 ophenylenediamine 26.7 32 007664393 Hydrogen fluoride 39.9 32 000543908 Cadmium acetate 26.4 33 000067663 Chloroform 38.4 33 000077781 Dimethyl sulfate 26.4 33 000106898 Epichlorohydrin 36.6 34 007803578 Hydrazine, monohydrate 26.1 35 000062533 Aniline 36.3 35 000100696 2Vinylpyridine 25.0 36 000095487 ocresol 36.3 35 000506649 Silver cyanide 24.0 37 013530682 Dichromic acid 36.2 37
116 J. ENVIRON. TOXICOL. Vol. 20, No. 2 Table 7. To be continued. To water : 10% Default = 1 To water : 10% Default = 5 CASRN Chemical name Score Ranks CASRN Chemical name Score Ranks 007726956 Bromine 24.0 37 000075218 Ethylene oxide 36.0 38 000075445 Phosgene 23.4 39 000077781 Dimethyl sulfate 36.0 39 007722841 Hydrogen peroxide 23.1 40 008014957 Fuming sulfuric acid 34.4 40 000079016 Ethylene trichloride 22.6 41 001310583 Potassium hydroxide 34.0 41 001345046 Antimony trisulfide 22.0 42 000056235 Carbon tetrachloride 33.9 42 007440666 Zinc 21.3 43 000095545 ophenylenediamine 33.9 42 N(1, 3Dimethylbutyl 000793248 Nphenylpphenylene 20.5 44 000543908 Cadmium acetate 32.4 44 diamine 000079061 Acrylamide, 2Propenamide 20.1 45 000127184 Tetrachloroethylene 32.1 45 000078933 Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) 19.4 46 000107062 1, 2Dichloroethane 31.0 46 000095534 otoluidine 19.2 47 010026138 Phosphorus pentachloride 30.9 47 000077474 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 19.2 47 000506649 Silver cyanide 30.0 48 007719097 Thionyl chloride 18.3 49 010025679 Sulfur chloride 30.0 48 007719122 Phosphorus trichloride 18.0 50 007440666 Zinc 28.5 50 001310732 Sodium hydroxide 18.0 50 인수치정보를도출하기위하여기존의화학물질우선순위선정시스템에서이용한자료원의신뢰성및가용성등을고려하여각지표에대한데이터베이스를선택하고이를이용하여유독물에대한데이터베이스를구축하였다 ( 연세대학교환경공해연구소, 2003; 박화성등, 2004). 자료의결손을방지하기위하여지표에대해가용한정보를모두사용하고자하였으며, 또한이차적으로사용할수있는문헌상의방법등을적용하였다. 수생생태독성의경우는환경부유독물정보와 HSDB 에서문헌값을조사하였으며, 데이터가없을경우에는 EPIWIN 을이용한예측치를사용하였다. 5. 민감도분석및불확실성점수 각각의항목에있어서측정값을우선적으로사용하며, 측정값이존재하지않을때는추정값을사용하도록하였다. 추정값을얻기위해서는 EPIWIN 을일관되게사용하도록하였다. 이때추정가능한항목으로는급성독성수치, 반감기, 헨리상수등이었다. 추정이가능하지않은경우에는기본입력값 (default value) 을사용하도록하였다. 기본입력값으로서최대값 5 와최소값 1 을각각사용하여별도의우선순위를도출하고기본입력값의변화에따른결과의민감도를비교하도록하였다. 민감도분 석의경우그이외에도 Mackay Level I 을적용할수없는물질들에대해서매질별배분율에대한가정을하는과정에서배분율을물로의분포 10% 또는 90% 로변화시켜이에따른결과의민감도를검토하도록하였다. 제안된우선순위선정기법을활용하여국내유해화학물질관리법에서관리하고있는유독물에대하여우선순위가높은 50 개의물질을선정하였다 (Table 7). 이과정에서우선유독물의독성자료가매우부족한것으로드러났다. 특히급성흡입독성, 아 / 만성독성치, 발암성분류결과등의자료는전체물질의약 20% 미만수준으로조사되었다. 이러한자료의부족으로인해기본입력값을사용해야하는유독물질의수가매우많아지게되었는데기본입력값에따라순위와점수가크게변하는물질들이있어서이들의우선순위에대해서는다음단계인전문가평가에의해서정해질수밖에없었다. 반면에본논문에서는따로제시하지않았지만환경으로배출된물질이어느매질에얼마만큼분포하는가에따른영향은크지않았다 ( 연세대학교환경공해연구소, 2003). 그이유는이용한데이터베이스내에서아 / 만성독성자료가부족하여독성점수는결과적으로급성독성에의하여결정이되는경향이있으며, 따라서육상생태에대한독성점수
June 2005 Park et al. : 우선순위선정기법 117 Table 8. List of 50 national priority toxic chemicals selected by using CRSKorea Rank Chemical name Chemical score Uncertainty Chemical Other Default Default (%) groups Use category Hazards information =1 =5 1 Ammonia 58.2 79.8 37 Inorganics Fertilizer, Intermediates etc. Acute toxicity Strong base 2 Chromic acid, salts 42.6 161.0 278 Metal Preservative, colorful glass, Raw material for Acute toxicity, compounds pigment Carcinogenicity, High uncertainty Reproductive toxicity 3 Hydrochloric acid 52.2 69.0 32 Inorganics Pigment, Manufacturing inorganic salt, Manufacturing nitrocompound Acute toxicity, Irritant Strong acid 4 Phosphorus 46.8 79.2 69 Pesticides Raw material of organic synthesize, Germicide Acute toxicity 5 4, 4 Methylene diphenyl 51.6 60.0 16 NonVOCs Manufacturing polyurethane resin Acute toxicity, Irritant diisocyanate (MDI) 6 Chromic trioxide, Acute toxicity, Metal Preservative, colorful glass, Raw material Chromium trioxide, 47.1 55.5 18 Carcinogenicity, compounds for pigment Chromic anhydride Reproductive toxicity 7 1Chloro2nitro Acute toxicity, 40.5 67.5 67 Pesticides Intermediate for pesticide, Pigment benzene Genotoxicity 8 Nitrobenzene 45.3 53.7 19 VOCs Germicide, Raw material of organic synthesize, Extraction solvent Acute toxicity 9 Methanol 29.3 68.9 135 VOCs Solvent, Extractive solvent Acute toxicity, Irritant 10 Phenol 42.8 51.8 21 NonVOCs Phenol resin, Germicide, Intermediate, Raw Acute toxicity, Irritant material of medicine etc 11 Chlorosulfonic acid 36.3 56.7 56 Inorganics Manufacturing of detergent and pigment Acute toxicity Strong acid 12 Benzene 46.8 46.8 0 VOCs Pigment, Synthesized rubber, fiber and resin, Acute toxicity, Irritant, antiseptic etc. Carcinogenicity 13 Propylene oxide, Acute toxicity, Irritant, 42.8 42.8 0 VOCs Germicide and Intermediate Methyloxirane Carcinogenicity 14 Sulfuric acid 39.6 47.6 20 Inorganics Fertilizer, Explosives, Raw materials for synthesizing chemicals etc. Acute toxicity Strong acid 15 Toluene 39.5 48.5 23 VOCs Explosives, Pigment, Manufacturing synthesized leather, Cosmetics etc. Acute toxicity, Irritant 16 Lead compounds 18.4 92.8 404 Acute toxicity, Irritant, Metal Explosives, Pigment, Glaze etc. Carcinogenicity, compounds Reproductive toxicity High uncertainty 17 Bromine 24.0 52.8 120 Inorganics Intermediate of organic synthesizing, Flame retar dant, Raw material for pesticide and pigment etc. Acute toxicity Corrosive 18 Acrylonitrile 34.4 39.8 16 VOCs Adhesive, Plastic coating etc. Acute toxicity, Irritant, Carcinogenicity
118 J. ENVIRON. TOXICOL. Vol. 20, No. 2 Table 8. To be continued. Rank Chemical name Chemical score Uncertainty Chemical Other Default Default (%) groups Use category Hazards information =1 =5 19 Hydrazine, monohydrate 21.6 41.7 60 Pesticides 20 Formaldehyde 36.2 36.2 0 VOCs Plastic blowing agent, Reducing agent, Acute toxicity Polymerization catalyst etc. Germicide, Disinfectant, Medicine, Acute toxicity, Irritant, Synthesized fiber and resin etc. Carcinogenicity 21 Phosgene 21.6 50.4 133 VOCs Germicide, Medicine Acute toxicity 22 Thionyl chloride 19.2 52.8 175 Inorganics Chemical manufacturing Acute toxicity Corrosive 23 Sodium hydroxide 18.0 60.0 233 Inorganics 24 Tetrachloroethylene 27.9 36.3 30 VOCs 25 Carbon tetrachloride 33.9 33.9 0 VOCs 26 Nitric acid 19.6 40.4 106 Inorganics 27 Potassium hydroxide 20.5 37.5 83 Inorganics 28 Chloroform 29.5 29.5 0 VOCs Manufacturing synthetic fiber, Manufacturing Acute toxicity, High uncertainty, pigment, Neutralizing agent etc. Irritant Strong base Manufacturing fiber, Refrigeration gas, Acute toxicity, Irritant, Solvent etc. Carcinogenicity Gasoline additives, Refrigerant, Acute toxicity, Irritant, Manufacturing semiconductor etc. Carcinogenicity Medicine, Manufacturing chemicals, Chemical fertilizer etc. Acute toxicity Strong acid Food additives, Raw material for organic Corrosive Acute toxicity synthesization Solvent, Washing agent, Manufacturing resin, Acute toxicity, Irritant, Soil germicide etc. Carcinogenicity Pigment, Printing ink, Dyes, Synthetic leather, 29 Ethyl acetate 25.2 30.0 19 VOCs Acute toxicity Film etc. 30 Ethylene oxide 24.0 30.0 25 NonVOCs Organic polymer Acute toxicity 31 Xylenes (mixed isomers) 18.8 36.8 96 VOCs Solvent, Pigment, Pesticide, Epoxy resin etc. Acute toxicity, Irritant Freon gas, Luster remover for glass and electric Acute toxicity, High uncertainty, 32 Hydrogen fluoride 15.9 39.9 151 Inorganics bulb, Germicide, Washing metals, Irritant Corrosive Inhibitor for fermentation etc. (1,3Dimethylbutyl Antioxidant for rubber, Polymer stabilization 33 Nphenylpphenylene 24.8 28.8 16 NonVOCs Acute toxicity agent etc. diamine Germicide, Epoxy resin, Ion exchange resin, Acute toxicity, Irritant, 34 Epichlorohydrin 25.4 25.4 0 Pesticides Glycerin, Surfactant, Adhesives, Pigment etc. Carcinogenicity Methylation agent for organic compound, Acute toxicity, Irritant, 35 Dimethyl sulfate 21.9 29.1 33 NonVOCs Manufacturing pigment and medicine, Carcinogenicity Separating mineral oil etc.
June 2005 Park et al. : 우선순위선정기법 119 Table 8. To be continued. Rank Chemical name Chemical score Uncertainty Chemical Other Default Default (%) groups Use category Hazards information =1 =5 36 1, 2Dichloroethane 22.6 28.2 25 VOCs Extraction solvent, Raw material for organic Acute toxicity, Irritant, synthesization Carcinogenicity 37 Hydrogen peroxide 17.6 34.4 18 Inorganics Bleaching agent, Disinfectant Acute toxicity Corrosive 38 Fuming sulfuric acid 23.1 27.3 95 Inorganics Pigment, Explosives, Petroleum refining etc. Acute toxicity Strong acid 39 Phosphorus pentachloride 15.3 30.9 102 Inorganics Catalyst and Aluminium metallurgy Acute toxicity Corrosive 40 Sulfur chloride 17.2 30.0 74 Inorganics 41 Dichromic acid 14.4 33.6 133 Metal compounds Processing of fiber and rubber, Organic synthesization Acute toxicity Corrosive Acute toxicity, Antiseptic, colorful glass, Pigment etc. Carcinogenicity, Reproductive toxicity 42 Allyl alcohol 20.4 24.0 18 VOCs Perfume and Glycerol Acute toxicity, Irritant 43 Sodium fluoride 15.0 30.6 104 Pesticides Germicide, Metal treatment agent, Wood preservatives Acute toxicity 44 Toluenediamine 17.0 29.8 75 NonVOCs Antiseptic, Antioxidant, Pigment, Polymer Acute toxicity, Irritant, synthesization, Hair dyes, Epoxy resin etc. Carcinogenicity 45 46 Acrylamide, 20.1 20.1 0 NonVOCs Adhesives, Soil fumigant, Pigment and organic Acute toxicity, Irritant, 2Propenamide synthesization Carcinogenicity Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 19.2 22.4 17 Pesticides Adhesives, Polyester resin, Pigment etc. Acute toxicity, Irritant 47 Ethylene trichloride 18.4 24.0 30 VOCs Refrigerant, Washing solvent, Solvent Acute toxicity, Irritant, extraction etc. Carcinogenicity 48 2Vinylpyridine 15.0 27.6 84 NonVOCs Pigment, Adhesives, Polymer etc. Acute toxicity Resin synthesization etc. 49 Aniline 19.2 19.2 0 NonVOCs Solvent, Antioxidant, Germicide, Pigment, Acute toxicity, Irritant, Resin synthesization etc. Carcinogenicity 50 Methyl ethyl Synthesized resin, Lacquer solvent, 18.0 23.4 30 VOCs ketone (MEK) Printing ink, Synthetic leather etc. Acute toxicity, Irritant
120 J. ENVIRON. TOXICOL. Vol. 20, No. 2 가높은물질은대부분수생생태에대한독성점수또한높았기때문이다. 또한아 / 만성독성에대한자료가없어서기본입력값을모두최대로부여하는경우에많은물질이최대점수를부여받게되기때문에매질에대한분포농도는유의적인차이를나타내지못하였다. 결과적으로환경으로배출되어어떤매질에얼마나분포하는가보다는기본입력값에따라결과가크게변하므로, 순위의불확실성이크고이에대한별도의검토가요구되었다. 또한매질에대한분포비율은 Mackay Level I 모델을적용하고이를적용하지못하는경우두가지분배가정시나리오중타당성이높은것으로평가되는물로의분포비율 10% 인시나리오를기본으로지정하였다. 따라서이스크리닝단계에서는우선기본입력값에상관없이우선순위가항상높은물질을위주로다시정리하였다 (Table 8). 이결과에따르면중금속, 강산, 강염기, 강산화제등이포함되어있으며, 일부물질은단순히사용량이많아서포함된것도있다. 따라서스크리닝단계라할지라도일부적절하지않은물질들은목록에서제외하는것이타당하다. 즉, 이러한간단한검토를통해적절하지않은물질들은제거하고다음단계에서상세히검토할목록을작성하는것이바람직하다는것을알수있다. 또한우선순위선정 ( 스크리닝 전문가평가 위해성평가 ) 을위한 3 단계가유기적으로운영될필요가있음을알수있다. 을사용해야했으며이때사용된기본입력값에따라우선순위의결과가크게달라지는물질들이일부있는것으로밝혀졌다. 따라서우선순위선정기법을이용하여신뢰도가높은결과를얻기위해서는무엇보다도부족한자료의보충과신뢰도가높은자료의확보가절실하다. 또한본연구의우선순위선정기법을통해얻어진물질들간의개별적우선순위결과를기계적으로사용하는것은적절하지않으며순위의신뢰도를검토하는작업이반드시뒤따라야할필요가있다는것을알수있다. 그러나전체유독물의넓은점수분포를감안한다면우선순위가높은물질군과그렇지않은군으로나누는것은이러한불확실성에의해큰영향을받지않는다. 따라서본기법은위해성평가의개념을활용하여체계적으로우선순위가높은물질군을선정하는효율적인방법이될수있을것이다. 따라서본기법은다른선정목적으로사용될경우, 기법의구조나지표가다소변경될수도있지만, 화학물질을선정하는일반적인모델로확장되어활용될수있을것으로기대된다. 감사의글 본연구는 2003 년환경부의 위해우려물질선정및평가연구 의일환으로수행되었으며이에감사드립니다. 결 론 참고문헌 본연구에서개발되는선정기법은전체적인화학물질우선순위결정과정인 스크리닝 전문가평가 위해성평가 의세단계중첫단계에서사용되는것을전제로한다. 즉, 최종적인우선순위는전문가평가와위해성평가를통해서확정되는것으로본연구에서개발되는기법은이와같은전체과정의효율성을극대화하기위해검토의대상이되어야할대상물질의수를줄이는기능을수행할수있다. 이기법을적용하여우선순위가높은상위 50 여개의유독물을선정하였다. 이들을고르는과정에서대상물질들의독성혹은물성자료, 사용량및배출량자료등의부족으로많은기본입력값 국립환경연구원. 화학물질관리체계개선을위한기반연구, 1996. 김예신, 박화성, 이동수, 신동천. 화학물질우선순위선정기법에대한비교분석, 한국환경독성학회지 2003; 18 (3): 183191. 박화성, 김예신, 이동수, 신동천. 대기중유해화학물질의인체위해도우선순위선정연구, 한국환경독성학회지 2004; 19 (1): 8191. 연세대학교환경공해연구소. 위해우려물질선정및평가연구, 환경부 2003. 환경부. 유해화학물질관리법, 2004. 환경부. 화학물질정보센터 (KCIC, Korean Chemicals Information Center). http://kcic. nier.go.kr/, 2003. 환경부. 유독물사용실적보고 (1999~2001), 2002.
June 2005 Park et al. : 우선순위선정기법 121 Environment Canada. The ARET substance selection process and guideline, 1994. Environmental Canada. www.ec.gc.ca/aret, 2003. Erin MS, Shane AS, John PG et al. SCRAM : A Scoring and Ranking System for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Substances for the North American Great LakesPart I : Structure of the Scoring and Ranking System, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2000; 7(1): 111. EU (European Union). IUCLID (International Uniform Chemical Information Database), 1996. Gary AD, Mary BS and Sheila J. Comparative evaluation of chemical ranking and scoring methodologies, US EPA 1994. Hansen BG, Haelst AL et al. Priority setting for existing chemicals: The European Union risk ranking method, Environmental Toxicity and chemistry 1999; 18: 772 779. HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank). http://toxnet. nlm.nih.gov/cgibin/sis/htmlgen?hsdb, 2003. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). http://www.iarc.fr/, 2003. Mary BS and Adam CS. Chemical ranking and scoring : Guidelines for relative assessment of chemicals, SETAC press 1997a. Mary BS, Gary AD, Lori EK, Terry WS, John EB, Sheila LJ and Emma LG. A screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1997b; 16(2): 372383. NTP (Natioanl Toxicology Program). http://ntpserver. niehs.nih.gov/, 2003. Rachel RM, Cheryl LS, Shari AB et al. SCRAM: A Scoring and Ranking System for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic Substances for the north american great lakes resulting chemical scores and rankings, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2002; 8(3): 537557. US EPA IRIS. www.epa.gov/iris, 2003. US EPA. Comparative evaluation of chemical ranking and scoring methodology, 1994a. US EPA. Chemical hazard evaluation for management strategies; A method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts, 1994b. US EPA. EPIWIN (Estimation Programs Interface for Windows), 2000.