Prioritizing chemicals for environmental management in China based on screening of potential risks

Abstract

The rapid development of China’s chemical industry has created increasing pressure to improve the environmental management of chemicals. To bridge the large gap between the use and safe management of chemicals, we performed a comprehensive review of the international methods used to prioritize chemicals for environmental management. By comparing domestic and foreign methods, we confirmed the presence of this gap and identified potential solutions. Based on our literature review, we developed an appropriate screening method that accounts for the unique characteristics of chemical use within China. The proposed method is based on an evaluation using nine indices of the potential hazard posed by a chemical: three environmental hazard indices (persistence, bioaccumulation, and eco-toxicity), four health hazard indices (acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive and developmental toxicity), and two environmental exposure hazard indices (chemical amount and utilization pattern). The results of our screening agree with results of previous efforts from around the world, confirming the validity of the new system. The classification method will help decision-makers to prioritize and identify the chemicals with the highest environmental risk, thereby providing a basis for improving chemical management in China.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

chemicals / screening / risk / environmental management / priority definition

References

[1] Commission E U (1993). Council Regulation (EEC), No. 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the Evaluation and Control of the Risks of Existing Substances.

[2] Davis G A, Kincaid L, Swanson M, Schultz T, Barmess J, Griffith B, 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, OH

[3] DME (Danish Ministry of the Environment) (2009). List of undesirable substances 2009.

[4] ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2009). Computer assisted evaluation of industrial chemical substances according to regulations.

[5] ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2010). General approach for prioritisation of substances of very high concern (svhcs) for inclusion in the list of substances subject to authorisation.

[6] Environment Canada (1999). Priority substances assessment program (PSAP).

[7] Fu D Q, Sun Z G, Zhou W M (1990). Screening procedures of black list of China’s priority pollutants in water. Environmental Monitoring in China, 6(5): 48−50 (in Chinese)

[8] IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2012). Agents classified by the IARC monographs.

[9] IEH (Institute for Environment and Health) (2004). A screening method for ranking chemicals by their fate and behaviour in the environment and potential toxic effects in humans following non-occupational exposure.

[10] Lerche D, Sørensen P B, Larsen H S, Carlsen L, Nielsen O J (2002). Comparison of the combined monitoring-based and modelling-based priority setting scheme with partial order theory and random linear extensions for ranking of chemical substances. Chemosphere, 49(6): 637−649

[11] MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China) (2013). Inventory of the existing chemical substances in China (in Chinese).

[12] NPI Technical Advisory Panel (1999). Final report to national environment protection council.

[13] Rausand M (2011). Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons

[14] Singh K, Ihlenfeld C, Oates C, Plant J, Voulvoulis N (2011). Plant J, Voulvoulis N (2011). Developing a screening method for the evaluation of environmental and human health risks of synthetic chemicals in the mining industry. Int J Miner Process, 101(1−4): 1−20

[15] SRC (2012). Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic profiles estimated for organic chemicals.

[16] Swanson M B, Davis G A, Kincaid L E, Schultz T, Bartmess J E, Jones S, George E L (1997). A screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts. Environ Toxicol Chem, 16(2): 372−383

[17] UN (United Nations) (2011). Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). 4th revised edition. Franklin: Bernan Press

[18] UNDP, UNFPA, WHO, World Bank (2005). Carcinogenicity of combined hormonal contraceptives and combined menopausal treatment.

[19] UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2012). Listing of POPs in the Stockholm convention.

[20] USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1979). Multimedia environmental goals for environmental assessment (volume I).

[21] USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1984). Priority pollutant ranking system.

[22] USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2009). Methodology for risk-based prioritization under ChAMP.

[23] USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2012a). TSCA work plan chemicals: methods document.

[24] USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2012b). Estimation program interface (EPI) suite.

[25] USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) and ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) (2007). CERCLA priority list of hazardous substances that will be the subject of toxicological profiles and support document.

[26] Zhou W M, Fu D Q, Sun Z G (1991). Determination of black list of China’s priority pollutants in water. Research of Environmental Sciences, 4(6): 9−12 (in Chinese)

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by national environmental protection commonweal research project (No. 200909094) funded by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of People’s Republic of China.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2013 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg