- Email: [email protected]
The priority list of environmental chemical hazards in Poland
The Science of the Total Environment, 101 ( 1991 ) 153-- 158 Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam - - Printed in Czechoslovakia
153
THE PRIORITY LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAl, HAZARDS IN POLAND
T. DUTKIEWICZ
The Institute of Environmental Protection, Katowice, Poland The Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, L6d~, Poland
ABSTRACF For each environmental poison the index of harmfulness was calculated on the basis of quantitative evaluation of the following properties: emission of the substance to the environment (Fi), toxicity (F2), the population exposed (F3), exposure (F4), persistence of the substance in the environment (Fs), secondary substances and mixtures (Fs), bioaccumulation and biomagnifieation (FT), and influence on the non-living components of the environment (Fa). Increasing numerical values were applied for increasing range or activity of toxins. The numerical values were integrated according to the formula I = F1 × F2 x F3 × "VF4 x F5 × Fs × F7 x Fa It ~xas decided that the first three factors possess prior significance for evaluation of harmful environmental effects, the remainder were considered as auxiliary. Substances having the highest indices of harmfulness were selected as priority environmental poisons: sulphur dioxide, dust, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, fluorine, lead, cadmium, nitrogenous fertilizers, pesticides, and carbon monoxide. INTRODUCTION
The quantification of l~armful effects of environmental hazards and setting their priority list is one of the most important activities in regard to environmental toxicology. This problem was discussed at one of the meetings of the Committee of Environmental Toxicology, Polish Academy of Sciences, in 1988. Some methods for this activity were presented, discussed and accepted by the experts who took part in the meeting. Eventually, the priority list of environmental chemical hazards was prepared. There are manifold advantages of setting a priority list of hazardous chemicals. Firstly it is thus possible to focus on the most dangerous substances and properly use available resources, which guarantees the most efficient action for the improvement of the environmental quality. On the other hand, if influences the consciousness of the attthorities and the community as they become acquainted with the problem of harmful effects of these environmental poisons. It also contributes to the undertaking of proper preventive measures to diminish their adverse effects. Another important advantage of the priority list is the possibility of properly focussing scientific investigations.
00,18-9697/,')1/$03.50
~ 1991 Elsevier Sricm'~, Publishers B, \ .
154 METHODOLOGY
The selection of toxic substances which have priority importance for environmental and health problems in Poland has been performed according to the criteria previously proposed, discussed and accepted by the Expert Group. The experts decided that the following factors should be taken into consideration: emission of the po!son to the environment (FI), toxicity (F2), the population exposed (F3), magnitude of exposure (F4), persistence of the substance in the environment (Fs), secondary substances and mixtures (F6), bioaccumulation and biomagnification (FT), the influence on non-living components of the environment (Fs). For the evaluation of the toxic substances in question, various factors, properties and conditions were considered and quantitatively assessed. Increasing numerical values were applied to express the gradual scale of activity of the toxins. Then all the numerical values were integrated according to the proposed formula and an index of harmfulness has been calculated for each substance. CRITERIA
In selection of criteria for the evaluation of environmental chemical hazards, various aspects were considered including the behaviour of the substances in the environment as well as adverse effects with particular regard to the health effects they produce. The receptors in the environment and the magnitude of exposure to toxic substances were also taken into account. Fi - - T h e emission to the e n v i r o n m e n t at the scale of the whole country was recognized as the first principal condition. The dynamics of this phenomenon was evaluated and in view of the long-term environmental activity, the reference period of one year has been adopted. The emission below 100 thousand tons per year was marked as 1, the range between 100 thousand and 1 million ton" was marked as 2 and, finally the emission over 1 million ton/year was given the mark 3. 1:2 ~ Toxicity, including chronic toxicity and delayed effects was evaluated according to a 6-point scale using the following descriptors:
mark mark mark mark mark mark
1 2 3 4 5 6
----~ --
relatively harmless practically non-toxic slightly toxic moderately toxic highly toxic extremely toxic
All extremely toxic and carcinogenic substances were marked as 6. Lead and cadmium compounds were included in the group of highly toxic substances. Nitrogen oxides were considered moderately toxic, petroleum hydrocarbons slightly toxic. Dust was
155
evaluated as practically non-toxic, because its harmful effects are related chiefly to its physical properties. Various aspects were considered and the following properties of the substance were taken into account: physical and chemical properties, acute toxicity, maximal allowable concentrations in environmental components, health effects, carcinogenic, genotoxic and ecotoxic properties. Fa ~ The populations exposed. The values of the marks applied in this evaluation were related to the level of exposure. However, only the environmental exposure was considered and industrial exposure was excluded. All kinds of exposure were taken into consideration (air, water, food). The exposure which was found to exceed environmental standards was evaluated as essential. The exposed population was classified as follows: up to 1 million - - mark 1 I to 10 millions - - mark 2 over 10 millions - - mark 3 Fs ~ Magnitude of exposure. For the evaluation of exposure all accessible data on the concentrations of toxic substances in the ambient air, drinking water and food were utilized. The biological indices of exposure to toxic substances in man and in other living components of the environment were also used. The exceeding of environmental standards was marked in the following way: up to 2 times as 1 2----,5 times as 2 over 5 times as 3 F5 ~ The persistence in the environment. If the chemical substance released to the environment is persistent, then, because of its mobility, it can be transported for long distances resulting in the exposure of numerous ecosystems and populations. As a measure of the persistence the half-life of chemicals in the environment was applied. Half-life in hours and days was marked - - 1, in months it was marked - - 2, and in years it was marked - - 3. F6 w Secondary substances and mixtures. As a result of chemical reactions in the environment highly toxic or carcinogenic secondary substances are sometimes produced. Also the mixtures of toxic substances could result in synergistic or additive effects. The substances, the derivatives of which are very toxic or carcinogenic or show synergistic effects were marked as 3. Creation of toxic secondary products or additive effects of mixtures were marked as 2. If no secondary substances were formed and no combined action can been observed the mark given was 1. ~- ~ Bioaccumulation and biomagnification can increase the adverse acti.on of toxic substances.
156
These substances which exhibit biomagnification, i.e. increased concentrations in subsequent steps of the trophic chain, were marked as 3. If only the bioaccumulation occured, the mark 2 was assigned. For substances without the mentioned above properties the applied mark was 1. ~ - - The influence on non-living components of the environment. The ability of chemical substances to affect the quality of the air, water, and soil was taken into consideration. The corrosion of metals was also examined. The substances exerting ~trong impact on non-living components of the environment were marked as 3. These chemicals which showed limited influence were marked as 2, and those without ar,~ acfig~ -- m0.rk !. It should be emphasized that the information used for quantitative evaluation of particular factors was taken from literature specified in the references as well as the expert's opinion on the subject. The results of discussions and negotiations were also important considerations of the classification procedure. INTEGRATION OF FACTORS
It was decided that some factors possess primary significance for the evaluation of harmful environmental effects. Three such factors were distinguished: emission, toxicity and population exposed. The remaining factors were considered as auxiliary. Accordingly, the following formula was applied for integrating all the factors I = FI × F2 × F3 )'( VF4 × F5 × F~ × F 7 X Fa The integrated values (the index of harmfulness) were expressed in terms of numbers ranging from 4 to 114. The group of 10 substances with the highest indices
TABLE 1. The priority list of enviromnental chemical hazards in Poland No. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
Substance
Index of harmfulness
Sulphur dioxide and related compounds Dust Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons Nitrogen oxides and related compounds Fluorine and its compounds Lead and its compotlnds Cadmium and its compounds Nitrogenous fertilisers Pesticides Carbor. monoxide •
.
o
114 108 88 83 72 52 42 ~2 28 25
157
(25--114) were regarded as priority environmental chemical hazards (Tab. 1). All the remaining substances such as mercury, arsenic, chlorine, benzene, carbon disulphide, aliphatie hydrocarbons, phenols were considered less important and were assigned lower values in the index of harmfulness. The relationship between the index of harmfulness and the increasing values of underlying factors can be reflected by means of a curvilinear function (Fig. l). The linear
ul ul GJ c
~,~ vatue of the index E t-
main factors
O .C
~
0
auxitiary factors
"0
_c
1
2
3 Vatue of factors
Fig. I. Graphic image of the index of harmfulness. Values.
increase of the value of factors used in the formula results in exponential increase of the value of the index of harmfulness, which in the experts opinion reflects the interaction of the factors considered. The sectors in Figure ! also show how the first part of the forIntlla
(F1 x F2 x F~ -- main factors) and the second part (]/F~ x F5 × F~ x F7 x F a --auxiliary factors) can influence lhe value of this index. It is suggesled that the described method and the priority lisl itself could have considerahle significance for fu|ure actions aiming at the improvement of the environmental protection in Poland. It could also serve as a ~alual)le tool in the identification of the most imporlan! poisons in environmental toxicology.
158 LITERATURE 1 Larsen, R.: Relating air poUutanteffects to concentration and control. JAPCA, 1, 1969. 2 The allowable concentrations of pollutants in ambient air, Decree of the Council of Ministers dated 30 Sept. 1980. Journal of Acts No 24, poz. 89 (in Polish). 3 Long-term programme bf protection and development of the environment in Katowiee Voivodship. Institute of Environmental Development, Katowiee, December 1983 (in Polish). 4 Statistical annals 1986, Central Statistical Office, Warsaw. 5 The evaluation of the present state of the environment in Poland. Expertise of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee ,,Man and Environment", Warszawa 1981 (in Polish). 6 List of environmentally dangerous chemical substances and procesess of global significance. Report of the Executive Director of UNEP to the Twelfth session of its Governing Council. "IRPTC-Geneva, Report No 1 (1984). 7 List of environmentally dangerous chemical substances and processes of global significance, Scientific monographs, IRPTC, Geneva, UNEP, Report No 2 0984). 8 Environmental health criteria 8. Sulfur oxides and suspended particulate matter. WHO Geneva, 1973. 9 Air quality guidelines for Europe, WHO Regional Publications, European Series No 23, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen 1987. 10 Environmental health criteria 4. Nitrogen oxides, PZWL, Warszawa 1983 (in Polish). ! 1 Environmental health criteria 7. Photochemical oxidants, PZWL, Warszawa 1986 (in Polish). 12 Environmental health criteria 5. Nitrates, nitrites, N-nitroso compounds, PZWL, Warszawa, 1986 (in Polish). 13 Lead and health, The report of a DHSS Working party on lead in the environment. Her Majesty Stationary Office, London 1980. 14 Environmental health criteria 3. Lead, PZWL, Warszawa 1982 (in Polish). 15 Dutkiewiez, T., Kulka, E., Sokolowska, D.: The evaluation of ent~ ways of lead and cadmium in children from industrial regions. Bromat. Chem. Toxicol. XV, 1--2, 1982 (in Polish). 16 Environmental health criteria 1. Mercury. PZWL, Warszawa 1983 (in Polish). 17 Dutkiewicz, T., Kulka, E., Sokotowska, D.: The trace elements in main components of the environment in industrial regions. Brom. Chem. Toksykol. XV, 1--2, 1982 (in Polish). 18 Kabata-Pendias, A., Pendias, H.: Trace elements in biological environment. Wydawnictwo Geologiczne, Warszawa 1979 (in Polish). 19 Carcinogenic substances in working environment. Vol. 2. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lrd~ 1987 (in Polish). 20 Obiedzihski, H.: Hygienic aspects of existence of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in selected food products. Roezn. Wojsk. Inst. Hig. Epidemiol. 23 (Supplement), Warszawa 1985 (in Polish). 21 Dutkiewiez, T., Ryborz, S., Mastowski, J.: Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons as an essential factor of exposure of human population in industrial regions. Proceedings of the symposium: Environmental hazards in industrial regions. Katowice, 1980 (in Polish). 22 Environmental health criteria 10. Carbon disulphide. PZWL, Warszawa 1983 (in Polish). 23 Enviromnental health criteria 13. Carbon monoxide. PZWL, Warszawa 1981. 24 Machoy, Z.: Third fluorine symposium: The influence of atmosphere fluorine on plants and food. Polish Biochemical Society, Section in Szczecin, Szczecihskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Szczecin 1986 (in Polish).
153
THE PRIORITY LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAl, HAZARDS IN POLAND
T. DUTKIEWICZ
The Institute of Environmental Protection, Katowice, Poland The Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, L6d~, Poland
ABSTRACF For each environmental poison the index of harmfulness was calculated on the basis of quantitative evaluation of the following properties: emission of the substance to the environment (Fi), toxicity (F2), the population exposed (F3), exposure (F4), persistence of the substance in the environment (Fs), secondary substances and mixtures (Fs), bioaccumulation and biomagnifieation (FT), and influence on the non-living components of the environment (Fa). Increasing numerical values were applied for increasing range or activity of toxins. The numerical values were integrated according to the formula I = F1 × F2 x F3 × "VF4 x F5 × Fs × F7 x Fa It ~xas decided that the first three factors possess prior significance for evaluation of harmful environmental effects, the remainder were considered as auxiliary. Substances having the highest indices of harmfulness were selected as priority environmental poisons: sulphur dioxide, dust, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, fluorine, lead, cadmium, nitrogenous fertilizers, pesticides, and carbon monoxide. INTRODUCTION
The quantification of l~armful effects of environmental hazards and setting their priority list is one of the most important activities in regard to environmental toxicology. This problem was discussed at one of the meetings of the Committee of Environmental Toxicology, Polish Academy of Sciences, in 1988. Some methods for this activity were presented, discussed and accepted by the experts who took part in the meeting. Eventually, the priority list of environmental chemical hazards was prepared. There are manifold advantages of setting a priority list of hazardous chemicals. Firstly it is thus possible to focus on the most dangerous substances and properly use available resources, which guarantees the most efficient action for the improvement of the environmental quality. On the other hand, if influences the consciousness of the attthorities and the community as they become acquainted with the problem of harmful effects of these environmental poisons. It also contributes to the undertaking of proper preventive measures to diminish their adverse effects. Another important advantage of the priority list is the possibility of properly focussing scientific investigations.
00,18-9697/,')1/$03.50
~ 1991 Elsevier Sricm'~, Publishers B, \ .
154 METHODOLOGY
The selection of toxic substances which have priority importance for environmental and health problems in Poland has been performed according to the criteria previously proposed, discussed and accepted by the Expert Group. The experts decided that the following factors should be taken into consideration: emission of the po!son to the environment (FI), toxicity (F2), the population exposed (F3), magnitude of exposure (F4), persistence of the substance in the environment (Fs), secondary substances and mixtures (F6), bioaccumulation and biomagnification (FT), the influence on non-living components of the environment (Fs). For the evaluation of the toxic substances in question, various factors, properties and conditions were considered and quantitatively assessed. Increasing numerical values were applied to express the gradual scale of activity of the toxins. Then all the numerical values were integrated according to the proposed formula and an index of harmfulness has been calculated for each substance. CRITERIA
In selection of criteria for the evaluation of environmental chemical hazards, various aspects were considered including the behaviour of the substances in the environment as well as adverse effects with particular regard to the health effects they produce. The receptors in the environment and the magnitude of exposure to toxic substances were also taken into account. Fi - - T h e emission to the e n v i r o n m e n t at the scale of the whole country was recognized as the first principal condition. The dynamics of this phenomenon was evaluated and in view of the long-term environmental activity, the reference period of one year has been adopted. The emission below 100 thousand tons per year was marked as 1, the range between 100 thousand and 1 million ton" was marked as 2 and, finally the emission over 1 million ton/year was given the mark 3. 1:2 ~ Toxicity, including chronic toxicity and delayed effects was evaluated according to a 6-point scale using the following descriptors:
mark mark mark mark mark mark
1 2 3 4 5 6
----~ --
relatively harmless practically non-toxic slightly toxic moderately toxic highly toxic extremely toxic
All extremely toxic and carcinogenic substances were marked as 6. Lead and cadmium compounds were included in the group of highly toxic substances. Nitrogen oxides were considered moderately toxic, petroleum hydrocarbons slightly toxic. Dust was
155
evaluated as practically non-toxic, because its harmful effects are related chiefly to its physical properties. Various aspects were considered and the following properties of the substance were taken into account: physical and chemical properties, acute toxicity, maximal allowable concentrations in environmental components, health effects, carcinogenic, genotoxic and ecotoxic properties. Fa ~ The populations exposed. The values of the marks applied in this evaluation were related to the level of exposure. However, only the environmental exposure was considered and industrial exposure was excluded. All kinds of exposure were taken into consideration (air, water, food). The exposure which was found to exceed environmental standards was evaluated as essential. The exposed population was classified as follows: up to 1 million - - mark 1 I to 10 millions - - mark 2 over 10 millions - - mark 3 Fs ~ Magnitude of exposure. For the evaluation of exposure all accessible data on the concentrations of toxic substances in the ambient air, drinking water and food were utilized. The biological indices of exposure to toxic substances in man and in other living components of the environment were also used. The exceeding of environmental standards was marked in the following way: up to 2 times as 1 2----,5 times as 2 over 5 times as 3 F5 ~ The persistence in the environment. If the chemical substance released to the environment is persistent, then, because of its mobility, it can be transported for long distances resulting in the exposure of numerous ecosystems and populations. As a measure of the persistence the half-life of chemicals in the environment was applied. Half-life in hours and days was marked - - 1, in months it was marked - - 2, and in years it was marked - - 3. F6 w Secondary substances and mixtures. As a result of chemical reactions in the environment highly toxic or carcinogenic secondary substances are sometimes produced. Also the mixtures of toxic substances could result in synergistic or additive effects. The substances, the derivatives of which are very toxic or carcinogenic or show synergistic effects were marked as 3. Creation of toxic secondary products or additive effects of mixtures were marked as 2. If no secondary substances were formed and no combined action can been observed the mark given was 1. ~- ~ Bioaccumulation and biomagnification can increase the adverse acti.on of toxic substances.
156
These substances which exhibit biomagnification, i.e. increased concentrations in subsequent steps of the trophic chain, were marked as 3. If only the bioaccumulation occured, the mark 2 was assigned. For substances without the mentioned above properties the applied mark was 1. ~ - - The influence on non-living components of the environment. The ability of chemical substances to affect the quality of the air, water, and soil was taken into consideration. The corrosion of metals was also examined. The substances exerting ~trong impact on non-living components of the environment were marked as 3. These chemicals which showed limited influence were marked as 2, and those without ar,~ acfig~ -- m0.rk !. It should be emphasized that the information used for quantitative evaluation of particular factors was taken from literature specified in the references as well as the expert's opinion on the subject. The results of discussions and negotiations were also important considerations of the classification procedure. INTEGRATION OF FACTORS
It was decided that some factors possess primary significance for the evaluation of harmful environmental effects. Three such factors were distinguished: emission, toxicity and population exposed. The remaining factors were considered as auxiliary. Accordingly, the following formula was applied for integrating all the factors I = FI × F2 × F3 )'( VF4 × F5 × F~ × F 7 X Fa The integrated values (the index of harmfulness) were expressed in terms of numbers ranging from 4 to 114. The group of 10 substances with the highest indices
TABLE 1. The priority list of enviromnental chemical hazards in Poland No. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
Substance
Index of harmfulness
Sulphur dioxide and related compounds Dust Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons Nitrogen oxides and related compounds Fluorine and its compounds Lead and its compotlnds Cadmium and its compounds Nitrogenous fertilisers Pesticides Carbor. monoxide •
.
o
114 108 88 83 72 52 42 ~2 28 25
157
(25--114) were regarded as priority environmental chemical hazards (Tab. 1). All the remaining substances such as mercury, arsenic, chlorine, benzene, carbon disulphide, aliphatie hydrocarbons, phenols were considered less important and were assigned lower values in the index of harmfulness. The relationship between the index of harmfulness and the increasing values of underlying factors can be reflected by means of a curvilinear function (Fig. l). The linear
ul ul GJ c
~,~ vatue of the index E t-
main factors
O .C
~
0
auxitiary factors
"0
_c
1
2
3 Vatue of factors
Fig. I. Graphic image of the index of harmfulness. Values.
increase of the value of factors used in the formula results in exponential increase of the value of the index of harmfulness, which in the experts opinion reflects the interaction of the factors considered. The sectors in Figure ! also show how the first part of the forIntlla
(F1 x F2 x F~ -- main factors) and the second part (]/F~ x F5 × F~ x F7 x F a --auxiliary factors) can influence lhe value of this index. It is suggesled that the described method and the priority lisl itself could have considerahle significance for fu|ure actions aiming at the improvement of the environmental protection in Poland. It could also serve as a ~alual)le tool in the identification of the most imporlan! poisons in environmental toxicology.
158 LITERATURE 1 Larsen, R.: Relating air poUutanteffects to concentration and control. JAPCA, 1, 1969. 2 The allowable concentrations of pollutants in ambient air, Decree of the Council of Ministers dated 30 Sept. 1980. Journal of Acts No 24, poz. 89 (in Polish). 3 Long-term programme bf protection and development of the environment in Katowiee Voivodship. Institute of Environmental Development, Katowiee, December 1983 (in Polish). 4 Statistical annals 1986, Central Statistical Office, Warsaw. 5 The evaluation of the present state of the environment in Poland. Expertise of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee ,,Man and Environment", Warszawa 1981 (in Polish). 6 List of environmentally dangerous chemical substances and procesess of global significance. Report of the Executive Director of UNEP to the Twelfth session of its Governing Council. "IRPTC-Geneva, Report No 1 (1984). 7 List of environmentally dangerous chemical substances and processes of global significance, Scientific monographs, IRPTC, Geneva, UNEP, Report No 2 0984). 8 Environmental health criteria 8. Sulfur oxides and suspended particulate matter. WHO Geneva, 1973. 9 Air quality guidelines for Europe, WHO Regional Publications, European Series No 23, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen 1987. 10 Environmental health criteria 4. Nitrogen oxides, PZWL, Warszawa 1983 (in Polish). ! 1 Environmental health criteria 7. Photochemical oxidants, PZWL, Warszawa 1986 (in Polish). 12 Environmental health criteria 5. Nitrates, nitrites, N-nitroso compounds, PZWL, Warszawa, 1986 (in Polish). 13 Lead and health, The report of a DHSS Working party on lead in the environment. Her Majesty Stationary Office, London 1980. 14 Environmental health criteria 3. Lead, PZWL, Warszawa 1982 (in Polish). 15 Dutkiewiez, T., Kulka, E., Sokolowska, D.: The evaluation of ent~ ways of lead and cadmium in children from industrial regions. Bromat. Chem. Toxicol. XV, 1--2, 1982 (in Polish). 16 Environmental health criteria 1. Mercury. PZWL, Warszawa 1983 (in Polish). 17 Dutkiewicz, T., Kulka, E., Sokotowska, D.: The trace elements in main components of the environment in industrial regions. Brom. Chem. Toksykol. XV, 1--2, 1982 (in Polish). 18 Kabata-Pendias, A., Pendias, H.: Trace elements in biological environment. Wydawnictwo Geologiczne, Warszawa 1979 (in Polish). 19 Carcinogenic substances in working environment. Vol. 2. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lrd~ 1987 (in Polish). 20 Obiedzihski, H.: Hygienic aspects of existence of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in selected food products. Roezn. Wojsk. Inst. Hig. Epidemiol. 23 (Supplement), Warszawa 1985 (in Polish). 21 Dutkiewiez, T., Ryborz, S., Mastowski, J.: Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons as an essential factor of exposure of human population in industrial regions. Proceedings of the symposium: Environmental hazards in industrial regions. Katowice, 1980 (in Polish). 22 Environmental health criteria 10. Carbon disulphide. PZWL, Warszawa 1983 (in Polish). 23 Enviromnental health criteria 13. Carbon monoxide. PZWL, Warszawa 1981. 24 Machoy, Z.: Third fluorine symposium: The influence of atmosphere fluorine on plants and food. Polish Biochemical Society, Section in Szczecin, Szczecihskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Szczecin 1986 (in Polish).