Personal exposure meets risk assessment: a comparison of measured and modeled exposures and risks in an urban community.
Personal exposure meets risk assessment: a comparison of measured and modeled exposures and risks in an urban community.
复制标题
个人接触符合风险评估：对城市社区中测量和建模的暴露和风险进行比较。
DOI：
10.1289/ehp.6496
复制
发表时间：
2004-04
影响因子：
10.4
通讯作者：
Buckley, Timothy J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Payne-Sturges, Devon C;Burke, Thomas A;Breysse, Patrick;Diener-West, Marie;Buckley, Timothy J
人体暴露研究一直表明，对于大多数挥发性有机化合物（VOC），个人暴露与室外空气浓度有很大不同。因此，基于环境测量的风险估计可能会高估或低估风险，导致管理战略无效或效率低下。在本研究中，我们检查的程度暴露错误分类和风险的影响，估计由美国环境保护署（美国环保署）评估系统全国人口暴露（白杨）模型相对于监测结果，以社区为基础的暴露评估在巴尔的摩，马里兰州（美国）。这项研究是第一次直接比较白杨模型（美国环保署用于累积暴露项目，随后用于全国范围的空气毒性评估）和人类暴露数据，以估计健康风险。采用随机抽样策略，招募33名不吸烟的成年社区居民。被动空气采样徽章用于评估每个研究参与者的3天时间加权平均个人暴露以及室内和室外VOCs住宅浓度。一般来说，个人暴露大于室内VOC浓度，室内VOC浓度大于室外VOC浓度。对实际个人接触造成的公共健康风险进行了估计。在比较测量的个人暴露和室内和室外VOC浓度与白杨模型估计的环境浓度时，我们的数据表明，白杨作为主要来自移动的源排放的VOC或作为全球“背景”源污染物而没有室内源贡献的VOC的个人暴露（测量的社区居民暴露）的替代品是相当准确的。除此之外，白杨模型的估计值一般低于测量的个人接触和估计的健康风险。白杨的较低的暴露导致成比例低估累积癌症风险时，污染物暴露相结合，以估计累积风险。基于个人暴露的中位累积终生癌症风险是基于ASPEN模型浓度估计值的3倍。这些发现表明室内暴露源的重要性以及室内和/或个人监测对准确评估风险的重要性。如果环境健康政策仅仅基于模拟的环境VOC浓度，则可能不足以减少暴露和风险。从我们的研究结果强调，需要一个协调的多媒体方法，以暴露评估制定公共卫生政策。
Human exposure research has consistently shown that, for most volatile organic compounds (VOCs), personal exposures are vastly different from outdoor air concentrations. Therefore, risk estimates based on ambient measurements may over- or underestimate risk, leading to ineffective or inefficient management strategies. In the present study we examine the extent of exposure misclassification and its impact on risk for exposure estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide (ASPEN) model relative to monitoring results from a community-based exposure assessment conducted in Baltimore, Maryland (USA). This study is the first direct comparison of the ASPEN model (as used by the U.S. EPA for the Cumulative Exposure Project and subsequently the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment) and human exposure data to estimate health risks. A random sampling strategy was used to recruit 33 nonsmoking adult community residents. Passive air sampling badges were used to assess 3-day time-weighted-average personal exposure as well as outdoor and indoor residential concentrations of VOCs for each study participant. In general, personal exposures were greater than indoor VOC concentrations, which were greater than outdoor VOC concentrations. Public health risks due to actual personal exposures were estimated. In comparing measured personal exposures and indoor and outdoor VOC concentrations with ASPEN model estimates for ambient concentrations, our data suggest that ASPEN was reasonably accurate as a surrogate for personal exposures (measured exposures of community residents) for VOCs emitted primarily from mobile sources or VOCs that occur as global "background" source pollutant with no indoor source contributions. Otherwise, the ASPEN model estimates were generally lower than measured personal exposures and the estimated health risks. ASPEN's lower exposures resulted in proportional underestimation of cumulative cancer risk when pollutant exposures were combined to estimate cumulative risk. Median cumulative lifetime cancer risk based on personal exposures was 3-fold greater than estimates based on ASPEN-modeled concentrations. These findings demonstrate the significance of indoor exposure sources and the importance of indoor and/or personal monitoring for accurate assessment of risk. Environmental health policies may not be sufficient in reducing exposures and risks if they are based solely on modeled ambient VOC concentrations. Results from our study underscore the need for a coordinated multimedia approach to exposure assessment for setting public health policy.