Page 193 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition
P. 193

L1644_C04.fm  Page 165  Tuesday, October 21, 2003  3:13 PM










                              TABLE 4.9
                              Parameter Values for PCDD/Fs
                                Parameter    Symbol     Units       Value         References

                              Body weight     BW         kg         67.52            —
                              Noncarcinogenic   NCP    pg/kg/day     1–4      Van Leeuwen et al. (2000)
                               potency factor
                              Carcinogenic    CP      (mg/kg/day) –1  34,000–56,000  Katsumata and
                               potency factor                                 Kastenberg (1997)




                                 TABLE 4.10
                                 Noncarcinogenic and Cancer Risks by Direct Diet, Direct Risk and
                                 Total Exposure

                                          Noncarcinogenic                 Carcinogenic
                                 Direct risk        8.04 × 10 –3  Direct risk    8.64 × 10 –7
                                 Diet risk          6.79 × 10 –1  Diet risk      7.31 × 10 –5
                                 Total exposure     6.87 × 10 –1  Total exposure  7.39 × 10 –5

                                                            –5
                                The total cancer risk is 7.39 × 10 , which means that a person living in the
                             surroundings of the MSWI has chance of less than one in a million of developing
                             cancer during his or her lifetime. The total noncancer risk is 6.87 × 10 , which
                                                                                        –1
                             means that the population exposure does not exceed the threshold value. Neither the
                             emissions from the MSWI nor the indirect  exposure (diet) to PCDD/Fs in the
                             Tarragona area would mean an additional noncarcinogenic risk for health to general
                             population living in the area.
                                Another point is that, in both cases (noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risk), the
                             total risk is due mainly to diet. Consequently, under the present conditions, Tarrag-
                             ona’s MSWI would not cause a substantial additional exposure to PCDD/Fs in the
                             area under potential influence of the plant. See Table 4.9.

                             4.12 QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES


                                1.  Indicate possible and ideal target/indicator species for an ERA in the
                                   following cases: a) dioxins emission of a MSWI; b) acid rain; c) indoor
                                   radiation. Explain their advantages and disadvantages.
                                2.  Which aspects do you consider the main difficulties in the selection of
                                   target species of an ecosystem to overall risk assessment? How do you
                                   consider these problems can be noticeably improved?
                                3.  Describe the main concept of risk assessment and sum up the main fields
                                   and boundaries of application as well as the main tools utilized in it.




                             © 2004 CRC Press LLC
   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198