Assessment of human exposure to environmental sources of lead arising from the lead battery manufacturing and recycling sector in Europe: demonstration of a tiered approach in a case study.
Journal
Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology
ISSN: 1559-064X
Titre abrégé: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101262796
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
26
02
2021
accepted:
30
09
2021
revised:
29
09
2021
pubmed:
1
11
2021
medline:
24
5
2022
entrez:
31
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Standard approaches for the assessment of Man via the Environment exposure are designed to be conservative. However, propagating these exposures into health impact assessment might lead to questionable socio-economic costs. The objective of this study was to develop a novel tiered modelling approach to assess human exposure to lead (Pb) via the environment. The approach starts in Tier 1 from EUSES modelling approach, modified with metal specific transfer factors. The generic Tier 2 approach uses the higher tier model GPM for air quality, and dietary exposure modelling based on EFSA's Comprehensive Food Database, in combination with crop specific transfer factors. Tier 3 considers additional site-specific information such as proximity of inhabitants and agricultural activities in relation to industrial sites. This tiered modelling approach was applied to a case study of 50 lead battery manufacturing and recycling sites across Europe. Data sets from general population human biomonitoring studies were used to compare the predicted additional bioburden of Pb resulting from lead battery manufacturing and recycling. The higher tier assessments were able to demonstrate a >20-fold reduction in modelled Pb exposure compared to default assumptions made in Tier 1. Leading to better estimates for socio-economic costs in health impact assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Standard approaches for the assessment of Man via the Environment exposure are designed to be conservative. However, propagating these exposures into health impact assessment might lead to questionable socio-economic costs.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to develop a novel tiered modelling approach to assess human exposure to lead (Pb) via the environment.
METHOD
The approach starts in Tier 1 from EUSES modelling approach, modified with metal specific transfer factors. The generic Tier 2 approach uses the higher tier model GPM for air quality, and dietary exposure modelling based on EFSA's Comprehensive Food Database, in combination with crop specific transfer factors. Tier 3 considers additional site-specific information such as proximity of inhabitants and agricultural activities in relation to industrial sites.
RESULTS
This tiered modelling approach was applied to a case study of 50 lead battery manufacturing and recycling sites across Europe. Data sets from general population human biomonitoring studies were used to compare the predicted additional bioburden of Pb resulting from lead battery manufacturing and recycling. The higher tier assessments were able to demonstrate a >20-fold reduction in modelled Pb exposure compared to default assumptions made in Tier 1.
SIGNIFICANCE
Leading to better estimates for socio-economic costs in health impact assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34718342
doi: 10.1038/s41370-021-00395-5
pii: 10.1038/s41370-021-00395-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
Lead
2P299V784P
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
418-426Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.
Références
Vermeire TG, Jager DT, Bussian B, Devillers J, Den Haan K, Hansen B, et al. European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES). Principles and structure. Chemosphere. 1997;34:1823–36.
doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00017-9
ECHA. Guidance on information requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.16: Environmental exposure assessment. Version 3.0 February 2016. https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r16_en.pdf/b9f0f406-ff5f-4315-908e-e5f83115d6af
Fierens T, Van Holderbeke M, Standaert A, Cornelis C, Brochot C, Ciffroy P, et al. Multimedia & PBPK modelling with MERLIN-Expo versus biomonitoring for assessing Pb exposure of pre-school children in a residential setting. Sci Total Environ. 2016;568:785–93.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.194
Buekers J, De Brouwere K, Lefebvre W, Willems H, Vandenbroele M, Van Sprang P, et al. Assessment of human exposure to environmental sources of nickel in Europe: Inhalation exposure. Sci Total Environ. 2015;521-2:359–71.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.092
MacLachlan DJ. Estimating the transfer of contaminants in animal feedstuffs to livestock tissues, milk and eggs: a review. Anim Prod Sci. 2011;51:1067.
doi: 10.1071/AN11112
Schreck E, Foucault Y, Sarret G, Sobanska S, Cécillon L, Castrec-Rouelle M, et al. Metal and metalloid foliar uptake by various plant species exposed to atmospheric industrial fallout: Mechanisms involved for lead. Sci Total Environ. 2012;427-8:253–62.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.051
Shahid M, Dumat C, Khalid S, Schreck E, Xiong T, Niazi NK. Foliar heavy metal uptake, toxicity and detoxification in plants: A comparison of foliar and root metal uptake. J Hazard Mater 2017;325:36–58.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.11.063
US EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W). Human health risk assessment protocol for hazardous waste combustion facilities; 2005. EPA 530/R/05/006. Final Report. 2005. www.epa.gov/osw
De Brouwere K, Buekers J, Cornelis C, Schlekat CE, Oller AR. Assessment of indirect human exposure to environmental sources of nickel: Oral exposure and risk characterization for systemic effects. Sci Total Environ. 2012;419:25–36.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.12.049
Oliva SR, Raitio H. Review of cleaning techniques and their effects on the chemical composition of foliar samples. Boreal Environ Res. 2003;8:263–72.
Talard R, Piasecka A, Navis S, Geerts, L De Brouwere K, Verdonck F. Derivation of lead transfer factors and bioaccumulation factors for Man Via environment exposure assessment. Technical report. Arche Consulting, Gent, Belgium. 2019.
ILA. International Lead Association. Lead Metal. EU Reach Registration Chemical Safety Report. 2020.
ECETOC. Technical Report No 58. Assessment of Non-occupational Exposure to Chemicals. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals ISSN-0773-8072-58. 1994.
ECHA. European Chemicals Agency. Annex xv restriction report proposal for a restriction substance name: lead iupac name: Not applicable CAS NUMBER: 7439-92-1. 2017; 0–84.
Carlisle JC, Wade MJ. Predicting blood lead concentrations from environmental concentrations. Regul Toxicol Pharm. 1992;16:280–9.
doi: 10.1016/0273-2300(92)90008-W
WHO. World Health Organization. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe—second Edition World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. 2000.
Beaugelin-Seiller K, Cessac B, Marot F, Chartier C, Deportes I, Metivier J-M et al. La banque de données CIBLEX, une compilation de paramètres d’exposition de la population française au voisinage d’un site pollué. Déchets, Rev Francoph D’ÉCOLOGIE Ind 2004. https://doi.org/10.4267/dechets-sciences-techniques.2125 .
DEFRA. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The contaminated land exposure assessment (CLEA) model. Technical basis and algorithms (report)
EFSA. Scientific Opinion on Lead in Food. EFSA J. 2010;8:1–151.
Rudnai P. Human biomonitoring for Europe. HBM4EU Science and policy for a healthy future. SCOPING DOCUMENT (2 nd round of prioritization) prioritized substance group: Lead. Horizon 2020 programme Contract No 733032. 2019. Available on https://www.hbm4eu.eu
Clune A, Falk H, Riederer A. Mapping Global Environmental Lead Poisoning in Children. Blacksm Inst J Heal Pollut. 2011;1. https://doi.org/10.5696/jhp.v2i2.26 .
Fryer M, Collins CD, Ferrier H, Colvile RN, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications. Environ Sci Policy. 2006;9:261–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.11.011