본문 바로가기
[학술저널]

  • 학술저널

김준영(영남대학교) 백성옥(영남대학교)

DOI : 10.5572/KOSAE.2019.35.4.461

이 논문을 2019-10-22 에 이용했습니다.

표지

북마크 0

리뷰 0

이용수 17

피인용수 0

초록

In this study, a wide range of chemical emission data collected by the PRTR survey in 2012 and 2013 were analyzed with respect to their spatial distributions and toxicity. The PRTR survey system adopted in Korea and other countries were also reviewed. When the total amount of chemicals were broken down by the five regions in Korea, the largest amount of chemicals (approximately 50% of the nationwide total) was emitted from the Yeongnam region. In order to combine the emission amount with toxicological information, the chemicals were first classified into two groups, i.e., potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds. Subsequently, the unit risk (UR) value was multiplied to the emission data of a specific carcinogenic compound, while the reference concentration (RfC) was divided by the emission data of a non-cacinogenic chemical. The former was defined in this study as the ‘risk weighted emission’, and the latter as the ‘hazard-weighted emission’. There were a total of 165 kinds of chemical substances emitted from the Yeongnam region, including mainly organic solvents, such as xylenes, toluene, and ethylbenzene. Amongst them, 36 and 58 compounds were found to be potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals, respectively. The rankings of risk/hazard-weighted emissions for the target chemicals were substantially different from them of the absolute emissions. These results imply that the importance of the risk-weighted emission information should be emphasized in the selection of priority chemicals to be controlled in a particular region. Although the Korean PRTR survey provide many useful information, it still needs to be improved to include even smaller industries in order to refine the emission data of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). A comprehensive ambient air monitoring of HAPs in the major industrial complexes can play a complementary role in the validation of the PRTR data, of which some important chemicals mighty be missed from the industries’ self report.

목차

Abstract
1. 서론
2. 주요 국가의 PRTR 제도 비교
3. 연구 방법
4. 결과 및 고찰
5. 결론
References

참고문헌(0)

리뷰(0)

도움이 되었어요.0

도움이 안되었어요.0

첫 리뷰를 남겨주세요.
Insert title here