You are using an outdated browser. For a faster, safer browsing experience, upgrade for free today.

Comparative Analysis of Maximum Permissible Concentrations and Risk Assessments as Methodological Approaches to Evaluating the Impact of Harmful Factors on Human Health

Comparative Analysis of Maximum Permissible Concentrations and Risk Assessments as Methodological Approaches to Evaluating the Impact of Harmful Factors on Human Health

ISSN 2223-6775 Ukrainian journal of occupational health Vol.20, No 3, 2024

https://doi.org/10.33573/ujoh2024.03.228

Comparative Analysis of Maximum Permissible Concentrations and Risk Assessments as Methodological Approaches to Evaluating the Impact of Harmful Factors on Human Health

Kashuba M.O., Kopach O.Ye., Fedoriv O.Ye.

Ivan Horbachevsky Ternopil National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine

Full article (PDF): UKR

Introduction:

Humanity has long faced exposure to various hazardous substances, not only in industrial settings but also in daily life and recreational activities. The need to protect individuals from the detrimental effects of these substances has been a central concern in ancient medical practices, particularly in preventive medicine. Given the varying levels of toxicity and routes of entry for different toxic substances, a key methodological approach has been the establishment of maximum permissible concentrations (MPCs). MPCs serve as indicators of the safe levels of harmful substances in the environment, aimed at mitigating their adverse effects on human health.

Materials and Methods:

An analytical review of scientific publications was conducted using reference databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Free Medical Journals, BioMed Central, and the V.I. Vernadskyi National Library of Ukraine [http://www.ibisnbuv.gov.ua].

Results:

The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the methodologies employed in establishing MPCs for various toxic compounds. It was found that none of these methods are entirely accurate, leading to discrepancies in MPC values across different countries. Moreover, some MPCs are subject to periodic revisions, further highlighting their lack of reliability. This variability and uncertainty suggest the need for alternative approaches to assessing the impact of harmful substances.

In contrast, risk assessment emerges as a more effective approach, focusing on the probability of disease occurrence at specific doses of toxic substances. Unlike MPCs, risk assessments offer a more nuanced evaluation of the potential health risks associated with exposure to harmful factors.

Conclusions:

Risk assessment presents several advantages over the traditional MPC approach. It allows for a more comprehensive and flexible evaluation of harmful factors, accommodating individual differences and specific exposure conditions. Additionally, it is well-suited for analyzing complex and multifactorial situations. However, the implementation of risk assessments is more complex, requiring extensive data and resources, and may be subject to variability depending on the methodology used.

Keywords: maximum permissible concentration, harmful factors, toxicity, nanoparticles, risks.

References

  1. Brühl CA, Zaller JG. Biodiversity decline as a consequence of an inappropriate environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019;7:177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00177
  2. Frumkin H, Haines A. Global environmental change and noncommunicable disease risks. Annual Review of Public Health. 2019;40:261-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043706
  3. Giacometti C, Mazzon M, Cavani L, Ciavatta C, Marzadori C. A nitrification inhibitor, nitrapyrin, reduces potential nitrate leaching through soil columns treated with animal slurries and anaerobic digestate. Agronomy. 2020;10:865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060865
  4. Harner T, Mitrovic M, Ahrens L, Schuster J. Characterization of PUF disk passive air samplers for new priority chemicals: a review. Organohalogen Compd. 2014;76:442-5.
  5. Kösler JE, Calvo OC, Franzaring J, Fangmeier A. Evaluating the ecotoxicity of nitrification inhibitors using terrestrial and aquatic test organisms. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2019;31:91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-019-0272-3
  6. Yusà V, Coscollà C, Mellouki W, Pastor A, de la Guardia M. Sampling and analysis of pesticides in ambient air. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009;1216(15):2972-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2009.02.019
  7. Spurgeon D, Wilkinson H, Civil W, Hutt L, Armenise E, Kieboom N, et al. Worst-case ranking of organic chemicals detected in groundwaters and surface waters in England. Sci. Total Environ. 2022;835:155101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155101
  8. Silva V, Yang X, Fleskens L, Ritsema CJ, Geissen V. Environmental and human health at risk – scenarios to achieve the farm to fork 50% pesticide reduction goals. Environ. Int. 2022;165:107296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107296
  9. United Nations. Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS) [Internet]. New York, Geneva: UN; 2021[cited 2022 Aug 26]. Available from: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/GHS_Rev9E_0.pdf
  10. Johnsen IV, Mariussen E, Voie Ø. Assessment of intake of copper and lead by sheep grazing on a shooting range for small arms: a case study. Environmental science and pollution research international. 2019;26:7337-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1824-6
  11. Kundiev YuI, Ulberg ZR, Trakhtenberg IM, et al. [The problem of assessing the potential risks of nanomaterials and ways to solve it]. Reports of the NAS of Ukraine. 2013;(1):177-84. Ukrainian.
  12. Chekman IS, Serduk AM, Kundiyev YI, Trachtenberg IM, et al. [Nanotoxicology: directions of research (Review)]. Environment and health. 2009;1(48):3-7. Ukrainian.
  13. Trachtenberg IM, Dmytrukha NM. [Principles, methods and indicators of experimental evaluation of the safety of metal nanoparticles]. Modern problems of toxicology, food and chemical safety. 2016;4(76):5-17. Ukrainian.
  14. Trakhtenberg IM, Dmytrukha NM. [Before the problem of security of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials]. In: [Bioetics: from theory to practice: the collective monograph]. Kyiv: Avicena; 2021. p. 94-104. Ukrainian.
  15. Trakhtenberg IM, Dmytrukha NM. [Nanoparticles of metals, methods of definition, spheres of use, physico-chemical and toxic powers]. Ukrainian Journal of Occupational Health. 2013;(4):62-74. Ukrainian. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33573/ujoh2013.04.062
  16. Fischman M, Murashov V, Borak J, Seward J. Task Force on Nanotechnology and Health. Nanotechnology and Health. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2019;61(3):95-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001548
  17. Wijnhoven SWP, Peijnenburg WJGM, Herberts CA, et al. Nano-silver – a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3(2):109-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390902725914
  18. Ghosh M, Singh S. A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and utilization of its by-products. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research. 2005;3(1):1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/0301_001018
  19. Robinson BH, Bischofberger S, Stoll A, Schroer D, Furrer G, Roulier S, et al. Plant uptake of trace elements on a Swiss military shooting range: Uptake pathways and land management implications. Environmental Pollution. 2008 Jun;153(3):668-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.08.034
  20. Di Lella L. Lichens as biomonitors of uranium and other trace elements in an area of Kosovo heavily shelled with depleted uranium rounds. Atmospheric Environment. 2003 Dec;37(38):5445-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.09.009
  21. Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung,MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK, Serrrano JA, Tietge JE, Villeneuve DL. Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to supportecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010;29:730-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.34
  22. Systems Toxicology 2013 − From Basic Research to Human Risk Assessment, Ascona, Switzerland, April 28−May 1, 2013. Available from: http://www.systox2013.ch/