Abstract
The rapid development of China’s chemical industry has created increasing pressure to improve the environmental management of chemicals. To bridge the large gap between the use and safe management of chemicals, we performed a comprehensive review of the international methods used to prioritize chemicals for environmental management. By comparing domestic and foreign methods, we confirmed the presence of this gap and identified potential solutions. Based on our literature review, we developed an appropriate screening method that accounts for the unique characteristics of chemical use within China. The proposed method is based on an evaluation using nine indices of the potential hazard posed by a chemical: three environmental hazard indices (persistence, bioaccumulation, and eco-toxicity), four health hazard indices (acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive and developmental toxicity), and two environmental exposure hazard indices (chemical amount and utilization pattern). The results of our screening agree with results of previous efforts from around the world, confirming the validity of the new system. The classification method will help decisionmakers to prioritize and identify the chemicals with the highest environmental risk, thereby providing a basis for improving chemical management in China.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Commission E U (1993). Council Regulation (EEC), No. 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the Evaluation and Control of the Risks of Existing Substances. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/exist_subst/legis.htm (accessed February 2013)
Davis G A, Kincaid L, Swanson M, Schultz T, Barmess J, Griffith B, Jones S (1994). Chemical hazard evaluation for management strategies: a method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts. EPA/600/R-94/177, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH
DME (Danish Ministry of the Environment) (2009). List of undesirable substances 2009. Available at: http://www.mst.dk/English/Chemicals/assessment_of_chemicals/lous_list_undesirable_substances_2009/ (accessed February 2013)
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2009). Computer assisted evaluation of industrial chemical substances according to regulations. Available at: http://www.caesar-project.eu/ (accessed February 2013)
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) (2010). General approach for prioritisation of substances of very high concern (svhcs) for inclusion in the list of substances subject to authorisation. Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13640/axiv_prioritysetting_general_approach_20100701_en.pdf (accessed February 2013)
Environment Canada (1999). Priority substances assessment program (PSAP). Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/psap/psap.cfm (accessed February 2013)
Fu D Q, Sun Z G, Zhou W M (1990). Screening procedures of black list of China’s priority pollutants in water. Environmental Monitoring in China, 6(5): 48–50 (in Chinese)
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2012). Agents classified by the IARC monographs. Available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php (accessed February 2013)
IEH (Institute for Environment and Health) (2004). A screening method for ranking chemicals by their fate and behaviour in the environment and potential toxic effects in humans following non-occupational exposure. Available at: http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/health/researchareas/environmenthealth/ieh/ieh%20publications/w14.pdf (accessed March 2013)
Lerche D, Sørensen P B, Larsen H S, Carlsen L, Nielsen O J (2002). Comparison of the combined monitoring-based and modelling-based priority setting scheme with partial order theory and random linear extensions for ranking of chemical substances. Chemosphere, 49(6): 637–649
MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China) (2013). Inventory of the existing chemical substances in China (in Chinese). Available at: http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bgg/201301/t20130131_245810.htm (accessed February 2013)
NPI Technical Advisory Panel (1999). Final report to national environment protection council. Available at: http://www.scew.gov.au/archive/npi/pubs/npi_rpt_technical_advisory_panel_final_report_final_200606.pdf (accessed February 2013)
Rausand M (2011). Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons
Singh K, Ihlenfeld C, Oates C, Plant J, Voulvoulis N. (2011). Developing a screening method for the evaluation of environmental and human health risks of synthetic chemicals in the mining industry. Int J Miner Process, 101(1–4): 1–20
SRC (2012). Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic profiles estimated for organic chemicals. Available at: http://www.pbtprofiler.net (accessed February 2013)
Swanson M B, Davis G A, Kincaid L E, Schultz T, Bartmess J E, Jones S, George E L (1997). A screening method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental impacts. Environ Toxicol Chem, 16(2): 372–383
UN (United Nations) (2011). Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) (4th revised edition). Franklin: Bernan Press
UNDP, UNFPA, WHO, World Bank (2005). Carcinogenicity of combined hormonal contraceptives and combined menopausal treatment. Available at: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf (accessed February 2013)
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2012). Listing of POPs in the Stockholm convention. Available at: http://chm.pops.int/Convention/ThePOPs/ListingofPOPs/tabid/2509/Default.aspx (accessed February 2013)
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1979). Multimedia environmental goals for environmental assessment (volume I). Available at: http://nepis.epa.gov (accessed February 2013)
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1984). Priority pollutant ranking system. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/ (accessed January 2013)
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2009). Methodology for risk-based prioritization under ChAMP. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ChAMP/pubs/hpv/abouthpv.html (accessed February 2013)
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2012a). TSCA work plan chemicals: methods document. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/workplans.html (accessed February 2013)
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2012b). Estimation program interface (EPI) suite. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/ (accessed January 2013)
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) and ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) (2007). CERCLA priority list of hazardous substances that will be the subject of toxicological profiles and support document. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/SPL/index.html (accessed February 2013)
Zhou W M, Fu D Q, Sun Z G (1991). Determination of black list of China’s priority pollutants in water. Research of Environmental Sciences, 4(6): 9–12 (in Chinese)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yu, X., Mao, Y., Sun, J. et al. Prioritizing chemicals for environmental management in China based on screening of potential risks. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 104–114 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-013-0387-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-013-0387-6