Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T16:14:19.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Multimedia pathways

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Ari Rabl
Affiliation:
Ecole des Mines, Paris
Joseph V. Spadaro
Affiliation:
Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain
Mike Holland
Affiliation:
Ecometrics Research and Consulting (EMRC)
Get access

Summary

Summary

Whereas the classical air pollutants are harmful only via inhalation, persistent pollutants such as toxic metals are also harmful after entering the food chain. This is an important pathway, because the total population dose due to ingestion can easily be an order of magnitude larger than the dose via inhalation. Note that the geographic range of the analysis must be even larger than for atmospheric dispersion, because most food is transported over large distances, often worldwide. This chapter describes several approaches for estimating ingestion doses. Even though the detail about dispersion in the environment is exceedingly complex and difficult to model, some shortcuts are possible if one can find the right data for the relation between total emissions and total population dose under steady-state conditions. Thus one can carry out calculations of total population dose that are far simpler and probably more reliable than detailed site-specific models. That is the case for dioxins, the subject of Section 8.2. The pathways for mercury are complex, and because of its long residence time in the atmosphere it is dispersed over the entire hemisphere. But with data for the global emissions and the global ingestion dose, one can again obtain a simple model for the global health impact, as described in Section 8.3. In Section 8.4 we present a more detailed model, based on transfer factors between different environmental compartments that have been published by USEPA. The key result is the intake fraction, defined as the fraction of the emitted pollutant mass that will be inhaled or ingested by a human being. Results for impacts and damage costs of toxic metals can be found in Section 8.5.

Type
Chapter
Information
How Much Is Clean Air Worth?
Calculating the Benefits of Pollution Control
, pp. 318 - 355
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axelrad, D. A., Bellinger, D. C., Ryan, L. M. and Woodruff, T. J. 2007. Dose-response relationship of prenatal mercury exposure and IQ: an integrative analysis of epidemiologic data. Environ Health Perspect 115(4): 609–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, T. M. 2006. Hazardous substances and human health: exposure, impact and external cost assessment at the European scale. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bellinger, D. C., Trachtenberg, F., Barregard, L. et al. 2006. Neuropsychological and renal effects of dental amalgam in children. JAMA 295(15): 1775–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. T., Connor, W. E., Kris-Etherton, P. M. et al. A quantitative risk-benefit analysis of changes in population fish consumption. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29(4): 325–334.
EPA 1994. Estimating exposure to dioxin-like compounds and Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds Report EPA/600/BP-92/001a, b and c. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC20460.
EPA 1997. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of mercury and mercury compounds. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Air and Radiation. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454/R-97–012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA 1998. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, Support Materials. U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste, Center for Combustion Science and Engineering. Available at
EPA 2000. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds: Part III: Integrated Summary and Risk Characterization for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. Report EPA/600/P-00/001Bg, September 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC20460.
EPA 2001. Oral Reference Dose for Methylmercury. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
EPA 2009. Exposure Factors Handbook. External Review Draft, July 2009. EPA/600/R-09/052A. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC20460.
ExternE 2008. With this reference we cite the methodology and results of the NEEDS (2004–2008) and CASES (2006–2008) phases of ExternE. For the damage costs per kg of pollutant and per kWh of electricity we cite the numbers of the data CD that is included in the book edited by Markandya, A., Bigano, A. and Porchia, R. in 2010: The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK. They can also be downloaded from (although in the latter some numbers have changed since the data CD in the book).
Griffiths, C., McGartland, A. and Miller, M. 2007. A comparison of the monetized impact of IQ decrements from mercury emissions. Environ Health Perspect. 115(6): 841–847.Google Scholar
Grosse, S. D., Matte, T. D., Schwartz, J. and Jackson, R. 2002. Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children’s exposure to lead in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(6): 563–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijbregts, M. A. J., Struijs, J., Goedkoop, M. et al. 2005. Human population intake fractions and environmental fate factors of toxic pollutants in life cycle impact assessment. Chemosphere Chemosphere 61: 1495–1504.Google Scholar
IAEA 1994. Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments, Technical Report Series No. 364, produced in collaboration with the International Union of Radioecologists, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
IAEA 2001. Generic Models for Use in Assessing the Impact of Discharges of Radioactive Substances to the Environment, Safety Reports Series No. 19, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R. et al. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. International Journal of LCA 8(6): 324–330.
Jorgensen, E. B, Grandjean, P. and Weihe, P. 2007. Separation of risks and benefits of seafood intake. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(3): 323–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamborg, C. H., Fitzgerald, W. F., O’Donnell, J. and Torgersen, T. 2002. A non–steady-state compartmental model of global-scale mercury biogeochemistry with interhemispheric atmospheric gradients. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 66(7): 1105–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, M. S., Vette, A. F. and Keeler, G. J. 2002. Atmospheric Deposition to Lake Michigan During the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study, submitted to Environmental Science and Technology.
Lipfert, F. W., Moskowitz, P. D., Fthenakis, V. and Saroff, L. 1996. Probabilistic assessment of health risks of methylmercury from burning coal. Neurotoxicology 17(1): 197–211.Google Scholar
Mackay, D. 2001. Multimedia Environmental Models: The Fugacity Approach. 2nd ed. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Mahaffey, K. R. 2005. NHANES 1999–2002, Update on Mercury. Presented at: 2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish; 2005 Sep 18–21, Baltimore, MD.
McKone, T. E. and Enoch, K. G. 2002. CalTOX™, A Multimedia Total Exposure Model. Report LBNL – 47399. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. Available at .
Muir, T. and Zegarac, M. 2001. Societal costs of exposure to toxic substances: Economic and health costs of four case studies that are candidates for environmental causation. Environmental Health Perspectives 109, Supplement 6 (December): 885–903.Google Scholar
NCHS 2005. NHANES 1999–2000 and NHANES 2001–2002 Public Use Data Files. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Available: .
Rabl, A., Spadaro, J. V. and McGavran, P. D. 1998. Health risks of air pollution from incinerators: a perspective. Waste Management & Research 16: 365–388.Google Scholar
Rea, A. W., Lindberg, S. E. and Keeler, G. J. 2000. Assessment of dry deposition and foliar leaching of mercury and selected trace elements based on washed foliar and surrogate surfaces. Environmental Science and Technology 34: 2418–2425.Google Scholar
Rea, A. W., Lindberg, S. E. and Keeler, G. J. 2001. Dry deposition and foliar leaching of mercury and selected trace elements in deciduous forest throughfall. Atmospheric Environment 35: 3453–3462.Google Scholar
Rice, G. and Hammitt, J. K. 2005. Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits of Controlling Mercury Emissions from US Coal-Fired Power Plants. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Boston, MA. February 2005.
Rossler, M. T. 2002. The electric power industry and mercury regulation: Protective, cost-effective, and market-based solutions. EM. April: 15–21.
Searle, A. 2005. Exposure-Response Relationships for Human Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Metals. Report Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh.
Spadaro, J. V. and Rabl, A. 2004. Pathway analysis for population-total health impacts of toxic metal emissions. Risk Analysis 24(5): 1121–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spadaro, J. V. and Rabl, A. 2008a. Global health impacts and costs due to mercury emissions. Risk Analysis 28 (3): 603–613.Google Scholar
Sullivan, T. M., Lipfert, F. W., Morris, S. C. and Moskowitz, P. D. 2003. Potential health risk reduction arising from reduced mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Report for United States Department of Energy, September 2001. Energy, Environment and National Security Directorate. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York11973–5000.
Trasande, L., Landrigan, P. J. and Schechter, C. 2005. Public health and economic consequences of methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(5): 590–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK 2002. Committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment. “Updated COT statement on a survey of mercury in fish and shellfish”. , accessed 6 Oct. 2007.
UNEP 2002. United Nations Environment Programme. Global Mercury Assessment. UNEP Chemicals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Vette, A. F., Landis, M. S. and Keeler, G. J. 2002. Deposition and Emission of Gaseous Mercury to and from Lake Michigan During the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (July, 1994 – October, 1995), submitted to Environmental Science and Technology.
Virtanen, J. K., Rissanen, T. H., Voutilainen, S. and Tuomainen, T-P. 2007. Mercury as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 18: 75–85.Google Scholar
WHO 1988–2001. WHO 1988, Chromium. Environmental Health Criteria 61. WHO 1990, Methyl Mercury. Environmental Health Criteria 101. WHO 1991, Inorganic Mercury. Environmental Health Criteria 118. WHO 1991, Nickel. Environmental Health Criteria 108. WHO 1992, Cadmium. Environmental Health Criteria 134. WHO 1995, Inorganic Lead. Environmental Health Criteria 165. WHO 2001, Arsenic and arsenic compounds. Environmental Health Criteria 224. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
WRI 1994. World Resources: a Guide to the Global Environment. World Resources Institute. Oxford University Press.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×