RESEARCH PAPER
System approach to the hygienic standards of xenobiotics in different environments
 
More details
Hide details
1
Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine
2
Scientific and Research Institute of Medicine on Transport, Odessa, Ukraine
 
Med Og Nauk Zdr. 2014;20(4):420–425
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Based on the own experimental data and comprehensive analysis of national toxicometric indicators and MPC of 330 chemicals in different media (working area, atmospheric air and water reservoirs), as well as 265 standards used in the US and the EU, a systematic approach was designed and implemented with the purpose of substantiating the chemicals hygienic standards in different media. It takes into consideration the parameters of toxicity and cumulative properties of standardized substances which are manifested integrally by the reliability standard value, determined by the ratio of LC50 (LD50)/MPCwz, which correlates with the corresponding relations of foreign standards. At the same time, MPCwz plays an important part in the parameters of the system creation. Implementation of the methodological guide developed by the authors and approved by the Ministry of Public Health of Ukraine provided the opportunity to significantly reduce uncertainties in the process of hygienic standardization, improving the reliability of newly developed standards and correction of existing standards on the basis of newly accumulated experimental and clinical data. Further development of systematic approach to the hygienic standards will more successfully solve challenges of hygiene and quantitative toxicology, as the assessment of acceptable risk, the combined effects of chemical substances, the substantiation of regional, emergency standards, integrated regulatory support of chemical safety of the workers and the population as whole.

 
REFERENCES (23)
1.
GCO. Global Chemicals Outlook. Towards Sound Management of Chemicals. Trends and Changes. Synthesis Report for Decision-Makers. – Geneva: UNEP. – 2011.p.44.
 
2.
Kundiev YI, Trachtenberg IM. [Chemical Safety in Ukraine]. – Kiev: Avicenna. – 2007.p.72 (in Russian).
 
3.
Topping M. Occupational exposure limits for chemicals // Occup Environ Med. 2001; 58(1): 138–144.
 
4.
Liang Y, Wong O, Yang L, Li T, Su Z. The development and regulation of occupational exposure limits in China //Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006; 46(2): 107–113.
 
5.
Principles of Forecasting (International Series in Operations Research & Management) / Red.: S. Armstrong. – Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2001, p. 849.
 
6.
Antomonov M. [Mathematical processing and analysis of medical and biological data] – Kiev, 2006; p.558 (in Russian).
 
7.
Kupczewska-Dobecka M, Jakubowski M, Czerczak S. Calculating the dermal flux of chemicals with OELs based on their molecular structure: An attempt to assign the skin notation // Environ Toxicol Pharmacol., 2010; 30(2): 95–102.
 
8.
Combes RD. Challenges for computational structure-activity modelling for predicting chemical toxicity: future improvements? // Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2011; 7(9): 1129–1140.
 
9.
Lee EG, Slaven J, Bowen RB, Harper M. Evaluation of the COSHH Essentials model with a mixture of organic chemicals at a medium-sized paint producer // Ann Occup Hyg, 2011; 55(1): 16–29.
 
10.
Shafran LM, Ohulenko OP, Tretyakova OV, Leonova DI. [Mathematical modeling of the problem combined action components of polymeric materials] // J Current problems of transport medicine, 2011; 4(26): 13–21 (in Ukrainian).
 
11.
[Calculation methods of hazard and hygienic standards assessment of hazardous substances in different environments] / VG Smirnov, V Maymulov, SP Nechiporenko, SA Loit etc.– М.: Medicina. – 2002, p.130 (in Russian).
 
12.
Evaluation of 309 environmental chemicals using a mouse embryonic stem cell adherent cell differentiation and cytotoxicity assay / Chandler KJ, Barrier M, Jeffay S, et al. // PLoS One, 2011. – Vol. 6. – Iss. 6. Epub 2011 Jun 7. doi: 10.1371.
 
13.
Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation / Hofer T, Gerner I, Gundert-Remy U et al. Arch. Toxicol., 2004; Vol. 78: 549–564.
 
14.
Janasik B. Unmetabolized VOCs in urine as biomarkers of low level occupational exposure / B. Janasik, M. Jakubowski, W. Wesołowski, M. Kucharska // Int J Occup Med Environ Health., 2010; 23(1): 21–26.
 
15.
Shafran LM, Pychteeva EG, Bolshoy DV [Metallothioneins]. – Odessa: Chernomorye, 2011.p.428 (in Russian).
 
16.
Shtabsky BM, Gzhegocky MR. [Xenobiotics, chemical homeostasis and human safety]. – Lviv: Nautilus, 1999.p.307 (in Ukrainian).
 
17.
Gzhegocky MR, Fedorenko V, Shtabsky BM. [Essays of Preventive Medicine] / Ed. BM Shtabsky. – Lviv: Medicine and Law, 2008.p.400 (in Ukrainian).
 
18.
Sanotsky IV, Ulanova IP. [Hazard criteria in hygiene and toxicological risk assessment for energy chemical compounds]. – M.: Medicine, 1975.p.328 (in Russian).
 
19.
Shafran LM. [Biological time and the features of age toxicity of xenobiotics] // Essays of age toxicology / Ed. I.M. Trachtenberg. – K.: Avicenna, 2006.p.115–135 (in Russian).
 
20.
Shtabsky BM. [Qualimetric assessment of xenobiotics accumulation in toxicology studies] // Gig and sanitary, 1993. № 3. p.77–79 (in Russian).
 
21.
Kagan YS. [General toxicology of pesticides]. – K.: Zdorovye, 1981. p.176 (in Russian).
 
22.
Krasovsky GN, Rakhmanin YA, Egorova NA. [Extrapolation of toxicological data from animals to humans]. – M.: Medicine, 2009.p.208 (in Russian).
 
23.
Substantiation of hygienic standards of harmful chemicals in different environments by means of systematic approach. Methodical Guidance MG 1.1.5.-088-02 (official publication). – Kyiv, 2002. p.40 (in Ukrainian).
 
eISSN:2084-4905
ISSN:2083-4543