Comparative risk assessment of dioxin and fine particles
| Moderator:Nobody (see all) Click here to sign up. |
|
|
| Upload data
|
COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT OF DIOXINS AND FINE PARTICLES
| Main message: |
|---|
| Question:
How large are fine particle risks from heavy-duty traffic, and dioxin risk due to fish consumption in Helsinki metropolitan area? How can the EU-legislation for these stressors promote the public health? Fine particle risk clearly outweigh the dioxin risk. By stricter emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles, approximately 30 annual premature deaths can be avoided in Helsinki (1000000 inhabitants). By banning fish species (salmon, herring) containing dioxin above the EU-limit concentration, the net health effect would turn out to be negative, thanks to beneficial omega-3 fatty acids found in fish. |
The full model is available from http://heande.pyrkilo.fi/heande/images/1/1d/PMvsDX.ANA
Background information about the study
Dioxins and airborne fine particles both are environmental health problems that have been subject to active public debate. Knowledge on fine particles has increased substantially during the last ten years, and even the current, lowered levels in Europe and the United States appear to be a larger public health problem than previously thought. On the other hand, dioxins are ubiquitous persistent contaminants and animal carcinogens at high doses, and therefore of a great concern. Our aim was to quantitatively analyze these two health risks and compare whether there are differences in given risks scenarios. Scenarios were chosen to match current and forthcoming EU regulations and standards for these two pollutants. We performed a comparative risk assessment for both pollutants in the Helsinki metropolitan area (Finland), and estimated the health effects for several scenarios: For primary fine particles: a comparison between the present emission situation of heavy-duty vehicles (CURRENT PRACTISE) to particle emission standards set by the EU, For dioxins: an EU-directive that regulates for commercial fishing of Baltic salmon and herring that exceed the dioxin concentration limit, and a derogation from the directive for these two species. Both of these two decisions are very topical issues. We found the risk of fine particles emitted by heavy-duty vehicles clearly outweighing the risk of dioxin in Finnish fish. Substantial improvement to public health could be achieved by advancing in emission standards from present situation to stricter emission standards, about 30 avoided premature deaths annually in Helsinki. In addition, we found that benefits of fish consumption due to omega-3 exposure were hundreds of times larger than the potential dioxin cancer risk.
Dioxin risk model
Here are some key variables of the model introduced to raise some discussion and to improve the model. Please, use the discussion tab located next to tab 'article' to add a comment or an argument. The relevant outcomes of the discussions will be transferred to this page and the adjustments to the variables will be updated accordingly when needed.
Variable #1:
Dioxin concentrations of Finnish fish
Concentrations of dioxins in domestic fish. Samples include skin and ventral fat. Therefore we can consider these concentrations as worst case scenarios.
References
- Hallikainen A. et al 2004
- KTL. Kirjolohien pitoisuus data
- RKTL. Kalatalous tilastoina 2002
Definition
| Fish species | Dioxin WHO-TEQ in fresh weight |
|---|---|
| Farmed salmon (sea+freswater) | Fractiles(0.4954 0.4965 0.6628 0.6871 0.6911 0.9743 1.124 1.399) |
| Wild salmon (sea) | Fractiles(2.32 3.21 8.77 9.11 9.27 9.7 10.8 14.6 15.7 17.4) |
| Herring +17 cm (sea) | Fractiles(8.23 15.9 16.6) |
| Herring -17 cm (sea) | Fractiles(2 2.52) |
| White fish (sea) | Fractiles(1.2 1.2 1.39 1.62 3.21 3.84 7.07) |
| Sprat (sea) | Fractiles(0.882 2.04 2.72 2.98) |
| Perch (sea) | Fractiles(0.529 1.18 1.28 1.51 1.85 2.74 4.23 5.23) |
| Flounder (sea) | Fractiles(1.4 2.29) |
| Pike-perch (sea) | Fractiles(0.721 0.777 1.66 2.04) |
| Bream (sea) | Fractiles(0.386 0.99 1.05 1.68 3.37 4.58) |
| Pike (sea) | Fractiles(0.447 0.617 0.71 0.945 1.31 1.39) |
| Vendace (sea) | Fractiles(0.364 0.39 0.391 0.417 0.747 0.756 1.29 1.44 2.3) |
| Burbot (sea) | Fractiles(0.132 0.178 0.262) |
| Wild salmon (freshwater) | Fractiles(2.32 3.21 8.77 9.11 9.27 9.7 10.8 14.6 15.7 17.4) |
| White fish (freshwater) | Fractiles(0.164 0.168 0.552 0.615 0.877 2.63) |
| Perch (freshwater) | Fractiles(0.077 0.116 0.219 0.324 0.324 0.441) |
| Pike-perch (freshwater) | Fractiles(0.147 0.273 0.276 0.319 0.744 0.814) |
| Bream (freshwater) | Fractiles(0.386 0.99 1.05 1.68 3.37 4.58) |
| Pike (freshwater) | Fractiles(0.07 0.14 0.202 0.218 0.379 1.6) |
| Vendace (freshwater) | Fractiles(0.364 0.39 0.391 0.417 0.747 0.756 1.29 1.44 2.3) |
| Burbot (freshwater) | Fractiles(0.061 0.167 0.533) |
Causality
List of parents: N/A (original data)
Formula
N/A
Unit
ng/kg in fresh weight
Result
| Fish species | Mean WHO-TEQ in fresh weight |
|---|---|
| Farmed salmon (sea+freswater) | 0.7976 |
| Wild salmon (sea) | 10.11 |
| Herring +17 cm (sea) | 14.16 |
| Herring -17 cm (sea) | 2.26 |
| White fish (sea) | 2.566 |
| Sprat (sea) | 2.23 |
| Perch (sea) | 2.238 |
| Flounder (sea) | 1.845 |
| Pike-perch (sea) | 1.272 |
| Bream (sea) | 1.915 |
| Pike (sea) | 0.9001 |
| Vendace (sea) | 0.8454 |
| Burbot (sea) | 0.1875 |
| Wild salmon (freshwater) | 10.11 |
| White fish (freshwater) | 0.7218 |
| Perch (freshwater) | 0.2484 |
| Pike-perch (freshwater) | 0.4185 |
| Bream (freshwater) | 1.915 |
| Pike (freshwater) | 0.3548 |
| Vendace (freshwater) | 0.8454 |
| Burbot (freshwater) | 0.232 |
Variable #2:
Consumption of domestic fish species
Scope
Includes fish from sea-areas, lakes and rivers of Finland.
Consumption of domestic fish species describes
Description
In these tables are the most common domestic fish species available for consumers.
References
- RKTL. Kalatalous tilastoina 2002.
- Suomen ympäristö 687
Definition
| Fish species | Consumption |
|---|---|
| Farmed salmon (sea+freshwater) | (1.3*Forfood) |
| Wild salmon (sea) | ((((((4.440e+005+1.520e+005)/Populationoffinland)*0.59)+(((6.900e+004+5.900e+004)/Populationoffinland)*0.59))+(((9.200e+004+3.240e+005)/Populationoffinland)*0.52))*Forfood) |
| Herring +17 cm (sea) | ((Triangular(0.9,0.9,1.1)*(1-Sum(Herring_size_distrib[Sizecat=[12-14.9,15-16.9]])))*Forfood) |
| Herring -17 cm (sea) | ((Triangular(0.9,0.9,1.1)*Sum(Herring_size_distrib[Sizecat=[12-14.9,15-16.9]]))*Forfood) |
| White fish (sea) | ((((8.820e+005+9.440e+005)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Sprat (sea) | ((((1.574e+007+0.000e+000)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Perch (sea) | ((((8.030e+005+2.993e+006)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Flounder (sea) | ((((1.300e+005+3.740e+005)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Pike-perch (sea) | ((((4.120e+005+6.150e+005)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Bream (sea) | ((((2.110e+005+7.760e+005)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Pike (sea) | ((((2.290e+005+2.312e+006)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Vendace (sea) | ((((9.800e+004+8.900e+004)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Burbot (sea) | ((((1.040e+005+2.330e+005)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Wild salmon (freshwater) | ((((((9000+5.300e+004)/Populationoffinland)*0.59)+(((0.000e+000+6.600e+005)/Populationoffinland)*0.52))+(((1.200e+004+5.980e+005)/Populationoffinland)*0.52))*Forfood) |
| White fish (freshwater) | ((((3.670e+005+2.054e+006)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Perch (freshwater) | ((((2.590e+005+9.340e+006)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Pike-perch (freshwater) | ((((7.500e+004+6.850e+005)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Bream (freshwater) | ((((2.170e+005+1.443e+006)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Pike (freshwater) | ((((1.270e+005+7.760e+006)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Vendace (freshwater) | ((((2.815e+006+2.022e+006)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Burbot (freshwater) | ((((4.300e+004+7.880e+005)/Populationoffinland)*Filletingfactor)*Forfood) |
| Total | 5.285 |
Causality
List of parents:
- fish for human food
- herring size distribution
- filleting factor
- Population of Finland
Data
Formula
Analytica_id:
<anacode></anacode>
Unit
kg/person/year
Result
| Fish species | Consumption |
|---|---|
| Farmed salmon (sea+freshwater) | 1.3 |
| Wild salmon (sea) | 0.1242 |
| Herring +17 cm (sea) | 0.6419 |
| Herring -17 cm (sea) | 0.3248 |
| White fish (sea) | 0.1814 |
| Sprat (sea) | 0.03669 |
| Perch (sea) | 0.1816 |
| Flounder (sea) | 0.01879 |
| Pike-perch (sea) | 0.09217 |
| Bream (sea) | 0.05563 |
| Pike (sea) | 0.1746 |
| Vendace (sea) | 0.02166 |
| Burbot (sea) | 0.01815 |
| Wild salmon (freshwater) | 0.1345 |
| White fish (freshwater) | 0.2406 |
| Perch (freshwater) | 0.4593 |
| Pike-perch (freshwater) | 0.0382 |
| Bream (freshwater) | 0.09356 |
| Pike (freshwater) | 0.5419 |
| Vendace (freshwater) | 0.5601 |
| Burbot (freshwater) | 0.04475 |
| Total | 5.285 |
Variable #3:
Consumption of exported fish
Scope
Consumption of fish exported to Finland.
Consumption of exported fish describes
Description
Amount of how much imported fish is eaten in Finland.
References
- RKTL. Taskutilasto 2002.
Definition
| Fish species | Consumption |
|---|---|
| Salmon | 2.1 |
| Rainbow trout | 0.6 |
| Tuna | 1.6 |
| Herring preservatives | 0.5 |
| Saithe | 0.4 |
| Others | 2.8 |
| Total | 8 |
Causality
List of parents:
- original data
Data
Formula
Analytica_id:
<anacode></anacode>
Unit
kg/person/year
Result
| Fish species | Consumption |
|---|---|
| Salmon | 2.1 |
| Rainbow trout | 0.6 |
| Tuna | 1.6 |
| Herring preservatives | 0.5 |
| Saithe | 0.4 |
| Others | 2.8 |
| Total | 8 |
Variable #4:
Dose-response of dioxins
Scope
The response assessment is restricted to cancer endpoints, because it is the more sensitive endpoint.
The variable describes
Description
Cancer dose-response of humans. Also called as the cancer slope factor (CSF)
References
- IRIS database: http://cfpub.epa.gov/iris/quickview.cfm?substance_nmbr=0073
Definition
156000
Causality
List of parents:
- Original data
Data
Formula
Analytica_id:
<anacode></anacode>
Unit
(1/(mg/kg/day))
Result
156000
Variable #5:
Dose-response of Omega-3
Scope
Dose response of dioxins WHO-TEQ to human health
The variable describes
Description
Exposure-response function where also the uncertainty about the population that benefits from omega-3 is taken into account.
References
- Mozaffarian and Rimm. 2006.
Definition
D_r_normal*(if All_or_chd=1 then 1 else F_chd_pati)
Causality
List of parents:
- D-R normal
- Does omega-3 help CHD patients or everyone?
- Fraction of CHD patients among deaths
Data
Formula
Analytica_id:
<anacode></anacode>
Unit
probability/(g/d)
Result
-0.9088
Variable #6: Selected end points:
- for dioxins - cancer
There are also other (more sensitive) endpoints than just cancer, e.g. developmental defects related to dioxins. Cancer deaths are used in this model in order to have commensurable units for both risks and benefits due to fish consumption.
- for omega-3 - avoided coronary heart diseases
There are also other endpoints than just acoided CHD deaths, e.g. neurodevelopmental benefits. Avoided CHD deaths are used in this model in order to have commensurable units for both risks and benefits due to fish consumption.
Comparing the numbers of deaths and numbers of avoided deaths is unambiguous.