Presented By:-Vaibhav Kumar-Rahul Tolia-Rajnish Upadhaya-Arnab Das

� Pharmaceuticals are produced and used in increasingly larger amounts every year.

� The presence of pharmaceutical chemicals in the environment is a matter of concern due to

� lipophilic (affinity for lipids)

� non-biodegradability nature

� their biological activities

� The objective is to carry out the risk assessment analysis (w.r.t human health and ecological impact) for pharmaceuticals.

� The target chemical shall be PARACETAMOL.

� The scope is to constitute the identification of harmful effects of the compound 4-acetaminophenol present in paracetamol.

� Paracetamol toxicity is one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide.

� Paracetamol is extremely toxic to cats.

� Paracetamol is also lethal to snakes particularly for brown tree snake.

� Paracetamol is used as an analgesic and antipyretic.

� Dosage for humans – 325 to 1000 mg/4000mg

in 24 Hrs

� Overdose – 24 standard tablets or 150 mg/kg body weight can cause liver damage in 24 Hrs

� The overdose threshold may be lowered in a person taking certain prescription medicines, or a person who is an alcoholic or is seriously undernourished.

� HUMANS

� Study of patients with cancer of renal pelvis and ureter

� No statististical significance/co-rrelation

� ANIMALS

� Paracetamol was tested for carcinogenicity by oral administration in mice and rats.

� Paracetamol did not promote urinary bladder carcinogenesis in rats and reduced the incidence of intestinal tumours

-NO evidence of Carcinogenicity

� Reproductive and developmental effects (Humans)

No effect of toxicity observed in pregnant women as well as in infants with paracetamol overdose

� Genetic and related effects

The ability of paracetamol to induce chromosomal aberrations in peripheral lymphocytes was studied and no effect was found

� Chemical risk assessment methods for paracetamol found in drinking-water involve establishing an acceptable daily intake (ADI) or tolerable daily intake (TDI) based on a variety of calculations.

� The use of the MTD as a PoD for risk assessment would often result in the development of conservative screening values.

While using MTD approach, the modelledconcentrations from drinking-water intake were based on two methods:1)a deterministic method that resulted in estimates of worst-case concentrations in drinking-water.2)a probabilistic method that resulted in more realistic estimates of the concentrations in drinking-water.

� From the above discussions, if a person ingest 3 lits of water per day, assuming the solubility of paracetamol as 14.3mg/ml at 25ºC

� Total intake=14.3g/lit x 3Lit/day = 42.9 gms/day

� However, in this field further research is being carried out to ascertain the response of such small but sustained dose of paracetamol in respect of ecological risk assessment.

� Although current published risk assessments indicate that trace concentrations Of Paracetamol in drinking-water are very unlikely to pose risks to human health.

� Research could look into improvement to risk assessment methodology to address concerns related to pharmaceuticals mixtures and the effects of chronic, low-level exposure to pharmaceuticals, including exposure of sensitive subpopulations, such as pregnant women and patients with particular diseases and medical treatments

� Routine monitoring programmes for paracetamol in water sources and Drinking water to reduce very low concentrations of pharmaceuticals in drinking-water are not deemed necessary due to the limited public health benefits.

HUMAN HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENT OF JAPAN

NUCLEAR EXPLOSION

Guided by

Dr. Arun Kumar

CEL 899

Submitted by

Arshath A Rahim

Muhammad Mahad S

Vaishakh B

Saurabh Rai

17

OVERVIEW� Introduction

�Objective and Scope of study

� Literature Survey

� Data collection

� Models – Solid cancer and Leukemia

�Risk assessment

� Process

�Risk Management and communication

� Sensitivity Analysis

�Conclusion

�Reference

18

INTRODUCTION� Two atom bombs

� Hiroshima - “Little Boy” - 16kN equivalent of TNT

� Nagasaki – “Fat Man” – 21 kN equivalent of TNT

�What Happened??

� 50% - energy – Blast, 35% - heat & 15% - Radiation

� Blast and heat radius – 4-5km from Hypocenter

� Radiation – 2.5 km in Hiroshima & 3km in Nagasaki

� Effects ??

� Based on Proximity to hypocenter and Shielding

� Radiation - Gamma and neutron 19

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

OF THE STUDY

20

LITERATURE SURVEY

Radiation effects- (Source: Evan et. al. (2011))

� LeukemiaRarer form of cancer

Radiation-induced leukaemia occurred 2-3 years after exposure

risk of leukaemia reached a peak within 6-8 years after exposure and has decreased with time

� Solid Cancerthe major types of cancer, including cancers of

the stomach, lung, liver, colon, bladder, breast, ovary, thyroid, and skin

Risks of solid cancers increase in direct proportion to dose

percentage increase in risk was greater for those exposed as children, at least in the early

21

•Non Cancer diseases

•significant excess risks for cardiovascular, digestive,

respiratory and non-malignant thyroid diseases

•diseases most specifically associated with aging

(arteriosclerosis, senile cataract, dementia, osteoporosis,

arthritis),the clearest evidence of increased risk with

radiation exposure is for arteriosclerosis22

DATA COLLECTED

� According to 1950 census, total 284000 atom bomb survivors 159000 in Hiroshima and 125000 in Nagasaki.

� To study the effects fixed population of about 120321 individuals was established

� Out of which exactly 86232 belonged to exposed category and rest were non exposed residents.

23

Dose in Gy Total Hiroshima Nagasaki

0-0.005 34363 20376 13487

0.005-0.2 38462 27693 10769

0.2-0.5 6593 5331 1262

0.5-1 3794 2871 923

1 and above 3420 2229 1191

unknown 7190 3484 3625

24Source: Shimizu et. al (1996)

MODELS USED

� Linear model

� Linear quadratic model

� With constant α,β and γ parameters

� With variable α,β and γ considering Age and sex of the

population

�General dose response model of cancer -

radiation

� Considering the last exponential stage

� Similar to linear quadratic model with variable

25

LINEAR MODEL & LINEAR

QUADRATIC MODEL� Linear Model

ERR = α D

where

α = Dose Response parameter for linear model

D = Radiation DoseHHRA.xlsx(Source: www.rerf.or.jp)

� With Constant parameters

ERR = ( α D + β D2 )

where

α & β = Dose Response parameters of Linear quadratic

model

26

LINEAR MODEL GRAPH

FROM CALCULATIONS

27

LINEAR QUADRATIC MODEL

GRAPH FROM CALCULATIONS –

CONST.

28

LINEAR QUADRATIC(CONST.)

AND GENERAL DOSE RESPONSE

MODELRisk assessment by linear, const. linear quadratic and general dose response model

Dose (Gy) Average Dose,

D (Gy)

Excess Relative Risk (ERR)

Linear Model Linear

Quadratic

model

General Dose

response Model

0.005 0.005 0.002850 0.00306 0.002004

0.005-0.2 0.1025 0.058425 0.06725 0.042494

0.2-0.5 0.35 0.199500 0.26863 0.153744

0.5-1.0 0.75 0.427500 0.71063 0.340703

>1.0 1 0.570000 1.06000 0.45204929

LINEAR QUADRATIC

MODEL�With Variable parameters of α,β and γ with age

and sex (Source: Preston et. al. (1994))

�Male population

� Age 0- 19 years

ERR = 0.33(D + 0.79D2) e(-0.17(t-25))

� Age 20 – 39 years

ERR = 0.48(D + 0.79D2) e(-0.13(t-25))

� Age > 40 years

ERR = 1.31(D + 0.79D2) e(-0.07(t-25))

where α,β and γ are as in the order given in the

equation

30

LINEAR QUADRATIC

MODEL�Female population

� Age 0- 19 years

ERR = 0.66(D + 0.79D2) e(-0.07(t-25))

� Age 20 – 39 years

ERR = 0.97(D + 0.79D2) e(-0.03(t-25))

� Age > 40 years

ERR = 2.64(D + 0.79D2) e(0.03(t-25))

where

t = time from exposure in years

D = Radiation dose

HHRA.xlsx31

LINEAR QUADRATIC MODEL

GRAPH FROM CALCULATION -

VARIABLE

32

LINEAR QUADRATIC MODEL

GRAPH FROM CALCULATION -

VARIABLE

33

MODEL OF CANCER -

RADIATION

� An experimentally and theoretically-derived general

radiation dose-response model, often cited in

connection with cancer risk

ERR = α D ( 1 + βD2) exp (-γD - δD2)

where

α, β, γ and δ = positive dose response parameters

D = Radiation dose

HHRA.xlsx (Source: Land et. al. (2004))34

GENERAL DOSE RESPONSE

MODEL FOR ALL CANCERS –

FROM CALCULATIONS

35

ESTIMATED POPULATIN

AFFECTEDDose (Gy) Population in total Estimated no: of

people by Solid

cancer

Linear Model

Estimated no: of

people by

leukemia

Linear quadratic

Model - constant

Estimated no: of

people with

cancer

General Dose

response Model

0.005 34363 98 105 69

0.005-0.2 38462 2247 2587 1634

0.2-0.5 6193 1236 1664 952

0.5-1.0 3794 1622 2696 1293

>1.0 3420 1949 3625 1546

36

AFFECTED – LINEAR

QUADRATIC MODEL

(VARIABLE)Dose

(Gy)

Average

Dose

(Gy)

ERR males ERR females Estimate

d

Populati

on0-19 20-39 >40 0-19 20-39 >40

0.005 0.005 0.00002 0.00009 0.00114 0.0006 0.0023 0.0281 206

0.005-0.2 0.1025 0.00051 0.00202 0.02511 0.0127 0.0507 0.6192 5089

0.2-0.5 0.35 0.00206 0.00815 0.10125 0.0510 0.2046 2.4970 3304

0.5-1.0 0.75 0.00552 0.02179 0.27068 0.1364 0.5468 6.6752 5412

1.0-2.0 1.5 0.01514 0.05978 0.74278 0.3742 1.5006 18.3176 13386

>2.0 2 0.02384 0.09412 1.16941 0.5892 2.3625 28.8386 2335

37

GRAPH SHOWING ESTIMATED

POPULATION BY VARIOUS

METHODS

38

RISK MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION

Nuclear attack or accident- first of its kind

No proper Management and communication was in place that time

But if similar kind of explosion occur now, following precautions can be

taken.

�To reduce the exposure (Source: Covello et. al. 1(988))

•Time-decrease the time of exposure

•Distance-increase your distance from radiation source

•Shielding –increase the shielding between source and people

�Treatment of life threatening injuries should not be delayed

�Do not eat potentially contaminated food or drinks

Agencies have developed real time models to predict how a nuclear or

radiological attack would affect a given area. Information can be used to

quicken response efforts and thus limit the number of people affected.

39

CONCLUSION

•Cancer risks-both solid cancer and leukemia risks were

calculated.

•Calculated risks are on higher side compared to the

original observed values.

•Risk management and communication procedures in

case of a potential hazard is also discussed

40

WORK DIVISION

41

REFERENCES� Evan B. D, Kiyohiko M, Harry M. C Dale L. P, Kazunori K, YukikoS, Saeko F and Roy E. S (2011), Long-term Radiation-RelatedHealth Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learnedfrom the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,American Medical Association, Vol. 5,Suppl. 1, 122-133

� Land CE, Jeggo PA, Kellerer AM, Little JB, Pierce DA and Ullrich RL (2004), Low dose Extrapolation of Radiation-Related Cancer Risk,Committee taskgroup report, Vol.12, Suppl. 421,1-212

� Little, M.P., C.R. Muirhead, and M.W. Charles. 1999a. Describingtime and age variations in the risk of radiation-induced

42

REFERENCES� Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of IonizingRadiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (2006), Board on RadiationEffects Research (BRER), National Research Council of theNational Academies, 266 -275.

� Masanobu T, (1962) Leukaemia in Nagasaki Atomic BombSurvivors from 1945 through 1959. Bull. Org. mond. Sante11962, 26, 619-631

� Shimizu Y, Mabuchi K, Preston D.L & Shigematsu I, (1996) Mortality study of atomic-bomb survivors:implications for assessment of radiation accidents, Wld hllh slalisl. quart., 49, pg 35-49.

� Sunitharalingam N, Podgorsak E. B, Hendry J.H,(2005), Basic Radiobiology, Chapter 14, 494 -504

� www.epa.gov� www.rerf.or.jp

43

THANK YOU

44

BHOPAL GAS

TRAGEDY

SUBMITTED BYLOHIT JAIN 20112799

MANJULA DEVAK 2011CEW2821

SHWETA YADAV 2011CEW2812

SHAILZA SHARMA 2011CEW2643

SUBMITTED TO: DR. ARUN KUMAR

INTRODUCTION

� The Bhopal gas tragedy occurred at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh at midnight on 3 December 1984.

� The plant accidentally released methyl -IsoCyanate (MIC) gas, exposing more than 500,000 people to MIC and other chemicals.

� Around 8,000 people died due the exposure of gas at that time.

� But even after so many years of the disaster the effect is still there and this death poll is now 20,000.

OBJECTIVES

� To perform HHRA by calculating HAZARD QUOTIENT

� System Analysis, To get more depth information about any event and its related different consequences

� To identify the causes and develop Event tree & Fault tree.

� Solution to problem

METHODOLOGY

�Hazard Identification: In this tragedy, gases like phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, CO, HCl, oxides of nitrogen, monomethyl amine, CO2

and Methyl isocyanate (MIC) were released. Out of these MIC is configured as a hazard.

� Exposure assessment: Calculation of HQ, CDI for different exposure routes.

�Collection of data for Dose Response

�RISK CHARACTERISTICS: The initial effects of exposure were coughing, vomiting, severe eye irritation and a feeling of suffocation. The causes of deaths were choking, reflexogeniccirculatory collapse etc.

RISK ASSESSMENT (DATA USED)STUDY DODD & FOWLER(1986)

Study Polpulation F344 rats

Exposure method Inhalation (0, 0.15, 0.6 or 3.1 ppm)

Critical effects Decrease in weight, and lung pathology at cessation of exposure in rats, Respiratory system, reproductive system

LOAEL 3.1 ppm

NOAEL 0.6 ppm

Exposure Continuity 6 hours/day

Exposure Duration 10 days

Av. Experiment exposure 0.12 ppm for NOAEL group

Human equivalent factor 0.15 ppm for NOAEL group

LOAEL uncertainty factor 1

Subchronic Uncertainty Factor 10

Inhalation Reference Exposure Level

1 µg/m3

(Source: Guest et al,1992)

EXPOSURE EXTENT

Quantity Released 27 tons

Area Affected 40 km2

Estimated Mean Conc. 27 ppm

Estimated Median Conc. 1.8 ppm

Range of conc. 0.12 -85.6 ppm

ROUTE DOSE MODEL LETHAL DOSE VALUES

ORAL 10% Solution, single dose

Male Rat 71 mg kg-1day-1

INHALATION Vapours (4 hours) 1.25 mg kg-1day-1

SKIN Undiluted Rabbit 0.22mg kg-1day-1

EXPOSURE CONDITIONS &

LETHAL DOSE VALUES

(SOURCE: Varadararajan S. et al 2002)

INHALATION ROUTE� Estimated median conc. = 1.8 mg/l

�Human beings are exposed to= 0.6 L/day

�Av. Body wt = 50 kg

�ADD = 0.0216 mg kg-1day-1

�REL= 1.25 mg/kg/day (Varadararajan S. et al 2002)

�HQ = 0.01728 < 1; Hence Safe

DERMAL ROUTE :

� Lethal Dose value = 0.22 mg/kg/day

�HQ = 0.0982 <1; Hence Safe

ORAL ROUTE:

� Lethal Dose value = 71 mg/kg/day

�HQ= 3.042 X 10^-4; Hence Safe

SYSTEM ANALYSIS FOR GAS

LEAKAGE

UNION

CARBDIDE

INDUSTRY

SUBSYSTEM

HUMAN

ENVIRONMENT

BHOPAL

SYSTEM

ENVIRONMENT

EVENT TREE

MIC

TANK

WATER

ENTERED

EXCESS

PRESSURE

NO EXCESS

PRESSURE

NO WATER

ENTERED

BURSTING

OF VALVE

NO

BURSTING

GAS LEAKAGE

NO GAS LEAKAGE

FAULT TREE

GAS LEAKAGE

BURSTING OF

SAFETY VALVE

IMPROPER

MAINTANANCEHUMAN

FACTORS

DESIGN

PRESSURE

IS

UNDEREST

-IMATED

HUMAN

FACTORS

LACK

OF

FUNDS

or

andand

EXCESS PRESSURE

HEAT

EVOLVED

DUE TO

WATER

ENTERED IN

THE MIC

TANK

EXCESS

FILLING

OF MIC

GAS

CURRENT SCENARIOCONTAMINATION OF

GROUND WATER

CONTAMINATION OF

GROUND WATER

SEEPAGE FROM

WASTE

AND

MIXING OF

INDUSTRIAL

EFFLUENTS

UNTREAT

ED WASTE

DUMPING

IMPROPER

LINING

SOLUTION TO PROBLEM

� The problem can be avoided if the proper maintenance is done.

� Factor of safety should be higher for the tank and pressure valve.

� Sufficient availability of fund for the periodic maintenance.

REFERENCES

� Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). Annual Report,Bhopal Gas Disaster Research Centre. Bhopal, India: ICMR, 1991.

� Varma DR, and Guest I. 1993. The Bhopal accident and methyl isocyanate toxicity. J. Toxicol. Environmental Health 40:513-529.

� R. J. Willey, The Bhopal Disaster - a Case History, AIChE-CCPS, New York, New York 1998.

� V. RAMANA DHARA, The Union Carbide Disaster in Bhopal: A Review of Health Effects, International Medical Commission on Bhopal ROSALINE DHARA, 2002.

� http://bhopal.net/document_library/medical_documents/medical_documents

http://www.gits4u.com/envo/envo22.htm

TERM PAPER

CEL 899 – Environmental Risk Assessment

TITLE: Ecological Risk Assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

Presented By :

Abhishek Kumar (Entry No.- 2007MT50426)

Himanshu Tyagi (Group Leader, Entry No.- 2011CEW2797)

Mohd. Osama Warsi (Entry No.- 2011CEW2811)

Suman Kumari Dhaka (Entry No.- 2011CEW2814)

Under the Guidance of Dr. Arun Kumar

Department of Civil EngineeringINDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - DELHI

New Delhi – 110016 (INDIA)

INTRODUCTION� An oil spill is a leakage from an oceangoing tanker,

pipelines, or other oil sources.

� Oil spills occur very frequently and cause enormous

ecological harm and hence their ecological risk assessment

is of prime importance.

� The ‘Deepwater Horizon oil spill’ (Also referred to as

‘The BP oil spill’, ‘The Gulf of Mexico oil spill’ or

‘The Macondo Blowout’) is an oil spill in the Gulf of

Mexico which occurred for 3 months in the year 2010.

� The spill stemmed from a sea-floor oil gusher that resulted

from an explosion of Deepwater Horizon.

� The explosion killed 11 men working on the platform and

injured 17 others.

� About 125 miles of Louisiana coast (Our location of

INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)� The leak was stopped by capping the gushing wellhead,

after it had released about 4.9 million barrels (7,80,000

m3) of crude oil.

� The daily flow rate diminished over time, starting at about

62,000 barrels/day and decreasing as the reservoir of

Hydrocarbons feeding the gusher was gradually depleted.

� On 19th September, 2010, the relief process was

successfully completed and the Federal Government

declared the well effectively dead.

� The spill caused extensive damage to the

Gulf's fishing and tourism industries.

� The White House Oil Spill Commission released a final

report and blamed BP and its partners for making a series

of cost-cutting decisions.

SCOPE OF WORK� The ambit of our work was confined to:

1.Abstraction of background information

2.Study of timeline of the incident

3.Investigation of the causes of the accident

4.Analysis of the available scientific data

5.Evaluation of the consequences

6.Study of cause-effect relationship

7.Examination of remedial measures

8.Monitoring of water, air, sediments and dispersants

9.Interpretation of test results

10.Estimation of community outreach plans

METHODOLOGY ADOPTED� The methodology adopted by us in the ecological risk

assessment of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill comprised of

the following stages:

1.Hazard identification

2.Exposure assessment

3.Dose-Response information

4.Risk characterization

5.Assessment of corrective measures

TIMELINE OF THE INCIDENT� April, 2010

Tuesday, 20th April, 2010: British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon oil rig explodes around 11 pm

EST.

Monday, 26th April 26, 2010: The U.S. Coast Guard allows the use of remote underwater robots to

activate a blowout preventer to stop the leak and discovered two leaks that were dumping about

1,000 barrels of oil per day into the ocean.

Wednesday, 28th April, 2010: The U.S. Coast Guard suggests a solution to set the oil slick on fire.

Experts revised their leak rates from 1,000 barrels of oil per day to 5,000.

Friday, 30th April, 2010: The Obama administration states that it will not authorize any new offshore

drilling until the cause of the rig explosion is fully understood and measures to prevent another such

disaster are put in place.

� May, 2010

Sunday, 2nd May 2010: BP begins to dig a relief well alongside the failed well. A 10-day ban on

fishing in affected areas is put into place.

Monday, 3rd May, 2010: BP tries to stop one of the leaks by installing a shutoff valve.

Wednesday, 5th May, 2010: BP succeeds in plugging one of the three leaks in the oil line. It plans to

lower a 100-ton containment dome over one of the remaining leaks to siphon the oil.

Sunday, 9th May, 2010: BP reveals a ‘Junk Shot’ plan which includes the plugging of the leak by

pumping golf balls and shredded tires into the oil well.

Friday, 14th May, 2010: BP attempts to intubate the bigger of the two oil leaks with a smaller pipe to

siphon the oil.

(CONTINUED)� June, 2010

Wednesday, 16th June, 2010: BP agrees to create a $20 Billion fund to pay claims and damages.

Friday, 18th June, 2010: The Center for Biological Diversity files a lawsuit against BP and calculates

that BP's liability will be around $19 Billion.

� July, 2010

Sunday, 11th July 2010: Underwater robots remove a defective cap from the well and begin the

process of installing a new containment system.

Thursday, 15th July, 2010: For the first time in 87 days, the leak was stopped by capping the gushing

wellhead.

� August, 2010

Thursday, 5th August, 2010: Workers successfully complete the ‘Static Kill’ by pumping of tons of

mud followed by cement into the drill pipe and oil reservoir.

� September, 2010

Tuesday, 8th September, 2010: BP releases a 193 page internal report investigating the causes of the

spill.

Sunday, 19th September, 2010: After a successful pressure test on the cement seal delivered by a

relief well, the Macondo-252 well is declared dead.

� March, 2011

HAZARDS IDENTIFIED

S. NO. CONTAMINANT TYPE

1 Benzene Carcinogen

2 Ethyl-Benzene Non-Carcinogen

3 Fluorine Non-Carcinogen

4 Naphthalene Non-Carcinogen

5 Nickel Non-Carcinogen

6 Toluene Non-Carcinogen

7 Vanadium Non-Carcinogen

8 Xylene Non-Carcinogen

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

S.

NO.

CONTAMINA

NT

CONCENTRATION

In Air(In

µg/m3)

In Water(In

µg/L)1 Benzene 0.68 1

2 Ethyl-Benzene 0.91 1.2

3 Fluorine Not Detected Not Detected

4 Naphthalene 0.033 4

5 Nickel 0.23 310

6 Toluene 2.14 15

7 Vanadium Not Detected Not Detected

8 Xylene 0.04 10

HUMANS)

S.

NO.

CONTAMINAN

T

(Non-

Carcinogen)

HAZARD

QUOTIENT

H.Q./TOTA

L H.Q.

PRIORITY

RANK

For

Air

For

Water

For

Air

For

Water

For

Air

For

Wate

r1 Ethyl-Benzene 1.82 1.71 x 10-4 0.72 8.07 x 10-

41 2

2 Naphthalene 0.22 0.28 0.079 0.99 3 1

3 Nickel N.A. 1.42 x 10-4 N.A. 5 x 10-4N.A. 4

4 Toluene 0.0856 2.14 x 10-4 0.033 7.56 x 10-

44 3

5 Xylene 0.4 7.14 x 10-4 0.158 2.53 x 10-

42 5

AQUATIC LIFE)

S.

NO.

CONTAMINAN

T

(Non-

Carcinogen)

HAZARD

QUOTIENT

H.Q./TOTAL

H.Q.

PRIORIT

Y RANK

For

Air

For

Wate

r

For

Air

For

Water

For

Air

For

Wate

r1 Ethyl-Benzene 0.182 1.2 x 10-

3

0.21 3.59 x 10-4 2 4

2 Naphthalene 0.065 0.02 0.75 5.98 x 10-3 1 2

3 Nickel N.A. 3.3 N.A. 0.98 N.A. 1

4 Toluene 2.14 x 10-

3

0.015 0.024 4.48 x 10-3 3 3

5 Xylene 0.001 0.005 0.0115 0.014 x

10-3

4 5

HUMANS)

S.

NO

.

CONTAMINA

NT

(Carcinogen)

POTENCY

FACTOR

LIFETIME

INCREMENTAL

RISK

For

Air

For

Water

For

Air

For

Water

1 Benzene 2.9 x

10-2

2.9 x

10-2

9.57 x 10-

3

2.04 x 10-7

CONCLUSIONS� After a detailed study, we concluded that because of the

size of the spill, there is a potential serious ecological risk

to both shoreline as well as the shallow water habitats.

� The dispersants which were used to control the spill,

raised few serious concerns but were successful in

preventing the spread of the spill to the adjoining shoreline

and inter-tidal habitats.

� On-shore mechanical recovery was beneficial to some

habitats, but raised serious concerns in mangrove areas.

� On-water mechanical recovery was viewed as being of

limited utility in this scenario.

CONTRIBUTION

S.

No.

Name Contribution No. of Man-

Hours1 Abhishek Kumar Collection of

background

information and

data compilation.

10

2 Himanshu Tyagi -

Group Leader

Literature review,

monitoring of data,

interpretation of

results, and report

compilation.

28

3 Mohd. Osama Warsi Study of timeline

and system

analysis.

15

4 Suman Kumari Dhaka Study of reports,

analysis of

scientific data.

28

REFRENCES� United States Environmental Protection Agency. Deepwater Horizon Response April 2010.

� United States Environmental Protection Agency. Final Report: BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and

Offshore Drilling.

� United States Coast Guard. Forensic Examination of Deepwater Horizon Blowout Preventer-Final

Report: Volume 1.

� Aigner Erin, Burgess Joe, Carter Shan, Nurse Joanne, Park Haeyoun, Schoenfeld Amy and Tse Archie.

Tracking the Oil Spill – An Interactive Map.

� Etkin D.S. Modeling Oil Spill Response and Damage Costs.

� Adcroft A., R. Hallberg, J. P. Dunne, B. L. Samuels, J. A. Galt, C. H. Barker, and D. Payton. Simulations

of Underwater Plumes of Dissolved Oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

� Richard Camilli et al. Tracking Hydrocarbon Plume Transport and Biodegradation at Deepwater

Horizon.

� Minerals Management Service, 1999. FPSO Historical Record and Offshore Incident Study.

� Minerals Management Service, 2000. Proposed Use of Floating Production, Storage and Offloading

Systems on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf: Western and Central

� Minerals Management Service, 2001. Planning Areas: Draft Environmental Impact Statement and

Comparative Risk Analysis for Deepwater Production Systems-Final Report.

� Shirley, Thomas C., John W. Tunnell, Jr. Fabio Moretzsohn and Jorge Brenner, May 2010. Biodiversity of

the Gulf of Mexico: Applications to the Deep Horizon Oil Spill. Harte Research Institute for Gulf of

Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University.

� Oxford Economics, 2010. Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism.

� http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

� http://www.epa.gov/IRIS

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill

THANK YOU

Human Health Risk Assessment of Pesticides In Food Items

CEL-899Environmental Risk

Assessment

Coordinator : Dr. Arun Kumar

Divya Singh - 2011CEZ8032Jatin Anand - 2010CEW3424Raktim Haldar - 2011CEZ8033S. Mridul Naidu - 2010CET3036

INTRODUCTION

�Pesticides are substances or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest. �are benefits to their use such as increased productivity of agricultural items.�drawbacks, such as potential toxicity to humans and other animals.•These substances get bio-accumulated in the products obtained from these plants and enter the human and animal body on consumption, posing serious health and carcinogenic risks.

SCOPE OF WORK

•Collection of concentration data

•Determination of Average daily

dose

•Calculation of hazard index

•Characterization of risk.

•Suggesting risk management and

communication strategies

METHODOLOGY

Step1:Collection of data from various literature.

Step2: Oral Rfd values for the pesticides and the hazard

quotient was calculated for each food item(USEPA IRIS).

Step3: The various hazard quotients were compared and

Critical cases determined.

Step4: Risk management and

communication strategies

Step5: Researched about these

cases from various literature.

WHAT ARE THE STEPS OF RISK ASSESSMENT?A human health risk assessment is the process to estimate the nature and

probability of adverse health effects in humans who may be exposed to chemicals in contaminated environmental media, now or in the future.

Step 1

Identify the hazards

Step 2

Decide who might be harmed and how

Step 3

Evaluate the risks and decide on precautions

Step 4

Record your findings and implement them

Step 5

Review your assessment and update if necessary

INTRODUCTION TO THE PESTICIDES

NOEL

1 ppm diet (0.05 mg/kg

bw/day)

RfD 5E-4 mg/kg/day

ADVERSE

AFFECT

Geno-toxicity and

Endocrine Disruption.

DDT :

BHC :

NOAEL

4 ppm diet [0.33 mg/kg/day

(females)]

RfD 3E-4 mg/kg/day

ADVERSE

EFFECT

Effects Blood, immunity ,nervous

systems, and the liver and

ENDOSULFAN :

NOAEL

15 ppm [0.6 mg/kg-day (male);

0.7 mg/kg-day (female)]

RfD 6E-3 mg/kg/day

ADVERSE

EFFECT

Delayed sexual maturity and

interferes with the sex-

hormone synthesis,Endocrine

Disruption

CONTAMINATED FODDER

HUMAN HEALTH RISK FROM PESTICIDES

PERSON CONSUMES

ITEM

HQ>1

NON VEG

VEG

EXCESSPESTICIDESPRAYED

ANIMALCONSUMES

CROP

SOIL ABSORBSPESTI.

ACCU-MULATES IN

PLANT

ANIMALCONSUMES

CROP

SOIL ABSORBSPESTI.

ACCU-MULATES IN

PLANT

HAZARD QUOTIENTThe HQ is the ratio of the exposure estimate to a certain concentration

considered to represent a "safe" environmental concentration or dose.

The safe or acceptable dose is called the reference dose (RfD), below

which adverse health effects are unlikely. HQ values less than 1.0

considered indicative of acceptable risk.

When exposure involves more than one chemical, the sum of the

individual hazard quotients for each chemical is used as a measure of the potential for harm. This sum is called the Hazard Index (HI):

HI = Sum of hazard quotients

Hazard Index (HI) = ∑ HQ

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES :

After determining the risk which people consuming the food items

are exposed to, several general and specific risk management

strategies are being discussed here.

General Strategies:

�Wash food with clean water before it is cooked or eaten.

�Peeling helps reduce the levels of

pesticides that may be on the surface.

�Trimming excess fat from meats

helps to reduce the amount of such pesticides

that would be eaten.

�Cooking helps reduce some of the pesticide

residues in food.

Item Pesticide Location Hazard quotient

BUTTER DDT UTTAR PRADESH 1.21

MILK DDT JAIPUR 7.29

RESULTS

Thus within the limits of the data available, 2 items were found to have

a hazard quotient greater than 1 and thus pose a significant health risk

to humans. Their details are given as follows :

�The quantity of DDT in Jaipur is at an alarming level and needs immediate attention.

�Person consuming a diet of all studied food items , is exposed to a

hazard index of 10.15 which is significant (10 times more than the

permissible limit of 1).

RISK COMMUNICATION

To make the exposed population aware of the risk of consuming

milk and butter from the source, advisories such as the one shown

below may be displayed prominently at outlets selling the affected products:

THE MILK OF THIS DAIRY CONTAINS EXTREMELY

HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF THE PESTICIDE DDT

WHICH IS NEARLY 7 TIMES MORE THAN THE

ACCEPTABLE LIMIT FOR AN AVERAGE PERSON

WEIGHING 70 KG AND CONSUMING 0.5 KG OF MILK

PER DAY. THE PERSONS CONSUMING THIS MILK ARE

AT SEVERE RISK OF ENDOCRINE MALFUNCTION,

GENO-TOXICITY AND CANCER.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

�The study is severely limited by the lack of relevant data and the studies conducted are all from different parts of the country.

�It has been assumed that a person is consuming all the food items

studies in a day, although they have been studied in different parts.

�Several food items contained traces of other minor pesticides but that

has been ignored for the sake of simplicity of the study.

�All the substances are assumed to be acting

as a non-carcinogen only.