[표제지 등]
제출문
요약문
Summary
List of Table
List of Figure
목차
제1장 서론 33
제1절 연구배경 35
제2절 연구목적 38
제3절 기대효과 39
제4절 연구추진체계 40
제2장 환경오염물질의 위험성 확인 41
제1절 서론 43
제2절 Database 자료 입력 방법 46
1. 입력 화학물질의 선정 46
2. 입력 Program 46
3. 입력자료 출처 46
4. 입력 화합물 수 및 입력항목 47
5. 입력항목별 자료 선정 기준 47
제3절 화학물질의 우선순위 결정 51
1. 화학물질 관리 우선순위 선정기법의 이론적 고찰 51
가. 국내외 연구동향 51
나. 기존 연구방법의 동향 분석 및 본 연구의 방향 설정 52
2. 우선순위 결정을 위한 계산 방법 55
가. DRANC 방법 20) 55
나. TSCA 법(TSCA ITC : Scoring Task Force) 22) 56
다. EEC 법(Compartmentalization Score) 23) 57
3. Estimation에 의한 자료 보완 및 우선순위 결정 62
4. 발암성과 돌연변이원성 자료를 이용한 우선순위 결정 63
5. Database의 한글화 64
제4절 결과 및 고찰 65
1. Database 자료의 입력 65
2. 2차년도 database 자료의 우선순위 결정 69
3. 추정에 의한 자료 보완 및 우선순위 결정 72
4. 1, 2차년도 database 자료의 우선순위 결정 73
5. 발암성과 돌연변이원성 자료를 이용한 우선순위 결정 85
6. 우선순위 선정방법의 적합성 88
7. 2차년도까지의 우선순위 선정기법의 제한점 및 개선방향 93
제3장 수질오염물질의 복합독성 확인 95
제1절 서론 97
제2절 연구내용 및 방법 99
1. 재료 99
가. 시료의 채취 99
나. 시료 100
다. Ames test 100
제3절 연구결과 및 고찰 102
제4장 수질의 돌연변이성과 발암성 기작에 관한 고찰 113
제1절 서론 115
제2절 돌연변이 및 발암기작의 일반론 및 시험법 117
제3절 수질의 돌연변이성 및 발암성 연구현황 122
제4절 돌연변이성 시험 중 Ames test의 발암성 예측 신뢰성 127
제5절 본 연구 돌연변이성 결과에 대한 예비해석 129
제5장 수질 중 중금속 오염도 분석평가 131
1. 조사대상지역 선정 133
2. 시료의 취급 및 전처리 방법 133
가. 중금속류 133
나. CN 133
다. Cr6+(이미지참조) 133
3. 실험 134
가. 분석 기기 및 장치 134
나. 표준시약 및 기타시약 134
다. 분석 방법 134
라. 검출한계 138
4. 분석결과 139
제6장 수질 중 잔류농약 오염도 분석평가 151
제1절 서론 153
제2절 실험 154
1. 분석기기 및 장치 154
2. 표준시약 및 기타시약 154
3. 분석방법 154
가. 표준시료의 분석 154
(1) GC/MS에 의한 분석 154
(2) 본 시료 분석 155
(3) 추출회수율 156
제3절 결과 157
1. 표준시료의 분석 157
2. 추출회수율 157
3. 본 시료의 분석 158
제7장 결론 187
참고문헌 191
첨부자료 203
[title page etc.]
Contents
1. Introduction 33
1.1. Background 35
1.2. Objectives 38
1.3. Expected impacts 39
1.4. Strategy of the project 40
2. Hazard identification of environmental pollutants 41
2.1. Introduction 43
2.2. Methods of data imput 46
2.2.1. Selection of chemicals 46
2.2.2. Software for the database 46
2.2.3. Source of the data 46
2.2.4. Number of chemicals and items 47
2.2.5. Criteria of selection for each items 47
2.3. Priority setting 51
2.3.1. Review of literature on priority setting 51
2.3.1.1. Trends of research 51
2.3.1.2. Summary of the research trends and direction of the project 52
2.3.2. Calculation method for priority setting 55
2.3.2.1. DRANC method 55
2.3.2.2. TSCA method 56
2.3.2.3. EEC method 57
2.3.3. Enforcement of data by estimation and priority setting 62
2.3.4. Priority setting by mutagenicity and carcinogenicity 63
2.3.5. Conversion of the database to Korean 64
2.4. Results and Discussion 65
2.4.1. Data input 65
2.4.2. Priority setting with the 2nd year data 69
2.4.3. Priority setting by estimation 72
2.4.4. Priority setting with cumulative data of two years 73
2.4.5. Priority setting by mutagenicity and carcinogenicity 85
2.4.6. Validity of the priority setting 88
2.4.7. Limitations of the selected method of priority setting and directions for refinement 93
3. Toxicity of complex mixture from water 95
3.1. Intoduction 97
3.2. Materials and methods 99
3.2.1. Materials 99
3.2.1.1. Sampling 99
3.2.1.2. Samples 100
3.2.1.3. Ames test 100
3.3. Results and Discussion 102
4. Review on the mechanism of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of water 113
4.1. Introduction 115
4.2. General principle and test methods of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity 117
4.3. Researches on mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of water 122
4.4. Credibility of the Ames test for the prediction of carcinogenicity 127
4.5. Preliminary interpretation of the mutagenicity of the water samples 129
5. Analysis of heavy metals 131
5.1. Sample sites 133
5.2. Sample handling and pre-treatment 133
5.2.1. Heavy metals 133
5.2.2. CN 133
5.2.3. Cr6+(이미지참조) 133
5.3. Experimental 134
5.3.1. Analytical instruments and apparatus 134
5.3.2. Reference materials and reagents 134
5.3.3. Analytical methods 134
5.3.4. Detection limits 138
5.4. Results 139
6. Analysis of pesticides 151
6.1. Introduction 153
6.2. Experimental 154
6.2.1. Analytical instruments and apparatus 154
6.2.2. Reference materials and reagents 154
6.2.3. Analytical method 154
6.2.3.1. Analysis of standard sample 154
(1) Analysis with GC/MS 154
(2) Analysis of samples 155
(3) Recovery 156
6.3. Result 157
6.3.1. Analysis of reference samples 157
6.3.2. Recovery of extraction 157
6.3.3. Analysis 158
7. Conclusion 187
Reference 191
APPENDIX 203
Table 2-1. Input items of database. 48
Table 2-2. Analysis of Prioritization Methods. 52
Table 2-3. Examples of priority setting 17) 54
Table 2-4. Scoring values of TSCA method. 59
Table 2-5. Scoring values of EEC method. 61
Table 2-6. Availability of data for hazard identification(2nd year). 67
Table 2-7. Availability of data for hazard identification(cumulative data of the 1st & 2nd year). 68
Table 2-8. Comparison of the prioritization methods with LD50(이미지참조) data from the database of the second year. 70
Table 2-9. Comparison of the prioritization methods with NOEL data from the database of the second year. 71
Table 2-10. Comparison of the prioritization methods with LD50(이미지참조) data from the database of the first year before introduction of the estimated data. 74
Table 2-11. Comparison of the prioritization methods with NOEL data from the database of the first year before introduction of the estimated data. 75
Table 2-12. Comparison of the prioritization methods with LD50(이미지참조) data from the database of the first year after introduction of the estimated data. 76
Table 2-13. Comparison of the prioritization methods with LD50(이미지참조) data from the database of the first year after introduction of the estimated data. 77
Table 2-14. Comparison of the prioritization methods with LD50(이미지참조) data from the cumulative data of the first and second year. 79
Table 2-15. Comparison of the prioritization methods with NOEL data from the cumulative data of the first and second year. 80
Table 2-16. Comparison of the priority list generated by DRANC method with the chemicals monitored in the field water samples. 81
Table 2-17. Comparison of the prioritization methods. 83
Table 2-18. Comparison of the prioritization methods with carcinogenicity data. 86
Table 2-19. Comparison of the prioritization methods with mutagenicity data. 87
Table 2-20. Comparison of the prioritization methods with the detected chemicals by field monitoring. 89
Table 2-21. Summary of the validity of the priority-setting methods. 91
Table 2-22. Priority list by toxicity classes using DRANC method. 92
Table 2-23. Suggested list of chemicals for the field monitoring in the 3rd year project. 94
Table 3-1. Mutagenicity of water sampled in March using Salmonella strain TA100. 106
Table 3-2. Mutagenicity of water sampled in March using Salmonella strain TA98. 107
Table 3-3. Mutagenicity of water sampled in June using Salmonella strain TA100. 108
Table 3-4. Mutagenicity of water sampled in June using Salmonella strain TA98. 109
Table 3-5. Summary of the mutagenicity of water sampled in March using Salmonella strains TA98 and TA100. 110
Table 3-6. Summary of the mutagenicity of water sampled in June using Salmonella strains TA98 and TA100. 111
Table 3-7. Relative potency of water concentrates(raw, chlorinated, and tap water). 112
Table 4-1. Alterations resulted from mutation 120
Table 4-2. Genotoxic tests commonly used. 121
Table 4-3. Sensitivity and specificity of the Ames test. 128
Table 5-1. Operating Conditions of AAS for the Determination of Metals. 135
Table 5-2. Calibration Ranges of AAS Determination. 135
Table 5-3. Operating Conditions of HG- AAS. 136
Table 5-4. Calibration Ranges of HG-AAS Determination. 136
Table 5-5. Concentrations of metals and CN in raw water sampled in March. 140
Table 5-6. Concentrations of metals and CN in treated water sampled in March. 141
Table 5-7. Concentrations of metals and CN in drinking water No.1 sampled in March. 142
Table 5-8. Concentrations of metals and CN in drinking water No.2 sampled in March. 143
Table 5-9. Concentrations of metals and CN in drinking water No.3 sampled in March. 144
Table 5-10. Concentrations of metals and CN in raw water sampled in June. 145
Table 5-11. Concentrations of metals and CN in treated water sampled in June. 146
Table 5-12. Concentrations of metals and CN in drinking water No.1 sampled in June. 147
Table 5-13. Concentrations of metals and CN in drinking water No.2 sampled in June. 148
Table 5-14. Concentrations of metals and CN in drinking water No.3 sampled in June. 149
Table 6-1. GC/MS operating parameters. 159
Table 6-2. GC/ECD operating parameters. 160
Table 6-3. GC/NPD operating parameters. 161
Table 6-4. Retention times and characteristic ions of pesticides. 162
Table 6-5. Typical calibration equations of pesticides. 163
Table 6-6. Comparison of detection limits of pesticides. 164
Table 6-7. Recoveries and detection limits of pesticides. 165
Table 6-8. Analytical results of pesticides in raw water in March. 166
Table 6-9. Analytical results of pesticides in treated water in March. 167
Table 6-10. Analytical results of pesticides in drinking water in March. 168
Table 6-11. Analytical results of pesticides in raw water in June. 169
Table 6-12. Analytical results of pesticides in treated water in June. 170
Table 6-13. Analytical results of pesticides in drinking water in June. 171
Fig.2-1. Example datafile of benzyl chloride. 66
Fig.4-1. Gross effect of mutation 26) 118
Fig.4-2. Effect of mutation at molecular level 26) 119
Fig.6-1. Chemical Structure of Tested Pesticides 172
Fig.6-2. GC/MS Screening Profile of Pesticides for Standard-spiked water 175
Fig.6-3. GC/MS Screening Profile of Pesticides for Sample water 181