A sophisticated risk assessment method coupling environmental equity and effective dose

Abstract

The present invention discloses a fine risk assessment method for coupling environmental equity and effective dose, comprising the following steps: step one, obtaining the concentration of pollutants in soil; step two, constructing a conceptual model of the site; step three, identifying key exposure pathways: taking the highest detected concentration of the pollutants of concern in the soil as the exposure concentration, preliminarily calculating the proportion of the health risks of the pollutants of concern under different exposure pathways to the total health risks of the pollutants of concern under all exposure pathways, and identifying the exposure pathway with the highest proportion as the key exposure pathway; step four, calculating the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil: step five, calculating the acceptable risk level under the key exposure pathways of the pollutants of concern; step six, assessing the health risks of the pollutants of concern in the soil. Under the primary goal of ensuring the safe use of construction land, this method takes into account the principle of environmental equity, further reduces the uncertainty and conservatism of the assessment results, reduces unnecessary repairs, and achieves source reduction and carbon reduction.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of construction land pollution investigation and health risk assessment, and in particular to a fine risk assessment method coupling environmental equity and effective dose. Background Art

[0002] At present, a risk-based technical standard system for soil pollution prevention and control in construction land has been established and relevant technical guidelines have been issued. However, the methods for quantifying health risks to the population in the existing risk assessment technical guidelines have the following problems:

[0003] (1) The basic assumption of the risk quantification model is that pollutants can be completely absorbed by the human body after being ingested by the human body through the soil, causing harm to human health. However, due to the influence of the actual storage form and fate of pollutants in the soil, pollutants cannot be completely absorbed by the human body. As a result, health risks may be overestimated, resulting in the restoration of soil that does not need to be restored, wasting resources and increasing carbon emissions.

[0004] (2) The acceptable health risk level of the pollutants of concern is assumed to be 1×10 -6 (carcinogenic effect) or 1 (non-carcinogenic effect), which lacks coordination with the standard limits of other media that have been implemented in terms of acceptable risk levels, resulting in overly strict soil management and violating the principle of environmental fairness.

[0005] In response to question (1), some scholars have proposed testing the human accessibility of pollutants of concern in soil and evaluating health risks based on the pollutant accessibility concentration. This method can reduce the conservatism of existing methods to a certain extent, but it is still conservative because the accessibility concentration is considered to be the maximum concentration that can be absorbed by the human body. It does not take into account the blocking of pollutants by the human absorption barrier and the metabolism during the absorption process, and may still overestimate the risk.

[0006] Regarding problem (2), no corresponding solution has been reported so far. Therefore, the present invention further proposes a refined risk assessment method that couples environmental equity and effective exposure dose to address the above problem. Under the primary goal of ensuring the safe use of construction land, the principle of environmental equity is taken into account to further reduce the uncertainty and conservatism of the assessment results, reduce unnecessary restoration, and achieve source reduction and carbon reduction. Summary of the invention

[0007] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a refined risk assessment method that couples environmental equity and effective dose. This method solves the technical problems that traditional assessment methods violate the principle of environmental equity and the assessment results have high uncertainty and conservatism, which in turn causes unnecessary repairs and increases carbon emissions.

[0008] To achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following technical solutions:

[0009] A sophisticated risk assessment method that couples environmental equity and effective dose includes the following steps:

[0010] Step 1: Obtain the concentration of pollutants in the soil: Conduct soil monitoring based on pollution identification to obtain the concentration of pollutants in the soil;

[0011] Step 2: Construct a conceptual model of the site: The pollutants whose concentration in the soil exceeds the soil screening value are regarded as the pollutants of concern in the soil of the site, and a conceptual model of the site is constructed to clarify the types, spatial distribution, morphology and migration characteristics of the pollutants in the site;

[0012] Step 3: Identify key exposure pathways: Taking the highest detected concentration of the pollutant of concern in the soil as the exposure concentration, preliminarily calculate the proportion of the health risk of the pollutant of concern under different exposure pathways to the total health risk of the pollutant of concern under all exposure pathways, and identify the exposure pathway with the highest proportion as the key exposure pathway;

[0013] Step 4: Calculate the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil:

[0014] Step 5: Calculate the acceptable risk level for the key exposure pathways of the pollutants of concern;

[0015] Step six: Assess the health risks of pollutants of concern in soil.

[0016] Preferably, in step 4, the effective exposure concentration of the pollutants of concern under the key exposure pathway is determined in combination with the site conceptual model, and the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil is calculated based on the effective exposure concentration.

[0017] Preferably, in step 4, when the key exposure route is oral ingestion, the relative effective exposure concentration of the pollutant of concern is taken as the effective exposure concentration; when the key exposure route is respiratory inhalation, the concentration of the pollutant of concern in the air in the exposure area of ​​the population is taken as the effective exposure concentration.

[0018] Preferably, when the pollutants are arsenic, lead, cadmium and nickel among heavy metals, the relative effective exposure concentration is

[0019] As-RBc= CAs×(0.79×BCAs+0.03),

[0020] Where As-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of arsenic in soil, in mg / kg; CAs is the total concentration of arsenic in soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BCAs is the human accessibility of arsenic in soil, obtained through laboratory tests or determined through statistical analysis of public data;

[0021] Pb-RBc = CPb×(0.89×BCPb-0.03),

[0022] Wherein, Pb-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of lead in soil, in mg / kg; CPb is the total concentration of lead in soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BCPb is the human accessibility of lead in soil, obtained through laboratory testing or determined through statistical analysis of public data;

[0023] Cd-RBc = CCd×(0.83×BCCd+0.01),

[0024] Where, Cd-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of cadmium in soil, in mg / kg; CCd is the total concentration of cadmium in soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BCCd is the human accessibility of cadmium in soil, obtained through laboratory testing or determined through statistical analysis of public data;

[0025] Ni-RBc = CNi×(0.83×BCNi+0.08),

[0026] Wherein, Ni-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of nickel in the soil, in mg / kg; CNi is the total concentration of nickel in the soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BCNi is the human accessibility of nickel in the soil, obtained through laboratory tests or determined through statistical analysis of public data.

[0027] Preferably, the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil is Risks

[0028]

[0029] Where: X-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of the pollutant of concern in soil, mg / kg; IRsc and IRsa are the soil intake of children and adults, mg / d; EFc and EFa are the soil exposure frequencies of children and adults, d / a; EDc and EDa are the exposure periods of children and adults, d; BWc and BWa are the body weights of children and adults, kg; ATca is the average carcinogenic action time, d; SFs is the carcinogenic slope factor of a certain heavy metal in soil, (kg·d) / mg.

[0030] Preferably, in step 5, based on the concentration limit corresponding to the pollutant of concern in the existing quality standard under the key exposure pathway, the acceptable risk level Riskw under the key exposure pathway of the pollutant of concern is calculated as

[0031] ,

[0032] Wherein, Cw is the standard limit of a heavy metal in drinking water, μg / L; IRwc and IRwa are the drinking water intake of children and adults, L / d; EFc and EFa are the drinking water exposure frequencies of children and adults, d / a; EDc and EDa are the exposure periods of children and adults, d; BWc and BWa are the body weights of children and adults, kg; ATca is the average carcinogenic action time, d; SFw is the carcinogenic slope factor of a heavy metal in drinking water, (kg·d) / mg.

[0033] Preferably, in step 6, the ratio of the health risk value of the pollutant of concern in the soil obtained in step 4 to the acceptable risk level of the pollutant of concern under the key exposure pathway obtained in step 5 is calculated as:

[0034] ,

[0035] The ratio Ratio is used to assess whether the health risks of pollutants of concern in the soil are acceptable.

[0036] Preferably, a two-dimensional random simulation technique is used to obtain a probability distribution based on the ratio Ratio, and the 95% quantile is selected for comparison with 1.

[0037] Preferably, when the ratio Ratio is greater than 1, it is determined that the health risk of the pollutant of concern exceeds an acceptable level; otherwise, it is determined that the health risk of the pollutant of concern is acceptable.

[0038] In this invention, a technical idea of ​​finely quantifying risks based on the effective exposure concentration of pollutants under key exposure pathways is proposed, which further reduces the conservatism of traditional health risk assessment based on the available concentration of pollutants of concern in soil, more accurately quantifies the amount of pollutants of concern that are actually absorbed by the human body and cause harm to human health, and makes the assessment results more accurate, thus reducing unnecessary repairs from the source and reducing carbon emissions. At the same time, with key exposure pathways as the core, the effective exposure concentration under key exposure pathways is tested, avoiding the high cost problem of traditional methods of measuring effective exposure concentrations for all exposure pathways.

[0039] For typical pollutants with oral intake as the key exposure route, the present invention also proposes a technical idea of ​​using the relative effective exposure concentration of the pollutant of concern as the effective exposure concentration for risk quantification, and proposes a relative effective exposure concentration prediction model based on availability, avoiding the ethical controversy and high cost of traditional reliance on animal experiments to test relative effective concentrations.

[0040] The present invention proposes a technical approach to calculate the health risks of pollutants of concern based on existing relevant standard limits under key exposure pathways, and use this as an acceptable risk level to evaluate the health risks of pollutants of concern in soil, thereby ensuring the consistency of acceptable risk levels for the same pollutant in different media. Compared with the traditional acceptable risk level of 1×10-6 (carcinogenic effect) or 1 (non-carcinogenic effect) for soil exposure, it better embodies the principle of environmental equity, avoids the problem of overly strict management of soil media under the current technical and economic level, and further reduces unnecessary remediation from the source, thereby achieving source reduction and carbon reduction. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0041] Figure 1 Schematic diagram of probability distribution of the ratio Ratio according to an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0042] The present invention will be further described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings:

[0043] A sophisticated risk assessment method that couples environmental equity and effective dose includes the following steps:

[0044] Step 1: Obtain the concentration of pollutants in the soil: Based on the requirements of technical specifications such as HJ25.1 and HJ25.2, soil monitoring is carried out on the basis of pollution identification to obtain the concentration of pollutants in the soil;

[0045] Step 2: Construct a conceptual model of the site: Use the soil screening value in the relevant application site planning scenario in GB36600-2018 as the evaluation standard, and take the pollutants in the soil whose concentration exceeds the soil screening value as the pollutants of concern in the site soil, construct a conceptual model of the site, and clarify the types, spatial distribution, morphology and migration characteristics of the pollutants in the site;

[0046] Step 3: Identify key exposure pathways: Based on the technical requirements in HJ25.3, take the highest detected concentration of the pollutant of concern in the soil as the exposure concentration, preliminarily calculate the proportion of the health risk of the pollutant of concern under different exposure pathways to the total health risk of the pollutant of concern under all exposure pathways, and identify the exposure pathway with the highest proportion as the key exposure pathway;

[0047] Step 4: Calculate the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil: Combined with the conceptual model of the site, determine the effective exposure concentration of the pollutants of concern under the key exposure pathway, and calculate the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil based on the effective exposure concentration;

[0048] When the key exposure route is oral ingestion, the relative effective exposure concentration of the pollutant of concern is taken as the effective exposure concentration; when the key exposure route is respiratory inhalation, the concentration of the pollutant of concern in the air of the population exposure area is taken as the effective exposure concentration;

[0049] When the pollutants are heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium and nickel, the relative effective exposure concentration is

[0050] As-RBc= CAs×(0.79×BCAs+0.03),

[0051] Where As-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of arsenic in soil, in mg / kg; CAs is the total concentration of arsenic in soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BCAs is the human accessibility of arsenic in soil, obtained through laboratory tests or determined through statistical analysis of public data;

[0052] Pb-RBc = CPb×(0.89×BCPb-0.03),

[0053] Wherein, Pb-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of lead in soil, in mg / kg; CPb is the total concentration of lead in soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BCPb is the human accessibility of lead in soil, obtained through laboratory testing or determined through statistical analysis of public data;

[0054] Cd-RBc = CCd×(0.83×BCCd+0.01),

[0055] Where, Cd-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of cadmium in soil, in mg / kg; CCd is the total concentration of cadmium in soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BCCd is the human accessibility of cadmium in soil, obtained through laboratory testing or determined through statistical analysis of public data;

[0056] Ni-RBc = CNi×(0.83×BCNi+0.08),

[0057] Wherein, Ni-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of nickel in the soil, in mg / kg; CNi is the total concentration of nickel in the soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BCNi is the human accessibility of nickel in the soil, obtained through laboratory tests or determined through statistical analysis of public data. The remaining pollutants can be determined through animal experiments.

[0058] The health risk values ​​of the pollutants of concern in soil are Risks.

[0059] ,

[0060] Where: X-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of the pollutant of concern in the soil, mg / kg; IRsc and IRsa are the soil intake of children and adults, mg / d; EFc and EFa are the soil exposure frequencies of children and adults, d / a; EDc and EDa are the exposure periods of children and adults, d; BWc and BWa are the body weights of children and adults, kg; ATca is the average carcinogenic action time, d; SFs is the carcinogenic slope factor of a certain heavy metal in the soil, (kg·d) / mg;

[0061] Step 5: Calculate the acceptable risk level for the key exposure pathways of the pollutants of concern: Based on the concentration limits of the pollutants of concern in the existing quality standards for the key exposure pathways, calculate the acceptable risk level Riskw for the key exposure pathways of the pollutants of concern:

[0062] ,

[0063] Where, Cw is the standard limit of a heavy metal in drinking water, μg / L; IRwc and IRwa are the drinking water intake of children and adults, L / d; EFc and EFa are the drinking water exposure frequencies of children and adults, d / a; EDc and EDa are the exposure periods of children and adults, d; BWc and BWa are the weights of children and adults, kg; ATca is the average carcinogenic action time, d; SFw is the carcinogenic slope factor of a heavy metal in drinking water, (kg·d) / mg;

[0064] Step 6: Evaluate the health risk of the pollutants of concern in the soil: Calculate the ratio of the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil obtained in step 4 to the acceptable risk level of the key exposure pathway of the pollutants of concern obtained in step 5:

[0065] ,

[0066] The ratio Ratio is used to assess whether the health risks of the pollutants of concern in soil are acceptable. A two-dimensional random simulation technique is used to obtain the probability distribution based on the ratio Ratio, and the 95% quantile is selected for comparison with 1. When the ratio Ratio is greater than 1, it is determined that the health risks of the pollutants of concern exceed the acceptable level; otherwise, it is determined that the health risks of the pollutants of concern are acceptable.

[0067] Taking an arsenic-contaminated site planned for residential use as an example, a detailed risk assessment was conducted:

[0068] The implementation case covers an area of ​​about 43,000 square meters. The results of collection, analysis and personnel interviews show that the site was a wasteland in history. It was converted into farmland for growing rice in the 1970s, and was developed by filling and building houses in the 1990s. It has successively housed a gas station, a motor vehicle inspection site and a building materials city.

[0069] Using professional judgment and grid point distribution, a total of 92 soil sampling points were arranged in 4 batches, and 400 soil samples were tested. The test indicators included 45 mandatory items in GB36600. The results of the comparison of the screening values ​​of the first category of land use in GB36600-2018 showed that only the arsenic detection concentration exceeded the screening value of 20 mg / kg, the sample exceeded the standard rate by about 15%, the maximum detection concentration was 97.6 mg / kg, the maximum exceeding depth was about 7 meters, and the exceeding samples were mainly concentrated in clay silt and silty clay at 2.5-4.5 meters. It was initially speculated that it might be caused by the high background of soil. Therefore, arsenic was identified as a pollutant of concern for this site.

[0070] The assessment method and model in HJ25.3 were used, and the highest detected arsenic concentration in soil was 97.6 mg / kg as the exposure concentration. The health risks of the population covering all exposure pathways of oral intake, skin contact and breathing of soil particles were calculated under the scenario of future planning of the site as a first-class land use such as residential, and the proportion of health risks of each exposure pathway to the total risk was calculated. The results showed that the health risks of oral intake, skin contact and breathing of soil particles accounted for 86.3%, 8.3% and 5.4% of the total risk, respectively. Therefore, oral intake was identified as the key exposure pathway for soil arsenic health risks in the embodiment.

[0071] A total of about 1,345 research data on the accessibility of arsenic in soil to humans were collected from 1990 to 2023, with arsenic concentrations ranging from 1.3 to 310,000 mg / kg in samples and accessibility test results ranging from 0.05% to 89%. Statistical analysis results showed that the accessibility of arsenic in samples generally followed a log-normal distribution, with a mean of 0.22 and a standard deviation of 0.31.

[0072] First calculate the relative effective exposure concentration of arsenic in the soil of the embodiment:

[0073] As-RBc= CAs×(0.79×BCAs+0.03),

[0074] Wherein, As-RBc is the relative effective exposure concentration of arsenic in the soil of the embodiment, CAs is the value of the total arsenic concentration in the soil as the exposure concentration, and the maximum value in this embodiment is 97.6 mg / kg; BCAs is the human accessibility of arsenic in the soil, which is 0.22 and obeys the overall logarithmic distribution with a standard deviation of 0.31;

[0075] Then calculate the health risk value Risks based on the relative effective exposure concentration of arsenic in soil under the key exposure pathway:

[0076]

[0077] In the formula, IRsc and IRsa are the soil intake of children and adults, mg / d; EFc and EFa are the soil exposure frequencies of children and adults, d / a; EDc and EDa are the exposure periods of children and adults, d; BWc and BWa are the weights of children and adults, kg; ATca is the average carcinogenic action time, d; SFs is the carcinogenic slope factor of arsenic in soil, (kg·d) / mg. The values ​​of the above parameters can refer to the recommended values ​​in technical specifications such as HJ25.3, and the statistical distribution functions and parameters of the parameters can refer to the recommended values ​​of the "Handbook of Chinese Population Exposure Parameters".

[0078] The arsenic concentration limit in the drinking water quality standard with oral intake as the key exposure route is 10 μg / L. Based on this exposure concentration, the acceptable risk level of arsenic in the oral exposure route of drinking water, Riskw, is calculated as follows:

[0079] ,

[0080] In the formula, Riskw is the acceptable risk level of arsenic under oral exposure to drinking water, dimensionless; Cw is the standard limit of arsenic in drinking water, μg / L; IRwc and IRwa are the drinking water intake of children and adults, L / d; EFc and EFa are the drinking water exposure frequencies of children and adults, d / a; EDc and EDa are the exposure periods of children and adults, d; BWc and BWa are the weights of children and adults, kg; ATca is the average carcinogenic action time, d; SFw is the carcinogenic slope factor of arsenic in drinking water, (kg·d) / mg. The above parameter values ​​can refer to the recommended values ​​in technical specifications such as HJ25.3, and the statistical distribution functions and parameters of the parameters can refer to the recommended values ​​of the "Chinese Population Exposure Parameter Manual".

[0081] The ratio Ratio of the health risk value of the pollutant of concern based on the effective exposure concentration to the acceptable risk level calculated in step 4 is calculated, and the probability distribution of the ratio Ratio is calculated using two-dimensional random simulation technology. The results show that according to the traditional risk assessment method, the carcinogenic health risk of arsenic in the soil of the embodiment is about 1.9×10-4, which exceeds the acceptable risk level of 10-6 by about 2 orders of magnitude, and requires remediation or risk control, and the corresponding contaminated earth volume is about 50,000 cubic meters. However, the carcinogenic health risk of arsenic in the soil of the embodiment evaluated by the method of the present invention is acceptable, and the risk value is about 46% lower than the acceptable risk level, and no further remediation or risk control measures are required. In addition, because the evaluation method of the present invention incorporates random simulation technology, it reflects the influence of the uncertainty and variability of the model parameter values ​​on the evaluation results, and can provide more information for decision-making compared with the results of the fixed value evaluation (i.e., each model parameter is fixed to the guideline recommended value).

[0082] Taking this embodiment as an example, Figure 1As shown in the figure, the Ratio calculated by the fixed value assessment method is 0.37, which corresponds to the 92% quantile of the calculation result by the method of the present invention. The quantile value is lower than 95%, which may underestimate the actual risk. It can be seen that the assessment method of the present invention can avoid unnecessary repairs and reduce carbon emissions while ensuring the safe use of land, and has broad application prospects.

[0083] The above embodiments are only some illustrations of the concept and implementation of the present invention, and are not intended to limit the same. Under the concept of the present invention, technical solutions that have not been substantially changed are still within the scope of protection.

Claims

1. A sophisticated risk assessment method that couples environmental equity and effective dose, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Step 1: Obtain the concentration of pollutants in the soil: Conduct soil monitoring based on pollution identification to obtain the concentration of pollutants in the soil; Step 2: Construct a conceptual model of the site: The pollutants whose concentration in the soil exceeds the soil screening value are regarded as the pollutants of concern in the soil of the site, and a conceptual model of the site is constructed to clarify the types, spatial distribution, morphology and migration characteristics of the pollutants in the site; Step 3: Identify key exposure pathways: Taking the highest detected concentration of the pollutant of concern in the soil as the exposure concentration, preliminarily calculate the proportion of the health risk of the pollutant of concern under different exposure pathways to the total health risk of the pollutant of concern under all exposure pathways, and identify the exposure pathway with the highest proportion as the key exposure pathway; Step 4: Calculate the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil: Step 5: Calculate the acceptable risk level for the key exposure pathways of the pollutants of concern; Step 6: Assess the health risks of pollutants of concern in soil; In step 4, the effective exposure concentration of the pollutants of concern under the key exposure pathway is determined in combination with the conceptual model of the site, and the health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil is calculated based on the effective exposure concentration; When the pollutants are heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium and nickel, the relative effective exposure concentration is As-RB c = C As ×(0.79×BC As +0.03), In the formula, As-RB c is the relative effective exposure concentration of arsenic in soil, in mg / kg; C As is the total concentration of arsenic in the soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BC As is the human accessibility of arsenic in soil, obtained through laboratory testing or determined through statistical analysis of publicly available data; Pb-RB c = C Pb ×(0.89×BC Pb -0.03), Where, Pb-RB c is the relative effective exposure concentration of lead in soil, in mg / kg; C Pb is the total concentration of lead in the soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BC Pb The human accessibility of lead in soil, obtained through laboratory testing or determined through statistical analysis of publicly available data; Cd-RB c = C Cd ×(0.83×BC Cd +0.01), In the formula, Cd-RB c is the relative effective exposure concentration of cadmium in soil, in mg / kg; C Cd is the total concentration of cadmium in the soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BC Cd The human accessibility of cadmium in soil is obtained through laboratory testing or determined through statistical analysis of publicly available data; By RB c = C Ni ×(0.83×BC Ni +0.08) Where, Ni-RB c is the relative effective exposure concentration of nickel in soil, in mg / kg; C Ni is the total concentration of nickel in the soil, obtained in the laboratory using standard analytical test methods, in mg / kg; BC Ni The human accessibility of nickel in soil is obtained through laboratory testing or determined through statistical analysis of publicly available data.

2. The fine risk assessment method for coupling environmental equity and effective dose according to claim 1 is characterized by: In step 4, when the key exposure route is oral ingestion, the relative effective exposure concentration of the pollutant of concern is taken as the effective exposure concentration; when the key exposure route is respiratory inhalation, the concentration of the pollutant of concern in the air in the exposure area of ​​the population is taken as the effective exposure concentration.

3. The fine risk assessment method for coupling environmental equity and effective dose according to claim 1 is characterized by: The health risk value of the pollutants of concern in the soil is Risk s for Where: X-RB c is the relative effective exposure concentration of the pollutant of concern in soil, mg / kg; IR sc and IR sa Soil intake for children and adults, mg / d; EF c and EF a are the soil exposure frequencies for children and adults, d / a; ED c and ED a are the exposure periods for children and adults, respectively, d; BW c and BW a are the weight of children and adults, kg; AT ca is the average carcinogenic effect time, d; SF s It is the carcinogenic slope factor of a heavy metal in soil, (kg·d) / mg.

4. The fine risk assessment method for coupling environmental equity and effective dose according to claim 3 is characterized by: In step 5, the acceptable risk level Risk for the key exposure pathway of the pollutant of concern is calculated based on the concentration limit corresponding to the pollutant of concern in the existing quality standards for the key exposure pathway. w for In the formula, C w is the standard limit of a heavy metal in drinking water, μg / L; IR wc and IR wa are the water intake of children and adults, L / d; EF c and EF a are the drinking water exposure frequencies for children and adults, d / a; ED c and ED a are the exposure periods for children and adults, respectively, d; BW c and BW a are the weight of children and adults, kg; AT ca is the average carcinogenic effect time, d; SF w It is the carcinogenic slope factor of a heavy metal in drinking water, (kg·d) / mg.

5. The fine risk assessment method for coupling environmental equity and effective dose according to claim 4 is characterized by: In step 6, the ratio of the health risk value of the pollutant of concern in the soil obtained in step 4 to the acceptable risk level of the key exposure pathway of the pollutant of concern obtained in step 5 is calculated as The ratio Ratio is used to assess whether the health risks of pollutants of concern in the soil are acceptable.

6. The fine risk assessment method for coupling environmental equity and effective dose according to claim 5 is characterized by: A two-dimensional random simulation technique is used to obtain a probability distribution based on the ratio Ratio, and the 95% quantile is selected for comparison with 1.

7. The fine risk assessment method for coupling environmental equity and effective dose according to claim 6 is characterized by: When the ratio is greater than 1, it is determined that the health risk of the pollutant of concern exceeds an acceptable level; otherwise, it is determined that the health risk of the pollutant of concern is acceptable.

Images