AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cutter, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cutter, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, A. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Environment
March 2002, Vol 92, No. 3 | American Journal of Public Health 420-422
© 2002 American Public Health Association

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Spatial Variability in Toxicity Indicators Used to Rank Chemical Risks

Susan L. Cutter, PhD, Michael S. Scott, PhD and Arleen A. Hill, MS

Susan L. Cutter is with the Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Michael S. Scott is with the Department of Geography, Salisbury University, Salisbury, Md. Arleen A. Hill is a PhD student in the Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan L. Cutter, PhD, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (e-mail: scutter{at}sc.edu).


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 

Objectives. This study used 6 different measures of toxicity to explore spatial and statistical variations in relative risk indicators of Toxic Release Inventory emissions.

Methods. Statistical and spatial correlations between the 6 indices were computed for individual South Carolina facilities.

Results. Although the 6 toxicity indices are not highly correlated in theory, they have more commonality in practice. There was significant spatial variation in the indices by individual facility level.

Conclusions. Environmental justice researchers must be cognizant of differences in toxicity indices because the choice of the toxicity measure can alter (statistically and spatially) the results of equity analyses and lead to erroneous conclusions. (Am J Public Health. 2002;92:420-422)


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
Current risk policies lack an adequate way of characterizing risks that the public can understand. Under community right-to-know provisions and pollution prevention efforts, the demand for this type of information—especially by environmental justice advocates and community-based organizations—is increasing. There are many different toxicity indices to choose from. Which one best represents the potential risk of nearby facilities?

Only a handful of studies incorporate toxicity measures into equity analyses, thus providing a quantitative measure of potential exposure.1–7 Although each of these studies uses the same basic toxics database (the US Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic Release Inventory [TRI]) for quantity and type of chemical released, they use different measures of toxicity. As a result, comparing findings across studies and developing generalizations about levels of relative risk to low-income and minority populations is difficult, if not impossible. In this report, we compare 6 toxicity indices that were used to characterize airborne releases from individual facilities and examine the statistical and spatial correlation between these indices, using South Carolina as a test case.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
We used data from the 1992 TRI in this analysis because of their availability, reasonable estimate of quantities of released chemicals by individual facilities, and widespread use in environmental justice analyses. In 1992, 67.9 million pounds of toxic chemicals were released in South Carolina—placing the state 13th nationally in quantity of toxic releases.8 South Carolina had 426 facilities reporting to the TRI; 142 different chemicals were released. The locations of these facilities have been verified to ensure their correct positions (longitude/latitude) according to the methodology reported by Scott et al.9

We chose 6 different toxicity indicators for this analysis, based on their general availability and prior use in environmental justice studies.10 A brief summary of each toxicity indicator appears in Table 1Go. Working from the Environmental Defense Scorecard—which includes 40 different chemical indexing systems—we computed a simple index for each chemical, based on the number of times the chemical was ranked above the 50th percentile (more hazardous than most substances) across all applicable indices; we labeled this scheme the "Modified Scorecard." For example, formaldehyde scores higher than the 50th percentile on 6 of 12 indices listed in Scorecard, for a value of 0.5. Benzene exceeds the 50th percentile on 5 of 12 indices on Scorecard, so we assigned it a value of 0.36; mercury exceeds the 50th percentile on 8 of 10 indices, so we gave it a value of 0.8 on the Modified Scorecard. Although using such a simple indicator glosses over uncertainties in measuring and summarizing information about these complex interactions, it does provide a basis for comparison.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1—— Comparison of Toxicity Indices
 

   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 References
 
Toxicity Indices and Potential Risk Scores
The correlations between indices are statistically significant but relatively weak except for 3 pairs: Total UTN and Modified Scorecard (R = .70, P > .001); USEPA PCL and Modified Scorecard (R = .77, P > .001); and TLV and EDF TEP (R = .74, P > .001). Overall, the weak correlations demonstrate statistical independence among the indices, suggesting that they are not entirely duplicative of each other and do indeed provide slightly different indicators of toxicity. This result is what we expected.

We calculated a potential risk exposure score for each facility, using the following equation, to determine the statistical and spatial manifestations of each index as applied to specific facilities.

where RPRSf is the relative potential risk score for a given facility f; n is the number of chemicals released by facility f; Ci is the amount of chemical i, in pounds; Ti is the toxicity measure of chemical i, in pounds; note Ti will be 1/Ti for concentration-based toxicity measures such as TLV.

Potential risk scores by facility are highly correlated among the Pratt, USEPA PCL, Total UTN, and Modified Scorecard indices (R = .77 to .96, P > .001). Some interesting associations appear in comparisons of theoretical statistical correlations with an application involving specific releases from individual facilities. For example, the Modified Scorecard and USEPA PCL have the highest correlation (R = .77, P > .001); when they are examined by individual facility, however, the correlation drops (R = .65, P > .001). The same is true for the association between TLV and EDF Toxic Equivalent Potential. Indices that do not appear to be highly correlated in theory (Pratt and USEPA PCL, Pratt and Total UTN) turn out to be in practice. In all but 3 instances (USEPA PCL and TLV, USEPA PCL and Modified Scorecard, TLV and EDF Toxic Equivalent Potential), correlation coefficients improved from the theoretical case to the application. Determining whether this outcome is an artifact of statistics or reflects subtle differences in the indicators when applied to individual emissions requires further research.

Spatial Variability in Toxicity Indices
We divided the relative risk scores calculated on a facility-by-facility basis into 3 equal classes (tertiles) for each index and then mapped them. As Figure 1Go shows, there is considerable geographic variability among the indices at the facility level, especially among those in the upper tertile. This variability is a function of the specific types of chemicals and quantities released by each individual facility. Depending on which toxicity index is used, facilities may migrate between classes (even though the quantity stays constant), thereby portraying a very different geography of the relative risk of facilities. In all 6 maps, 1 facility in the northern portion of the state stands out. The Bowater facility is not the largest emitter in the state, yet the combination of a large quantity and higher toxicity of those releases pushes Bowater into the top position in the state on all indices.



View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1—— Spatial distribution of relative risk of South Carolina's Toxic Release Inventory facilities, based on quantity and toxicity of emissions, showing geographic variability in relative hazardousness of facilities depending on which toxicity indicator is used.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
References
 
Researchers may choose among several toxicity indicators to estimate the risk posed to a community by an industrial facility. As this study demonstrates, the results of that choice can result in statistical and spatial variations in the results. This variability has important implications for communities or governmental agencies that base policy or equity actions on such studies. Incorporation of a toxicity measure into an equity analysis could lead to differing conclusions about environmental inequities and injustices, depending on which index were used. Therefore, careful selection and justification of toxicity indices is warranted, and caution must be exercised in interpreting the results.


   Acknowledgments
 
This research was part of a larger research effort (Susan L. Cutter, Michael E. Hodgson, and Kirstin Dow, principal investigators) that examined the spatial patterning of environmental risks and federally assisted housing. We gratefully acknowledge support from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Policy Development and Research Small Grant Competition, Project 181-97CGA.


   Footnotes
 
S. L. Cutter designed the original study and wrote the report. M. S. Scott did the statistical analysis and contributed to the writing. A. A. Hill assisted in the statistical analysis, prepared the final graphics, and helped write the report.

Peer Reviewed

Accepted for publication January 1, 2000.


   References
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 References
 
1. Stockwell JR, Sorenson JW, Eckert JW Jr, Carreras EM. The US EPA geographic information system for mapping environmental releases of toxic chemical release inventory (TRI) chemicals. Risk Anal.1993;13:155–164.[Medline]

2. Bowen WM, Salling MJ, Haynes KE, Cyran EJ. Toward environmental justice: spatial equity in Ohio and Cleveland. Ann Assoc Am Geographers.1995;85:641–663.

3. Glickman TS, Hersh R. Evaluating Environmental Equity: The Impact of Industrial Hazards on Selected Social Groups in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1995. Discussion paper 5-13.

4. Perlin SA, Setzer RW, Creason J, Sexton K. Distribution of industrial air emissions by income and race in the United States: an approach using the Toxic Release Inventory. Environ Sci Technol.1995;29:69–80.

5. Scott MS, Cutter SL. Using relative risk indicators to disclose toxic hazard information to communities. Cartography and Geogr Information Syst.1997;24:158–171.

6. McMaster RB, Leitner H, Sheppard E. GIS-based environmental equity and risk assessment: methodological problems and prospects. Cartography and Geogr Information Syst.1997;24:172–189.

7. Neumann CM, Forman DL, Rothlein JE. Hazard screening of chemical releases and environmental equity analysis of populations proximate to Toxic Release Inventory facilities in Oregon. Environ Health Perspect.1998;106:217–226.

8. 1996 Toxic Release Inventory, Public Data Release—10 Years of Right-to-Know, State Fact Sheets. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 1998. EPA 745-F-98-001.

9. Scott M, Cutter SL, Menzel C, Ji M, Wagner D. Spatial accuracy of the EPA's environmental hazards databases and their use in environmental equity analyses. Appl Geogr Stud.1997;1:45–61.

10. Cutter SL, Hodgson ME, Dow K. Subsidized inequities: the spatial patterning of environmental risks and federally-assisted housing. Urban Geography.2001;21(5):29–53.

11. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 1995–1996 Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs). Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH; 1995.

12. Pratt GC, Gerbec PE, Livingston SK, et al. An indexing system for comparing toxic air pollutants based upon their potential environmental impacts. Chemosphere.1993;27:1359–1379.

13. Waste Minimization and Prioritization Tool. Washington DC: Office of Solid Waste and Pollution Prevention and Toxics, US Environmental Protection Agency; 1997. EPA 530-R-97-019.

14. Environmental Defense Scorecard. Available at: http://www.scorecard.org. Accessed April 30, 2001.

15. Davis G. Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management Strategies: A Method for Ranking and Scoring Chemicals by Potential Human Health and Environmental Impacts. Cincinnati, Ohio: Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency; 1994. EPA 600-R-94-177.

16. Hertwich EG, Pease WS, McKone TE. Evaluating toxic impact assessment methods: what works best? Environ Sci Technol.1998;32(5):138A–145A.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Economic Development QuarterlyHome page
H. Bacot and C. O'Dell
Establishing Indicators to Evaluate Brownfield Redevelopment
Economic Development Quarterly, May 1, 2006; 20(2): 142 - 161.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cutter, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cutter, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, A. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Environment

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Public Health Association