臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來，許多環境問題的思考，已從污染排放端的管理，擴展至預防性思考，不只關心環境損害之復原或賠償，亦關注何為環境影響的驅動力。本研究目的在於發展一整合性方法，以鑑定特定人類經濟活動，因帶動有害物質在經濟體系與環境體系的流動，而成為多種環境健康風險來源或驅動力。透過本研究，得從一個較寬廣的視野，探討有害物質透過環境所造成之人體健康風險。該工具方法的應用，可以量化各種造成環境健康風險活動之貢獻比例，亦有助於評估多種有害物質管理手段，對於環境風險減輕之效果潛力。

本研究之核心方法整合物質流分析、產業投入產出分析與風險評估三種方法，以物質流分析作為描繪經濟系統中，物質代謝與環境釋放的與各種物質相關經濟活動間之關係；再以產業投入產出分析解析國內與出口需要對於國內各產業複雜的驅動效果；並以風險評估量化進入環境中的有害物質對人類健康之損害程度。本研究之對於有害物質之環境釋放，分別在國家尺度與縣市尺度進行盤查，並開發整合上述3方法之模式，區別各別物質流或經濟需求對於環境風險之因果關係，以代表貢獻度的系統流程圖，檢視有害物質的風險如何受到經濟系統活動所驅動，因此得以評估不同風險管理策略情境，計算其環境健康風險之減量潛勢。

為整合三種核心方法的優點，本研究對物質流模型、環境經濟模型以及健康衝擊量化方法進行的回顧，並依歐盟所提的DPSIR環境衝擊的因果關係鏈架構，設計模式之整合架構，明確定義有害物質流動的驅動力(D)、環境排放的壓力(P)、環境濃度的狀態變化(S)、人體暴露的健康衝擊(I)，R則是檢視D、P、S及的關聯，回應風險的需要所做的管理方案，本研究建立其相關情境案例，分析風險減輕效果。DPSIR架構的整合模式以模組設計，包括國家經濟部門活動模型組、物質流動模組、排放強度模組、污染及廢棄物管控模組以及健康衝擊指標量化模組，各模組以分配係數矩陣之方式設計，因此可以用來追蹤危害風險的來源以及傳遞路徑，比較不同來源或不同途徑對於受體暴露風險的貢獻度，結合敏感度分析則是可以篩選關鍵之決策因子，各模組具有設計彈性，可隨問題焦點與界定之範疇做調整，定義程序、部門與環境傳輸媒介。

在彈性架構下，以砷物質流案例分析地區之風險，並針對風險高之地區，從物質流與風險之因果鏈中建立風險改變之情境，依地區燃煤發電、煉油廠之技術規模變動估算其平均砷環境風險之變動幅度。另一案例以鉛之物質流系統為基礎，做為物質流與產業經濟整合模式之範例，示範各模組編製之過程，以及如何在試算表軟體中建置分析模型。鉛模式最主要功能在於國家尺度經濟活動對區域物質流與區域風險之影響，反映產業變化趨勢，透過改變鉛排放對環境風險造成之影響，國家尺度之評估則反映系統排放量之增減。本研究方法所推估情境之健康風險變化結果，宜以相對於該物質既有之健康風險之增減幅度來解釋，不適用於預測精確之實地風險。

This research faces a pressing need in environmental risk assessment. The care of the public about the preventative risk management is upsurging. However, a knowledge gap for risk management for hazardous substances still exist for the complicated linkage between the causes and effects with the scope of interacting economy and environmental systems. Aiming at filling this gap, this research took the advantages of different systemic analysis tools to illustrate the health risks due to the exposure to anthropogenic hazardous substances. With the big pictures derived from our analyses, more opportunities through changing the causes can be identified to reduce the risks.

The three key methods are substance flow analysis, input-output modeling, and environmental risk assessment. Substance flow analysis was used to characterize metabolism of society; input-output modeling was used to elaborate the complicated supply-demand interaction between sectors; environmental risk assessment was used to quantify the damage on human health caused by anthropogenic sources. This research investigated the opportunities in the systems of country-wde scope and city/county-wide scope. The potential of environmetal health risk was measured at both scopes in the case studies of arsenic and that of lead, including their compounds.

One novelty of our approach is the integration of method in to a model that allows to backtrack the contributions of different causes to the overall anthropogenic health risk of a substance. The model was designed with the inspiration of the DPSIR framework, which addresses the key components of the cause-effect chain of environmental problem. The models combines the DPSI modules for economic metabolism as the Driving forces, emissions as the Pressure, addition to envirionmental concentration as the State changes, and exposure and characterized health risk as the Impact. Thus, the complicated linkage can be presented and examined for effect of changes toward the current state of economic metabolism of a hazardous substance.

To derive the options for changes, the proposed approach provides two major advantages, includinhg the insights into the possible rise of risk in the trend of industrial development and possible level of risk reduction. Several scenarios were analyzed and compare to demonstrate the magnitude of increment or reduction, in comparison with the state of the base line health risk.

Regarding the value and application of the proposed approach, the uncertainty is specified and discussed for the applicability. The combination of the normally national-scaled substance flow analysis, and the normally locally-scaled environmental risk analysis inevitably lead to a compromise in the precsion and accuracy of model result, though a big picture of the interaction between economic metabolism and environmental health risk can be generated. Therefore, the results derived from our modelling technique should serve as quick screening tool for findling the actors playing big role to the increment of anthropogenic envornmental health risk. The rough comparsion of the scenarios, with respect to the changes, can be taken as a referencial information for the decision makers to set their priority of their environmental health risk management measures.

口試委員會審定書 i
誌謝 ii
中文摘要 iv
英文摘要 vi
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與問題 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 主要創新與貢獻 3
1.4 論文架構 3
第二章 文獻回顧 6
2.1 從環境風險評估到環境風險管理 6
2.2 有害物質的環境傳輸與多介質模式 9
2.3 物質流分析方法與其對於鑑定風險源的之應用 10
2.4 環境投入產出分析架構對於物質流分析模式的強化 15
2.5 物質流分析與風險評估的尺度差異性 20
第三章 經濟系統物質流與環境風險之DPSIR整合分析方法 24
3.1 DPSIR環境管理架構 24
3.2 有害物質風險之DPSIR因果鏈 25
3.3 方法整合之研究案例回顧 27
3.4 整合模式之工具選擇 36
3.5 研究案例之物質流分析 40
3.6 研究案例之區域產業分析 44
3.7 研究案例之環境多介質模式設定 47
3.8 研究案例之DPSIR整合模型 50
3.9 研究案例之環境風險驅力分析 61
第四章 物質流分析與其環境釋放估算結果 64
4.1 砷案例研究目的與系統範疇 64
4.2 砷案例物質流系統盤查分析 64
4.3 砷案例物質流模型與風險計算 68
4.4 鉛案例研究目的與系統範疇 71
4.5 鉛案例物質流系統盤查分析 72
4.6 鉛案例物質流模型與風險計算 77
第五章 風險量化與策略趨勢分析結果 82
5.1 從砷的風險熱區產業與鉛的風險驅力鑑定風險影響因子 82
5.2 風險管理的策略效果評估與趨勢分析 90
第六章 整合方法之應用與限制 101
6.1 整合方法之應用與特色 101
6.2 整合方法之限制與不確定性 102
6.3 整合方法之結果闡釋 103
6.4 分析資訊之應用於管理之可行性 105
第七章 結論與建議 108
文獻回顧 111
參考文獻 111
附錄 121

1.Abt, E., Rodricks, J.V., Levy, J.I., Zeise, L., Burke, T.A., 2010. Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment. Risk Analysis 30, 1028–1036.
2.Arvidsson, R., 2012. Contributions to emission, exposure and risk assessment of nanomaterials. Chalmers University of Technology.
3.Ayres, R.U., Norberg-Bohm, V., Prince, J., Stigliani, W.M., Yanowitz, J., 1989. Industrial metabolism, the environment, and application of materials-balance principles for selected chemicals [WWW Document]. URL http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=93780 (accessed 1.16.15).
4.Baccini, P., Brunner, P.H., 1991. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere. Springer-Verlag.
5.Bailey, R., Allen, J.K., Bras, B., 2004. Applying Ecological Input-Output Flow Analysis to Material Flows in Industrial Systems: Part I: Tracing Flows. Journal of Industrial Ecology 8, 45–68.
6.Bailey, R., Bras, B., Allen, J.K., 2004. Applying Ecological Input-Output Flow Analysis to Material Flows in Industrial Systems: Part II: Flow Metrics. Journal of Industrial Ecology 8, 69–91.
7.Barker, K., Santos, J.R., 2010. A Risk-Based Approach for Identifying Key Economic and Infrastructure Systems. Risk Analysis 9999.
8.Bennett, D.H., Margni, M.D., McKone, T.E., Jolliet, O., 2002. Intake Fraction for Multimedia Pollutants: A Tool for Life Cycle Analysis and Comparative Risk Assessment. Risk Analysis 22, 905–918.
9.Bonnard, R., 2006. Common Errors in the Use of the CalTOX Model to Assess the Human Health Risks Linked to Industrial Emissions of Pollutants. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 12, 1000–1010.
10.Bouman, M., Heijungs, R., van der Voet, E., van den Bergh, J., Huppes, G., 2000. Material flows and economic models: an analytical comparison of SFA, LCA and partial equilibrium models. Ecological Economics 32, 195–216.
11.Briggs, D., 2008. A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks. Environmental Health 7, 61.
12.Brunner, P.H., Ma, H.W., 2009. Substance Flow Analysis-An Indispensable Tool for Goal-Oriented Waste Management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13, 11–14.
13.Brunner, P.H., 2010. Substance Flow Analysis as a Decision Support Tool for Phosphorus Management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, 870–873.
14.Cavalcante, R.M., Campelo, C.S., Barbosa, M.J., Silveira, E.R., Carvalho, T.V., Nascimento, R.F., 2006. Determination of carbonyl compounds in air and cancer risk assessment in an academic institute in Fortaleza, Brazil. Atmospheric Environment 40, 5701–5711.
15.Chang, I.C., Hsiao, T.Y., Yu, Y.H., Ma, H.W., 2007. Identification of Pollution Source of Cadmium in Soil. Application of Material Flow Analysis and A Case Study in Taiwan (11 pp). Environmental Science and Pollution Research 14, 49–59.
16.Commission, E., 1996. Technical Guidance Document in Support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assesment for New Notified Substances and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for Existing Substances. OOPEC.
17.Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA, National Research Council, 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
18.Crettaz, P., Pennington, D., Rhomberg, L., Brand, K., Jolliet, O., 2002. Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1—Cancer Effects. Risk Analysis 22, 931–946.
19.Detsky, A.S., Abrams, H.B., Forbath, N., Scott, J.G., Hilliard, J.R., 1986. Cardiac assessment for patients undergoing noncardiac surgery a multifactorial clinical risk index. Archives of internal medicine 146, 2131.
20.Finnveden, G., Moberg, Å., 2005. Environmental systems analysis tools – an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 1165–1173.
21.Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Mayer, A., Bringezu, S., Moriguchi, Y., Schütz, H., Schandl, H., Weisz, H., 2011. Methodology and Indicators of Economy-wide Material Flow Accounting. Journal of Industrial Ecology 15, 855–876.
22.Guinee, J.B., Van den Bergh, J., Boelens, J., Fraanje, P.J., Huppes, G., Kandelaars, P., Lexmond, T.M., Moolenaar, S.W., Olsthoorn, A.A., Udo de Haes, H.A., 1999. Evaluation of risks of metal flows and accumulation in economy and environment. Ecological economics 30, 47–65.
23.Giljum, S., Bruckner, M., Martinez, A., 2014. Material Footprint Assessment in a Global Input-Output Framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology.
24.Hawkins, T., Hendrickson, C., Higgins, C., Matthews, H.S., Suh, S., 2007. A mixed-unit input-output model for environmental life-cycle assessment and material flow analysis. Environmental science & technology 41, 1024–1031.
25.Hendrickson, C.T., Lave, L.B., Matthews, H.S., 2010. Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: An input-output approach. Routledge.
26.Haes, H.A.U., Heijungs, R., 2009. Analysis of Physical Interactions Between the Economy and the Environment. Principles of Environmental Sciences 207–237.
27.Hansen, E., Lassen, C., 2002. Experience with the use of substance flow analysis in Denmark. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6, 201–220
28.Hendriks, C., Obernosterer, R., Müller, D., Kytzia, S., Baccini, P., Brunner, P.H., 2000. Material Flow Analysis: A tool to support environmental policy decision making. Case-studies on the city of Vienna and the Swiss lowlands. Local Environment 5, 311–328.
29.Hendrickson, C. T., Horvath, A., Joshi, S., & Lave, L. B. (1998). Economic input-output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 32, 184A–191A.
30.Hertwich, E.G., Mateles, S.F., Pease, W.S., McKone, T.E., 2001. Human toxicity potentials for life cycle assessment and toxics release inventory risk screening. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20, 928–939.
31.Hoekstra, R., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2006. Constructing physical input–output tables for environmental modeling and accounting: Framework and illustrations. Ecological Economics 59, 375–393. D
32.Hoekstra, R., 2010. Physical input-output tables: developments and future. Presented at the The 18th International Input-Output Conference, Sydney, Australia.
33.Jang, E., Kim, K., Kim, K., Hur, T., 2012a. Material Flow Analysis and Human Risk Assessment of Mercury, in: Matsumoto, D.M., Umeda, P.Y., Masui, D.K., Fukushige, D.S. (Eds.), Design for Innovative Value Towards a Sustainable Society. Springer Netherlands, pp. 888–890.
34.Jang, E., Kim, K., Kim, K., Hur, T., 2012b. Material Flow Analysis and Human Risk Assessment of Mercury, in: Matsumoto, D.M., Umeda, P.Y., Masui, D.K., Fukushige, D.S. (Eds.), Design for Innovative Value Towards a Sustainable Society. Springer Netherlands, pp. 888–890.
35.Kelly, K.A., Cardon, N.C., 1994. The myth of 10-6 as a definition of acceptable risk. EPA Watch 3.
36.Kao, W.-Y., Ma, H., Wang, L.-C., Chang-Chien, G.-P., 2007. Site-specific health risk assessment of dioxins and furans in an industrial region with numerous emission sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials 145, 471–481.
37.Konijn, P., de Boer, S., van Dalen, J., 1997. Input-output analysis of material flows with application to iron, steel and zinc. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 8, 129–153.
38.Kiyotaka, T., Hideki, W., 2006. Substance Flow Analysis of Nickel for Risk Assessment of Nickel and Nickel Compounds in Japan. Tetsu to Hagane 92, 627–634.
39.Klinke, A., Renn, O., 2002. A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies1. Risk Analysis 22, 1071–1094.
40.Kwonpongsagoon, S., Waite, D.T., Moore, S.J., Brunner, P.H., 2007. A substance flow analysis in the southern hemisphere: cadmium in the Australian economy. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 9, 175–187
41.Kwonpongsagoon, S., Waite, T.D., Moore, S.J., 2003. Use of Information from Substance Flux Analysis for Human Health Risk Assessment at Regional Scales: Cadmium as a Case Study in Australia. Presented at the International Modelling of Biophysical, social and economic systems for resource management solutions, Modelling & Simulation Society of Australia & New Zeland, Townsville QLD.
42.Laniak, G.F., Droppo, J.G., Faillace, E.R., Gnanapragasam, E.K., Mills, W.B., Strenge, D.L., Whelan, G., Yu, C., 1997. An Overview of a Multimedia Benchmarking Analysis for Three Risk Assessment Models: RESRAD, MMSOILS, and MEPAS. Risk Analysis 17, 203–214.
43.Lassen, C., Hansen, E., COWI, C.E., Planners, A.S., 2000. Paradigm for Substance Flow Analyses. Guide to SFAs carried out for the Danish EPA. Environmental Project 577.
44.Leontief, W., 1970. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input-output approach. The review of economics and statistics 52, 262–271.
45.Lifset, R.J., Gordon, R.B., Graedel, T.E., Spatari, S., Bertram, M., 2002. Where has all the copper gone: The stocks and flows project, part 1. JOM 54, 21–26.
46.Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Batchelor, C., Bridges, T., Ferguson, E., 2006. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications. Environment International 32, 1072–1093.
47.Lombardi, D.R., Lyons, D., Shi, H., Agarwal, A., 2012. Industrial Symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16, 2–7.
48.Ma, H., 2002. Stochastic multimedia risk assessment for a site with contaminated groundwater. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 16, 464–478.
49.Ma, H., Lai, Y.-L., Chan, C.-C., 2002. Transfer of dioxin risk between nine major municipal waste incinerators in Taiwan. Environment International 28, 103–110.
50.Ma, H., Hung, M.-L., Chen, P.-C., 2007. A systemic health risk assessment for the chromium cycle in Taiwan. Environment International 33, 206–218
51.Ma, H., Shih, H.-C., Hung, M.-L., Chao, C.-W., Li, P.-C., 2012. Integrating Input Output Analysis with Risk Assessment to Evaluate the Population Risk of Arsenic. Environmental science & technology 46, 1104–1110.
52.Mackay, Donald; Paterson, S, 1991. Evaluating the multimedia fate of organic chemicals. A level III fugacity model. Environmental Science and Technology. pp. 25; 427–436
53.Marin, C.M., Guvanasen, V., Saleem, Z.A., 2003. The 3MRA Risk Assessment Framework—A Flexible Approach for Performing Multimedia, Multipathway, and Multireceptor Risk Assessments Under Uncertainty. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 9, 1655–1677.
54.Mansson, N., Bergback, B., Sorme, L., n.d. Phasing Out Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury.
55.Mao, J.S., Dong, J., Graedel, T.E., 2008. The multilevel cycle of anthropogenic lead: II. Results and discussion. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 1050–1057.
56.Mao, J.S., Dong, J., Graedel, T.E., 2008. The multilevel cycle of anthropogenic lead:: I. Methodology. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 1058–1064.
57.McKone, T.E., 1993. CalTOX, A Multimedia Total Exposure Model for Hazardous Waste Sites. Part III: The Multiple Pathway Exposure Model. The Office of Scientific Affairs. Department of Toxic Substances Control. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacremento, CA.
58.Miller, R.E., Blair, P.D., 2009. Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press.
59.Miller, I., Shelly, M., Jonmaire, P., Lee, R.V., Harbison, R.D., 2005. Assessing contributory risk using economic input-output life-cycle analysis. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 15, 107–115.
60.Moll, H.C., Noorman, K.J., Kok, R., Engstrom, R., Throne-Holst, H., Clark, C., 2005. Pursuing more sustainable consumption by analyzing household metabolism in European countries and cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9, 259.
61.Morf, L.S., Buser, A.M., Taverna, R., Bader, H.P., Scheidegger, R., 2008. Dynamic Substance Flow Analysis as a Valuable Risk Evaluation Tool A Case Study for Brominated Flame Retardants as an Example of Potential Endocrine Disrupters. CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry 62, 424–431.
62.Nansai, K., & Moriguchi, Y. (2006). Welcome to 3EID, (January 24, 2006); http://www-cger.nies.go.jp/publication/D031/index.html
63.Newhook, R., Hirtle, H., Byrne, K., Meek, M.E., 2003. Releases from copper smelters and refineries and zinc plants in Canada: human health exposure and risk characterization. Science of the Total Environment 301, 23–41.
64.Nishioka, Y., Levy, J., Norris, G.A., Bennett, D., Spengler, J., 2005a. A Risk-Based Approach to Health Impact Assessment for Input-Output Analysis, Part 1: Methodology (7 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10, 193–199.
65.Nishioka, Y., Levy, J., Norris, G.A., Bennett, D., Spengler, J., 2005b. A Risk-Based Approach to Health Impact Assessment for Input-Output Analysis, Part 2: Case Study of Insulation (8 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10, 255–262.
66.Niza, S., Rosado, L., Ferrão, P., 2009. Urban Metabolism. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13, 384–405.
67.NRC (National Research Council), 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
68.OECD, 2008. Measuring Material Flows and Resource Productivity-Volume I. The OECD Guide. In. Edited by Derry Allen SB, Aldo Femia, Tomas Hak, Jan Kovanda, Yuichi Moriguchi, Heinz Schandl, Karl Schoer, Eric Turcotte, Aya Yoshida.
69.Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R., Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J., Schuhmacher, M., Meent, D. van de, Hauschild, M.Z., 2008. USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13, 532–546.
70.Pennington, D.W., Margni, M., Ammann, C., Jolliet, O., 2005. Multimedia Fate and Human Intake Modeling:  Spatial versus Nonspatial Insights for Chemical Emissions in Western Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 1119–1128.
71.Pistocchi, A., Sarigiannis, D.A., Vizcaino, P., 2010a. Spatially explicit multimedia fate models for pollutants in Europe: State of the art and perspectives. Science of The Total Environment 408, 3817–3830.
72.Pizzol, M., Christensen, P., Schmidt, J., Thomsen, M., 2011. Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 646–656.
73.Rehr, A.P., Small, M.J., Matthews, H.S., Hendrickson, C.T., 2010. Economic Sources and Spatial Distribution of Airborne Chromium Risks in the US. Environmental science & technology 44, 2131–2137.
74.Seuring, S., 2004. Integrated chain management and supply chain management comparative analysis and illustrative cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, Applications of Industrial Ecology 12, 1059–1071.
75.Sonnemann, G., Castells, F., Schuhmacher, M., 2004. Integrated Life-Cycle and Risk Assessment for Industrial Processes. CRC Press.
76.Sorme, L., Bergback, B., Lohm, U., 2001. Goods in the Anthroposphere as a Metal Emission Source A Case Study of Stockholm, Sweden. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus 1, 213–227.
77.Struijs, J. and Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M. 2002 Predictions by the multimedia fate model Simplebox compared to field data. Intermedia concentration ratios of twp phthalate esters. RIVM Report 60722008. Bilthoven: RIVM.
78.Tiwari, C., Rushton, G., 2010. A Spatial Analysis System for Integrating Data, Methods and Models on Environmental Risks and Health Outcomes. Transactions in GIS 14, 177–195.
79.Tukker, A., 2002. Risk Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment—The Common Challenge of Dealing with the Precautionary Frame (Based on the Toxicity Controversy in Sweden and the Netherlands). Risk Analysis 22, 821–832.
80.Tukker, A., Buist, H., van Oers, L., van der Voet, E., 2006. Risks to health and environment of the use of lead in products in the EU. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49, 89–109.
81.Tukker, A., Kleijn, R., van der Voet, E., Smeets, E.R.W., 1997. Chlorine in the Netherlands, part II: Risk management in uncertainty for chlorine. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1, 91–110.
82.UNEP (2013) Environmental Risks and Challenges of Anthropogenic Metals Flows and Cycles, A Report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel. van der Voet, E.; Salminen, R.; Eckelman, M.; Mudd, G.; Norgate, T.; Hischier, R.
83.Yuan, Z., Shi, J., Wu, H., Zhang, L., Bi, J., 2011. Understanding the anthropogenic phosphorus pathway with substance flow analysis at the city level. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 2021–2028.
84.Van Leeuwen, C.J., Vermeire, T.G., Vermeire, T., 2007. Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction. Springer.
85.Viscusi, W.K., 1993. The value of risks to life and health. Journal of Economic Literature 31, 1912–1946.
86.Voet, E. van der, Oers, L. van, Guinée, J.B., Haes, H.A.U. de, 1999. Using SFA indicators to support environmental policy. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res 6, 49–58.
87.Wakefield, J., 2000. Human Exposure: the key to better risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives 108, A559.
88.Wright, H., Zhang, Q., Mihelcic, J., 2008. Integrating economic input–output life cycle assessment with risk assessment for a screening-level analysis. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13, 412–420.
89.AREMOS 台灣經濟統計資料庫，台灣地區工業生產統計資料庫，2007-2008.
90.AREMOS 台灣經濟統計資料庫，國內外原物料商品統計資料庫，2007-2008.
91.陳必晟，2004，台灣地區鉻之物質流與風險評估，國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所，碩士論文
92.蘇宏仁，2009，台灣地區砷之物質流分析，國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所，碩士論文
93.張琪惠，2010，台灣地區鉛之物質流分析與環境衝擊評估，國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所，碩士論文
94.財政部關稅署，統計資料庫查詢 進出口貨物、數量、價值查詢(按年)，2009，http://web.customs.gov.tw/statistic/statistic/yerstatistic.asp.
95.產業技術知識服務計畫(ITIS)，產銷存資料庫，2009b，http://itisweb2.itis.org.tw/itispss/itispss_start.aspx.
96.經濟部礦務局，2009，主要礦產品產銷年報 (2008年).
97.中央氣象局，2012，氣候統計資料， http://www.cwb.gov.tw/.
98.行政院環保署，2002，廢棄物固化處理固化體溶出物之預測模式－含重金屬污泥固化處理後固化體溶出重金屬預測模式.
99.行政院環保署，2003，焚化爐飛灰及底灰重金屬物質成分調查.
100.行政院環保署，2007，鉛二次冶煉廠空氣污染物排放標準，空氣污染防制法.
101.行政院環保署，空水廢毒管理資訊系統(EMS)，2009，http://ems.epa.gov.tw/Default.aspx.
102.行政院環境保護署，2008，固定污染源毒性空氣污染物（戴奧辛及重金屬）排放清冊調查及管制計畫
103.行政院環保署，空氣污染排放量查詢系統 TEDS 7.0 資料庫，2009， http://teds.epa.gov.tw/.
104.105.產業技術知識服務計畫(ITIS)，台灣進出口，2009a，http://www.itis.org.tw/ITISImpExp/Goods.screen.
105.106.產業技術知識服務計畫(ITIS)，產銷存資料庫，2009b，http://itisweb2.itis.org.tw/itispss/itispss_start.aspx.
106.行政院環保署，事業廢棄物申報管理及資訊系統，2010，http://waste.epa.gov.tw/prog/IndexFrame.asp.
107.行政院主計處，2010，產業關聯表編製報告 民國95年.
108.行政院主計處，2014，產業關聯表編民國100年.
109.國家標準，2009，室內裝飾裝修材料溶劑型塗料中有害物質限量.
110.國際電工委員會(IEC)，電子電氣產品中限用的六種物質（鉛、鎘、汞、六價鉻、多溴聯苯、多溴二苯醚）濃度的測定方式，http://www.tbcl.com.tw/Product/RoHS/IEC%20sampling.htm.