摘要：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) 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.
