This study was conducted to evaluate the health risk of workers exposed to phenyl glycidyl ether to prevent themfrom developing occupational diseases. The workplaces that coat floor with epoxy were selected and the sampleswere collected and analyzed with NIOSH 1619 Method. Unit risk was calculated according to the animalcarcinogenicity study. Excess cancer risk was also calculated by multiplying unit risk by exposure concentration.Monte Carlo simulation was performed to calculate the median, cumulative 90%, and cumulative 95% value.Phenyl glycidyl ether is a skin, eye irritator and can result in allergic reaction, nausea, intoxication. Unit risk wascalculated as 0.04 (mg/m³)-¹ based on the tumor incidence in rats. Geometric mean and geometric standarddeviation was also calculated as 0.112 ppm and 0.223, respectively by the workplace environment measurements.The median, cumulative 90%, and cumulative 95% value of excess cancer risk were calculated as 0.0244, 0.1328,0.1596, respectively. Not only cumulative 90% and cumulative 95% value but also the median of excess cancerrisk is much higher than 1×10-⁴ by the risk characterization, so there is a possibility of carcinogenesis to workers.Therefore, supervisors or managers of each workplace have to keep doing the risk management of their workplacesfor workers to reduce exposure to phenyl glycidyl ether.

We gathered exposure data on indoor air pollution, and investigated the dose-response slope factor for indoor air pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds, aldehydes and radon. Population cancer risks (that is the theoretical cancer deaths) were estimated from exposure to the pollutants. In addition, the damage costs, due to their risks, were estimated using WTP (willingness to pay) and VSL (value of a statistical life), which were investigated by a dichotomous contingent valuation method (DCVM). As a priority for human health risks and damage costs, management strategies are required for both radon and formaldehyde as indoor air pollutants. When the numeric results of human risks and damage costs are applied for other purposes, some assumptions and uncertainties have to be considered to use the results as useful screening tools for the administration of practical risk-based priorities.