ライフサイエンスコーパス: environmental protection

1 provided by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

2 shaping attitudes toward the environment and environmental protection.

3 tively correlated with the area under strict environmental protection.

4 safety regulations, and limited measures for environmental protection.

5 nergy conversion and storage, as well as for environmental protection.

6 pplications such as occupational exposure or environmental protection.

7 creasing global needs for sustainability and environmental protection.

8 due to their advantages in energy saving and environmental protection.

9 entives for resource efficiency, equity, and environmental protection.

10 play to meet the increasing global needs for environmental protection.

11 this diet shift can be an effective tool in environmental protection.

12 om the viewpoints of both sustainability and environmental protection.

13 als in the context of emission reduction and environmental protection.

14 een sustainable development goals, including environmental protection.

15 t in guideline values that can be useful for environmental protection.

16 remediation) of nutrient-rich wastewater and environmental protection.

17 e.g., nitrogen oxide emission abatement for environmental protection.

18 imal contamination limit defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (10 nM).

19 mug L(-1)) as well as by analyzing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 552.2 CRM (certifi

20 s of ground-based measurements from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Quality System

21 with the metal, it has been mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational S

22 ts show that current inventories from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Emissions

23 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National T

24 Verhaar prediction of toxicity MOA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ASsessment Tool fo

25 Using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chemical Speciatio

26 ted Risk Information System (IRIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a toxico

27 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) county-level envir

28 During emergencies in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently recommen

29 conomy and dynamometer test data in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) database.

30 ro exposure to inorganic arsenic at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water sta

31 l units (MMBTU) is within uncertainty of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EFs.

32 sruption has driven the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Endocrine Disrupto

33 This estimate agrees with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate for natio

34 ment since the guideline value set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for inorganic merc

35 e current standard method recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the detection

36 ative inventories based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Inv

37 then 36,000-fold higher than reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Rep

38 The United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established vo

39 ted Risk Information System (IRIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated the

40 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recognized thi

41 Both vehicles were exercised over double Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Highway fuel econo

42 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified 1173 ch

43 1173 chemicals that the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified as bein

44 Launched by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1998, the High

45 e health end point used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its benefits an

46 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in vitro bioavaila

47 s designed to be consistent with the 2016 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Inventory of US Gr

48 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering hig

49 the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to per

50 ocrine Disruptor Screening Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led two worldwide

51 In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primar

52 the six N-nitrosamines evaluated using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 521.

53 an Inverse Gaussian Dispersion Model and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Model AERMOD.

54 016 Lautenberg amendments, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must evaluate chem

55 d, burned, and emissions sampled at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Open Burn Testing

56 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) periodically relea

57 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide and chem

58 Concentrations of the 16 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) priority PAHs in a

59 s of gross beta activity, collected at seven Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RadNet monitors lo

60 n concentrations (>200 mug/L) well above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended "do no

61 the Johnson-Ettinger model (JEM), which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends as a sc

62 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory B

63 ociations exist at levels below the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards (12 mug/

64 low levels of pollution within current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.

65 dous air pollutants (HAPs) identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are also pres

66 ration (EIA) was combined with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to explore ways in

67 summarizing relevant findings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ToxCast high-throu

68 increasing scientific engagement in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ToxCast initiative

69 of magnitude larger than reported to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxics Release Inv

70 rst group of pesticides reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the new law.

71 nds with alternative methodologies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used in vitro data

72 Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a simple scre

73 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Air Toxics tract

74 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Drinkin

75 looked to information contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s VI database for

76 he U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Depa

77 than a similarly adjusted total from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but overlaps EPA'

78 xposure (230 mg L(-1)), stipulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in the next 50 y

79 air pollutants (HAPs) identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not including ozo

80 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug

81 t level (MCL) suggested by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the SPR biosensor

82 aximum contaminant level of 4 ppm set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we have investiga

83 ial nanofiller effects on the profiles of 16 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-priority polycycli

84 allowed in drinking water as defined by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

85 Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

86 ry level in drinking water regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

87 tration Hg Monitoring Program (FDA-MP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)].

88 as priority pollutants by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.

89 nd high-throughput analysis of United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 16 priority p

90 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) must characte

91 o potential regulations by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) regarding the

92 s) for drinking water as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) were used to

93 In the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)'s vapor intru

94 peciation network sites of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

95 ments limiting emissions imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

96 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) will require so

97 h annual mean emissions reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Californ

98 l indicator recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for water-qualit

99 on cancer risk values that exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) health-based acc

100 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Information Coll

101 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recently propose

102 nes in Europe, and in 2007 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommended BLM-

103 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) researchers are

104 A United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) standard method

105 rs of magnitude lower than the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) tolerance limit

106 lic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)'s "PAH-34" targe

107 rs of magnitude lower than the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)-defined limit (1

108 variability in SC, [Cl], and exceedances of Environmental Protection Agency [Cl] criteria using near

109 h Council recently recommended that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopt the concept of "su

110 nt air pollutants were collected from Taiwan Environmental Protection Agency air monitoring stations.

111 our study area were in compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency air pollution standards;

112 ng air pollution data obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency air quality monitoring n

113 y summertime days between 2005 and 2014 that Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality System O3 mo

114 Using monitoring data from Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and from City of Toledo,

115 t is a decision-making tool used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other governmental o

116 iple large databases, including those of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Ve

117 We linked the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Ve

118 exposure thresholds recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Sa

119 workshop, which was cosponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institu

120 the NRC report was commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institu

121 US Environmental Protection Agency and US National Institut

122 d air pollution data were collected from the Environmental Protection Agency and Weather Warehouse da

123 perimental Use Permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency approved a pilot field t

124 Program and under consideration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are fully achievable.

125 y factors (PEFs) developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency are then applied to dete

126 y or Sustainable Chemistry is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as "the design of chemic

127 mmended by the World Health Organization and Environmental Protection Agency at all times.

128 pected from pollution changes using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Benefits Mapping Analysi

129 e concentration is well below the California Environmental Protection Agency chronic exposure limit (

130 tered at concentrations near or below the US Environmental Protection Agency chronic Fe criterion (1.

131 Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Markets databa

132 Environmental Protection Agency data provided PM(2.5) ex

133 Recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data show that 1,4-dioxa

134 re closely aligned with criteria of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency derived from epidemiolog

135 The Environmental Protection Agency determined that numeric

136 Recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emissions regulations ha

137 , 2 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than US Environmental Protection Agency estimates for this opera

138 ese spatially resolved damage estimates with Environmental Protection Agency estimates of water quali

139 mpiled biomonitoring and toxicity data, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency exposure predictions, an

140 Survey and PbA concentrations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 1999-2008.

141 06 records of fuel economy tests by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 2013 model year vehi

142 publicly available data at the United States Environmental Protection Agency for chemical-manufacturi

143 ance standards recently proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for limiting CO2 emissio

144 concentration of Hg recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the issuance of fish

145 , which is lower than that estimated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the same period (0.1

146 r than the maximum level established by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for water ingestion.

147 We compare our inventory and the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Inventory

148 tal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); (2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Reporting

149 Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Reporting

150 m nitrosamines in urban PM exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guideline of 1 excess ca

151 f detection of 1.93 uM, below that of the US environmental protection agency guidelines (5.37 uM), wi

152 g concentrations do not exceed United States Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the low e

153 The United States Environmental Protection Agency has established aggressi

154 The United States Environmental Protection Agency has identified quantific

155 Environmental Protection Agency have assessed contaminan

156 Concentrations exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health advisory of 40 mu

157 the limit value (10 nM) defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in drinkable water.

158 ewater treatment plants by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in its 2001 national sew

159 Environmental Protection Agency inventory estimate (0.29

160 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently revising it

161 The US Environmental Protection Agency is required to reexamine

162 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working toward gainin

163 Reviewing the United States Environmental Protection Agency Lead and Copper rule dat

164 is 5 orders of magnitude lower than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency limit for Cu(2+) in drin

165 sensor capable of detecting lead at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency limit for paint (5000 pp

166 ater contaminant concentrations exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency limits for discharging t

167 The United States Environmental Protection Agency maintains an inventory o

168 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant leve

169 Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant leve

170 ed to water quality criteria, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCLs and "human health c

171 ymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Methods 1611 and 1609 bu

172 nd risk of disability occur below the annual Environmental Protection Agency National Air Quality Sta

173 ethod, which was the basis for previous U.S. Environmental Protection Agency national risk assessment

174 Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulations req

175 Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulations req

176 opulation intakes exceeding the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reference dose of 0.1 mu

177 xposure for young children exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reference doses for BDE-

178 e than an order of magnitude lower than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reference doses, cumulat

179 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registration numbers, re

180 Environmental Protection Agency regulations continue to

181 Inorganic constituents regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency remained below their res

182 The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency reported airborne mangan

183 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revised the DBP regulati

184 otal concentrations up to six times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency safe drinking water limi

185 itized by the European Union and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed that the PAH CALU

186 aphy and mass spectrometry according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standard procedures.

187 Environmental Protection Agency study assessing more tha

188 Arsenic ranks first on the US Environmental Protection Agency Superfund List of Hazard

189 est Supersite, a monitoring site of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Supersites ambient air m

190 Evaluation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Targeted National Sewage

191 ative human health effects prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue lifetime drinki

192 es the daily intake levels exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tolerable Daily Intake (

193 in agriculture were recently stopped by the Environmental Protection Agency under false scientific p

194 ility-scale data newly collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was processed to produce

195 2 y of life (F2YL), using data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Air Quality Sy

196 Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental

197 ans (C. elegans) was used to screen the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ToxCast Phase

198 -MARKAL model with a modified version of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 9-region databas

199 Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current practice

200 We reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current practice

201 1534 km(2) contained [U] >30 mug/L, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Maximum Contamin

202 r DEHP in 39 individuals were above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) reference dose (

203 We used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Six-Year Review

204 This review focused the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ToxCast(TM) high

205 and PFOA were removed to below United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) health advis

206 Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 Endangerment Find

207 fic evidence that has emerged since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 Endangerment Find

208 3 and health effects were identified in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2013 Integrated Scienc

209 s 0.04 in a million, which is below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's acceptable risk level.

210 nal air pollutant measures were based on the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality System dat

211 stimates based on data derived from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality System dat

212 ter <=2.5 um (PM(2.5)) was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality System.

213 Environmental Protection Agency's Benefits Mapping and A

214 s an emerging contaminant in the most recent Environmental Protection Agency's candidate contaminant

215 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's community multiscale a

216 eater (95% cr int: 1.7x, 8.7x) than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current greenhouse gas

217 ozone and PM2.5 for 2001-2008 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's down-scaled estimates

218 ation from 5 ppm to 1 ppb, lower than the US Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water limit (

219 nd total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency's Drinking Water Maximum

220 Environmental Protection Agency's ECOTOX database with a

221 man exposures predicted in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ExpoCast program.

222 re 90% larger than estimates based on the US Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Invento

223 5% confidence interval) compared to the 2012 Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Invento

224 ained significant for PM2.5 levels below the Environmental Protection Agency's health-safety limit (1

225 ts the current 70 ng/L of PFOA and PFOS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's lifetime health adviso

226 As at 0, 500x, 1,000x, or 2,000x of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's maximum contaminant le

227 f volatile organic compounds, well below the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum contaminant le

228 ured from several monitoring sites by the US Environmental Protection Agency's monitoring network.

229 and predicted emission rates using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's MOVES model was also a

230 ngation in populations protected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Q

231 iences/National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Center for Co

232 tem optimization model is used with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's nine-region database t

233 This study uses the Environmental Protection Agency's Other Test Method 33A

234 s near 40 ng/m(3), which was higher than the Environmental Protection Agency's Reference Concentratio

235 pact categories defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Tool for the Reduction

236 Our approach, the US Environmental Protection Agency's ToxCast program, utili

237 12, the facilities that reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic Release Inventor

238 pper, manganese, or lead (as reported to the Environmental Protection Agency) and counties with no/lo

239 B12-recovery rates (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007) were determined t

240 collection method used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and delta(15)N-NOx was

241 describe its current application at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and point out how it co

242 gation Management Information System, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Climat

243 the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Centers fo

244 blished by the World Health Organization and Environmental Protection Agency, and whether implementat

245 ical manufacturing data reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other publis

246 US Environmental Protection Agency, Consultative Group on I

247 of 50 microg/kg day set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, during adolescent devel

248 MS and screened for aerosolized toxins using Environmental Protection Agency-certified methods.

249 Environmental Protection Agency-modeled levels of hazard

250 We also record 271.6-474.9 pmol/mg of Environmental Protection Agency-priority polycyclic arom

251 d by the US Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.

252 deciles of PM2.5 were obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

253 d by European Food Safety Authority and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

254 ubstances and Disease Registry, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

255 tions (i.e., safe levels) issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

256 uses in regulations set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

257 9908 (1999-2008) with PbA data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

258 ting level in drinking water set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

259 y Maximum Contaminant Levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

260 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

261 f 80 mug L(-1) mandated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

262 (3+) permitted in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

263 the health advisory established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

264 Environmental Protection Agency.

265 ional Heart Lung and Blood Institute, and US Environmental Protection Agency.

266 tes for upcoming risk assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

267 rus disinfection regulations set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

268 alities and determine HAAs and THMs using US-Environmental-Protection-Agency (EPA) methods.

269 the complementarities and trade-offs between environmental protection and biofuel development objecti

270 hotocatalyst, Ag3PO4/g-C3N4, in simultaneous environmental protection and energy production.

271 l methods for applications in fields such as environmental protection and energy production.

272 t in a range of areas, including healthcare, environmental protection and energy-related technologies

273 n social policies may contribute to stronger environmental protection and higher environmental qualit

274 of great interest for toxicology assessment, environmental protection and human health.

275 put soils at the centre of policy supporting environmental protection and sustainable development.

276 ims at reconciling economic development with environmental protection and sustainable resource use.

277 es applied, emphasis on biodegradability and environmental protection, and integrated pest- and pesti

278 tion, improved programs of public health and environmental protection are needed in countries at ever

279 five decades reveal significant triumphs of environmental protection, but also notable failures, whi

280 irable for the purpose of nuclear safety and environmental protection, but currently not achievable g

281 n filters from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection for six cities in Connecticut.

282 We conclude that environmental protection goals relying on measures of ri

283 Environmental protection in the United States has reache

284 However, environmental protection is also critical to realize a s

285 omic evaluation and effective enforcement of environmental protection law.

286 solves practical tasks of geological survey, environmental protection, medicine, industry, agricultur

287 ny energy technologies, emissions reduction, environmental protection, mining accident prevention, ch

288 priorities among agricultural production and environmental protection objectives.

289 domain of governmental agencies involved in environmental protection, occupational safety, and trans

290 apeutic drugs, as well as in food safety and environmental protection operations is demonstrated.

291 May 19, 2011 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) requested drilling comp

292 , with results reported to the Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).

293 The implementation of a national environmental protection policy has become urgent.

294 in medical diagnostics and food safety, for environmental protection, process control, wastewater tr

295 The United States has made substantial environmental protection progress based on media-specifi

296 Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection requires that all water sources

297 talise on investments that societies make in environmental protection that provide ancillary benefits

298 type constitutes genetic risk and allows for environmental protection, thereby providing options for

299 need to be reevaluated to afford appropriate environmental protection under future conditions of OA.

300 holarly views on the commitment of states to environmental protection when energy development opportu