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

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

2 pplications such as occupational exposure or environmental protection.

3 creasing global needs for sustainability and environmental protection.

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

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

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

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

8 om the viewpoints of both sustainability and environmental protection.

9 ng, application of efficient technology, and environmental protection.

10 revention to sanitation, waste disposal, and environmental protection.

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

12 shaping attitudes toward the environment and environmental protection.

13 tively correlated with the area under strict environmental protection.

14 safety regulations, and limited measures for environmental protection.

15 Other sources of environmental protection against severe conditions of UV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 nservative contaminant exposure levels used [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water sta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37 trated from the immediate environment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Human Studies Faci

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

39 1173 chemicals that the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified as bein

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

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

42 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in vitro bioavaila

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

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

45 The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is interested in p

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

47 is 10 nM (2 ppb) Hg (2+), which is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limit of [Hg (2+)]

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

49 estimated exposure to UV radiation based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) measurements.

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

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

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

53 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide and chem

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

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

56 d fluid extraction, which is compared to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sonication method.

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

58 ss (PM2.5) in air at levels above current US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards is a ris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Drinkin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

74 easured accuracy by comparing vendor- and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-assigned geocodes

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

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

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

78 O2(2+) in drinking water defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

95 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) researchers are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

112 US Environmental Protection Agency and US National Institut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120 limit (approximately 246 nM) set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency but also are comparable

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

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

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

124 The Environmental Protection Agency determined that numeric

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

126 , 2 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than US Environmental Protection Agency estimates for this opera

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

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

129 06 records of fuel economy tests by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 2013 model year vehi

130 sk of several strains registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for biological control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

138 etic chemicals are enormously expensive: the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that envir

139 The United States Environmental Protection Agency has identified quantific

140 The United Nations and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have identified a variet

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

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

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

144 The US Environmental Protection Agency is required to reexamine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

152 ase were obtained from a space-time model of Environmental Protection Agency monitor data linked to r

153 Data from US Environmental Protection Agency monitors were used to es

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

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

156 waterborne bacterium, has been placed by the Environmental Protection Agency on the Contaminant Candi

157 osure to indoor NO2 at levels well below the Environmental Protection Agency outdoor standard (53 ppb

158 Environmental Protection Agency proposed regulations req

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

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

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

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

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

164 Environmental Protection Agency regulations continue to

165 s with comparisons to US Pharmacopeia and US Environmental Protection Agency regulatory standards.

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

167 The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency reported airborne mangan

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

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

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

171 The US Environmental Protection Agency suggests a threshold lea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

179 2 y of life (F2YL), using data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Air Quality Sy

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

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

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

183 Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current practice

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

185 1534 km(2) contained [U] >30 mug/L, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Maximum Contamin

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

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

188 3 and health effects were identified in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2013 Integrated Scienc

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

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

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

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

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

194 etween ambient concentrations of five of the Environmental Protection Agency's criteria pollutants an

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

196 Perchlorate has been added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Drinking Water Contami

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

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

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

200 5% confidence interval) compared to the 2012 Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Invento

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

209 women had concentrations higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency's recommended reference

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

211 n, at a daily dose equal to the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's reference safe daily l

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

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

214 12, the facilities that reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxic Release Inventor

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

216 EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency) Green Lights Program fo

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

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

219 l Priorities List sites identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency, and its precursors PCE

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

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

222 y Network database; selected U.S. Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of

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

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

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

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

227 Environmental Protection Agency-modeled levels of hazard

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

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

230 9908 (1999-2008) with PbA data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

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

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

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

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

235 (3+) permitted in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

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

237 as been shared with Health Canada and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

238 10) concentrations were obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

239 any and support recent conclusions by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

240 ssessment by using a model developed for the Environmental Protection Agency.

241 t toxins ever evaluated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

259 Environmental protection in the United States has reache

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

261 omic evaluation and effective enforcement of environmental protection law.

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

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

264 priorities among agricultural production and environmental protection objectives.

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

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

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

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

269 urgery, precisely managed immunosuppression, environmental protection (particularly in the hospital),

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

271 educed availability of some nematicides, for environmental protection, pose significant obstacles for

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

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

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

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

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

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