Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Chemical Handling in South Korea and the Implications for Environmental Health: An Analysis of National Chemical Statistics Surveys from 2014~2024

Background: Chemical management priorities in South Korea are typically discussed in terms of handling volume.Whether the regions handling the largest volumes are also those handling the widest range of hazardous chemicals has been a subject of little attention.Objectives: Using six rounds of the national chemical statistics survey from 2014~2024, this study examined changes in chemical handling and compared regional characteristics along the two axes of handling volume and substance diversity.Methods: Changes over time in volume and composition were analyzed across the rounds.For 2024, regional concentrations were assessed using the top-three regional share (CR3) and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index.Associations between the number of hazardous chemicals handled and total handling volume across 17 provinces were assessed using Pearson, Spearman, and log-transformed Pearson correlations.Provinces were classified exploratorily into four types using standardized scores for both variables.Results: Manufacture, import, and export increased by 28~31% over 2014~2024 and by 14~32% over 2018~2024, when survey coverage was more comparable; the import share remained 37.9~39.7%,with the exception of 2016.The numbers of chemicals and hazardous chemicals reported rose from 16,150 to 38,855 and from 725 to 1,683, respectively, with the largest increase in 2016~2018, during which target establishments increased 2.4-fold.These increases cannot be separated from changes in survey coverage and designation lists.Carcinogen use declined from 69.7 million tons in 2020 to 37.3 million tons in 2024.In 2024, the Jeonnam, Ulsan, and Chungnam areas accounted for 78.5% of the hazardous chemical handling volume, whereas Seoul (1,313) and Gyeonggi (1,171) handled the widest range of hazardous chemicals.The correlation between substance count and handling volume was not significant overall (r=0.079,p=0.762), but it was strong after the post hoc exclusion of the three highest-volume regions (r=0.862,p<0.001).Conclusions: Handling volume and substance diversity showed distinct spatial distributions and may indicate different management needs.The setting of priorities should consider substance diversity, hazard class, and regional concentration alongside volume.