| 1. |
- Schenk, Linda, et al.
(författare)
-
Derived No-effect Levels (DNELs) under the European Chemicals Regulation REACH-An Analysis of Long-term Inhalation Worker-DNELs Presented by Industry
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Annals of Occupational Hygiene. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0003-4878 .- 1475-3162. ; 59:4, s. 416-438
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European REACH regulation places responsibility for providing safety information, including derived no-effect levels (DNELs), on chemicals and chemical products on 'industry', i.e. manufacturers and importers. We compared long-term inhalation worker-DNELs (wDNELs) presented by industry with the corresponding Swedish occupational exposure limits (OELs), and for a subset, with wDNELs derived by us. Our wDNELs were derived using toxicological evaluations published by the Swedish Criteria Group and our interpretation of the REACH Guidance. On average, industry's wDNELs were the same as the Swedish OELs (median of wDNEL-OEL ratios: 0.98, n = 235). However, the variation was huge, the extremes being up to 450 times higher, and up to 230 times lower than the corresponding OEL. Nearly one-fifth of the wDNELs were = 2 times higher and one-third = 2 times lower than the OEL. No time trend was seen in the wDNEL/OEL ratios, suggesting that older OELs were not systematically higher than the more recent ones. Industry's wDNELs varied widely and were generally higher (median 4.2 times, up to 435 times higher, down to 13 times lower, n = 23) also compared to our wDNELs. Only five industry wDNELs were equal to or lower than ours. The choices of key studies, dose descriptors, and assessment factors all seemed to contribute to the discrepancies. We conclude that although the REACH guidance is detailed, many choices that will influence the wDNEL lack firm instructions. A major problem is that little advice is given on when and how to depart from default assessment factors.
|
|
| 2. |
- Schenk, Linda, 1980-, et al.
(författare)
-
How consistent are the Derived No-Effect Levels (DNELs) in the European REACH legislation?
- 2013
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The new European REACH regulation places more responsibility than hitherto on manufacturers and importers of chemicals (“industry”) to provide safety information. An important part of the development of a REACH Chemical Safety Report is derivation of Derived No-Effect Levels (DNELs) which represent “the level of exposure above which humans should not be exposed”. In order to study the consistency, we compared DNELs presented by industry at the website of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) with those derived by us in our interpretation of the REACH guidance (Chapter R.8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r8_en.pdf). There are various DNELs, e.g. representing short-term, long-term, inhalation and dermal exposure, as well as workers and the whole population. We limited our study to “worker-DNELs long-term” for inhalation route as they resemble occupational exposure limits (OELs). We found 24 substances for which (1) such DNELs were given in the ECHA chemical database (http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances) and (2) a scientific basis for OEL had been published by the Swedish Criteria Group within the last 15 years in the serial Arbete och Hälsa (https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/3194?locale=en). The results were startling, as the DNELs given by industry were 2.4 to 1,100 times higher than ours for 23 substances and 260,000 times higher for trimellitic anhydride. Some of the discrepancy is explained by different choice of key studies/points of departure (PODs). However, the choice of assessment factors (AFs) also differed markedly, as industry’s total AFs (calculated implicitly from the POD and the DNEL) were 1-230 times lower than ours. We conclude that although the REACH guidance is relatively detailed, many arbitrary choices remain that will influence the DNEL. A major problem is that little advice is given on when and how to depart from default AFs.
|
|
