| 1. |
- Landberg, Hanna E, et al.
(author)
-
A Study of the Validity of Two Exposure Assessment Tools : Stoffenmanager and the Advanced REACH Tool
- 2017
-
In: Annals of Work Exposures and Health. - : Oxford University Press. - 2398-7308 .- 2398-7316. ; 61:5, s. 575-588
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The use of exposure modelling tools for estimating chemical airborne exposure has increased since the European Union's REACH legislation for safe use of industrial chemicals came into force. Two tools that European Chemicals Agency recommends are Stoffenmanager® and the Advanced REACH Tool (ART). The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of these two exposure modelling tools by comparing the lack of agreement between estimated and measured exposure. We examined the airborne chemical exposure at companies in seven different types of industries: wood, printing, foundry, spray painting, flour milling, chemical industry, and plastic moulding industry. The inhalable exposure of liquids or powders at two to three situations at each company was modelled with both tools and measured. To study the validity of the tools, the mean differences and precisions (lack of agreement) of exposures from both situations handling liquids and powders were calculated by using the 50th percentile outcome of the tools and the geometric mean of the measured exposure (all data were ln transformed). For Stoffenmanager, the mean difference and precision of the situations concerning liquids were 0.22 ± 1.0 and for powders -0.024 ± 0.66. It was also shown that Stoffenmanager overestimated low exposures and underestimated high exposures. Stoffenmanager showed higher agreement with the measured exposure in the wood and flour mill industries than in foundry and the plastic moulding industry. For ART, the mean difference and precision of liquids were -0.55 ± 0.88 and for powders -1.4 ± 1.6. ART showed lower agreement with the measured exposure in the wood industry.
|
|
| 2. |
- Landberg, Hanna E., et al.
(author)
-
Evaluation of risk assessment approaches of occupational chemical exposures based on models in comparison with measurements
- 2018
-
In: Safety Science. - : Elsevier. - 0925-7535 .- 1879-1042. ; 109, s. 412-420
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Risk assessments of chemicals in work places are needed to protect workers' health and safety. Several different strategies can be used for conducting risk assessments. The aim of this study was to investigate approaches to risk assessment of chemicals based on exposure assessment models relative to occupational exposure limits values (OELs) and derived no-effect levels (DNELs) and in comparison with measurements relative to OELs. A second aim was to evaluate the modelled recommended outcome and compare it with measurements of exposure. In this study, 29 situations were assessed with ECETOC TRA, Stoffenmanager (R) 5.1 and ART. Personal exposure measurements were also performed. The percentage of measured exposure exceeding the recommended output was calculated to investigate the level of conservatism. All the modelled exposures were compared with OELs and DNELs where possible, and the GM of the measured exposure was compared with OELs (risk quotas). For ECETOC TRA, 31% of measured exposure exceeded modelled exposure. For Stoffenmanager (R) it was 17% and for ART and ART B it was 3% and 0% respectively. Hence, according to our data, ECETOC TRA is the least conservative. An investigation of the risk quotas showed that ECETOC TRA had 4 false safe situations, meaning the risk was low when the model was used but was high when measurements were used. This may lead to underestimating risks. All models had an elevated proportion, ECETOC TRA and ART the highest, of false unsafe situations meaning the risk was low when measurements were used but high when models were used.
|
|
