| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Schenk, Linda, 1980-, et al.
(författare)
-
Industry Derived Occupational Exposure Limits : A Survey of Professionals on the Dutch System of Exposure Guidelines
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of Work Exposures and Health. - : Oxford University Press. - 2398-7308 .- 2398-7316. ; 63:9, s. 1004-1012
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Netherlands' system for occupational exposure limits (OELs) encompasses two kinds of OELs: public and private. Public OELs are set by the government. Private OELs are derived by industry and cover all substances without a public OEL. In parallel, the regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) has introduced an exposure guidance value similar to the OEL, namely the Derived No-Effect Level (DNEL) for workers' inhalation exposure. This study aimed to investigate issues encountered by occupational health professionals regarding private OELs, and how they perceive the DNELs for workers in relation to private OELs. Towards this aim, we sent out a web-based questionnaire to the members of the Dutch professional organization for occupational hygienists (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Arbeidshygiene [NVVA], n = 513) and to members of the Dutch professional organization for safety engineers (NVVK, n = 2916). Response rates were 27% (n = 139) and 7% (n = 198), respectively. More occupational hygienists (59%) than safety engineers (17%) reported to derive private OELs themselves. Our respondents reported several challenges with the derivation of private OELs. Fifty-one percent of the occupational hygienists and 20% of the safety engineers stated to see a role of REACH Registrants' worker DNELs as private OELs. However, more than half of our respondents were undecided or unfamiliar with worker DNELs. In addition, stated opinions on where worker DNELs fit in the hierarchy of private OELs varied considerably. To conclude, both these professional groups derive private OELs and stated that they need more guidance for this. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity whether worker DNELs may qualify as private OELs, and where they would fit in the hierarchy of private OELs.
|
|
| 3. |
- Schenk, Linda, et al.
(författare)
-
Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water? : Occupational Hygienists Views on the Revised Dutch System for Occupational Exposure Limits
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Annals of Occupational Hygiene. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0003-4878 .- 1475-3162. ; 57:5, s. 581-592
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2007, the Dutch Working Conditions Act was revised with the goal to decrease the regulatory burden, and to open up for company-specific solutions of establishing a safe and healthy work environment. One tool geared towards company-specific solutions is the compilation of the Arbocatalogs, which are company or sector-level collections of safe working methods and guidelines developed both by employers and employees. The revision also introduced a new occupational exposure limit (OEL) system in the Netherlands. This system encompasses two kinds of OELs: private and public. Private OELs are to be derived by the industry, while public OELs are issued by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. With this change, the majority of the previously set Dutch OELs were removed, as the substances in question now are falling under the private realm. The motivations, expectations, and practical impacts of these revisions have been investigated through interviews with stakeholder organizations and a questionnaire study targeted at occupational hygienists. The questionnaire results show that although the Arbocatalogs seem to be relatively well received, a majority of the Dutch occupational hygienists are still relatively negative to the changes. There is a fear that private OELs will be less scientifically robust than public OELs and that the lack of robustness will have a negative impact on the field of occupational hygiene as a whole.
|
|
