Literature DB >> 18350442

History and evolution of control banding: a review.

David M Zalk1, Deborah Imel Nelson.   

Abstract

Control banding (CB) strategies offer simplified solutions for controlling worker exposures to constituents often encountered in the workplace. The original CB model was developed within the pharmaceutical industry; however, the modern movement involves models developed for non-experts to input hazard and exposure potential information for bulk chemical processes, receiving control advice as a result. The CB approach utilizes these models for the dissemination of qualitative and semiquantitative risk assessment tools being developed to complement the traditional industrial hygiene model of air sampling and analysis. It is being applied and tested in small- and medium-sized enterprises within developed countries and industrially developing countries; however, large enterprises have also incorporated these strategies within chemical safety programs. Existing research of the components of the most available CB model, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Essentials, has shown that exposure bands do not always provide adequate margins of safety, that there is a high rate of under-control errors, that it works better with dusts than with vapors, that there is an inherent inaccuracy in estimating variability, and that when taken together the outcomes of this model may lead to potentially inappropriate workplace confidence in chemical exposure reduction in some operations. Alternatively, large-scale comparisons of industry exposure data to this CB model's outcomes have indicated more promising results with a high correlation seen internationally. With the accuracy of the toxicological ratings and hazard band classification currently in question, their proper re-evaluation will be of great benefit to the reliability of existing and future CB models. The need for a more complete analysis of CB model components and, most importantly, a more comprehensive prospective research process remains. This analysis will be important in understanding implications of the model's overall effectiveness. Since the CB approach is now being used worldwide with an even broader implementation in progress, further research toward understanding its strengths and weaknesses will assist in its further refinement and confidence in its ongoing utility.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18350442     DOI: 10.1080/15459620801997916

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  29 in total

1.  Development of risk-based nanomaterial groups for occupational exposure control.

Authors:  E D Kuempel; V Castranova; C L Geraci; P A Schulte
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 2.253

2.  Balancing research and funding using value of information and portfolio tools for nanomaterial risk classification.

Authors:  Matthew E Bates; Jeffrey M Keisler; Niels P Zussblatt; Kenton J Plourde; Ben A Wender; Igor Linkov
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 39.213

3.  Can Control Banding be Useful for the Safe Handling of Nanomaterials? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Adrienne Eastlake; Ralph Zumwalde; Charles Geraci
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 2.253

Review 4.  Nanoparticles in Daily Life: Applications, Toxicity and Regulations.

Authors:  Ritu Gupta; Huan Xie
Journal:  J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 3.567

5.  Control Banding Tools for Engineered Nanoparticles: What the Practitioner Needs to Know.

Authors:  Kevin H Dunn; Adrienne C Eastlake; Michael Story; Eileen D Kuempel
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 2.179

6.  A multi-stakeholder perspective on the use of alternative test strategies for nanomaterial safety assessment.

Authors:  Andre E Nel; Elina Nasser; Hilary Godwin; David Avery; Tina Bahadori; Lynn Bergeson; Elizabeth Beryt; James C Bonner; Darrell Boverhof; Janet Carter; Vince Castranova; J R Deshazo; Saber M Hussain; Agnes B Kane; Frederick Klaessig; Eileen Kuempel; Mark Lafranconi; Robert Landsiedel; Timothy Malloy; Mary Beth Miller; Jeffery Morris; Kenneth Moss; Gunter Oberdorster; Kent Pinkerton; Richard C Pleus; Jo Anne Shatkin; Russell Thomas; Thabet Tolaymat; Amy Wang; Jeffrey Wong
Journal:  ACS Nano       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 15.881

Review 7.  Implementation of alternative test strategies for the safety assessment of engineered nanomaterials.

Authors:  A E Nel
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 8.989

8.  Review of qualitative approaches for the construction industry: designing a risk management toolbox.

Authors:  David M Zalk; Ton Spee; Matt Gillen; Thomas J Lentz; Andrew Garrod; Paul Evans; Paul Swuste
Journal:  Saf Health Work       Date:  2011-06-30

9.  Banding the world together; the global growth of control banding and qualitative occupational risk management.

Authors:  David M Zalk; Ga Henri Heussen
Journal:  Saf Health Work       Date:  2011-12-05

10.  A hazardous substance exposure prevention rating method for intervention needs assessment and effectiveness evaluation: the Small Business Exposure Index.

Authors:  Anthony D LaMontagne; Anne M Stoddard; Cora Roelofs; Grace Sembajwe; Amy L Sapp; Glorian Sorensen
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 5.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.