Literature DB >> 18621742

Stoffenmanager exposure model: development of a quantitative algorithm.

Erik Tielemans1, Dook Noy, Jody Schinkel, Henri Heussen, Doeke Van Der Schaaf, John West, Wouter Fransman.   

Abstract

In The Netherlands, the web-based tool called 'Stoffenmanager' was initially developed to assist small- and medium-sized enterprises to prioritize and control risks of handling chemical products in their workplaces. The aim of the present study was to explore the accuracy of the Stoffenmanager exposure algorithm. This was done by comparing its semi-quantitative exposure rankings for specific substances with exposure measurements collected from several occupational settings to derive a quantitative exposure algorithm. Exposure data were collected using two strategies. First, we conducted seven surveys specifically for validation of the Stoffenmanager. Second, existing occupational exposure data sets were collected from various sources. This resulted in 378 and 320 measurements for solid and liquid scenarios, respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficients between Stoffenmanager scores and exposure measurements appeared to be good for handling solids (r(s) = 0.80, N = 378, P < 0.0001) and liquid scenarios (r(s) = 0.83, N = 320, P < 0.0001). However, the correlation for liquid scenarios appeared to be lower when calculated separately for sets of volatile substances with a vapour pressure >10 Pa (r(s) = 0.56, N = 104, P < 0.0001) and non-volatile substances with a vapour pressure < or =10 Pa (r(s) = 0.53, N = 216, P < 0.0001). The mixed-effect regression models with natural log-transformed Stoffenmanager scores as independent parameter explained a substantial part of the total exposure variability (52% for solid scenarios and 76% for liquid scenarios). Notwithstanding the good correlation, the data show substantial variability in exposure measurements given a certain Stoffenmanager score. The overall performance increases our confidence in the use of the Stoffenmanager as a generic tool for risk assessment. The mixed-effect regression models presented in this paper may be used for assessment of so-called reasonable worst case exposures. This evaluation is considered as an ongoing process and when more good quality data become available, the analyses described in this paper will be expanded. Based on these analyses, the algorithm will be refined in the near future.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18621742     DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/men033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg        ISSN: 0003-4878


  10 in total

1.  Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part II-Higher Tier Tools.

Authors:  Eun Gyung Lee; Judith Lamb; Nenad Savic; Ioannis Basinas; Bojan Gasic; Christian Jung; Michael L Kashon; Jongwoon Kim; Martin Tischer; Martie van Tongeren; David Vernez; Martin Harper
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2019-02-16       Impact factor: 2.179

2.  Estimation of personal exposure to asbestos of brake repair workers.

Authors:  María Fernanda Cely-García; Frank C Curriero; Mauricio Sánchez-Silva; Patrick N Breysse; Margarita Giraldo; Lorena Méndez; Carlos Torres-Duque; Mauricio Durán; Mauricio González-García; Patricia Parada; Juan Pablo Ramos-Bonilla
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 5.563

3.  Adoption of Exposure Assessment Tools to Assist in Providing Respiratory Protection Recommendations.

Authors:  Eun Gyung Lee; Diana M Ceballos
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 2.179

4.  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

5.  Exposure Models for REACH and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations.

Authors:  John William Cherrie; Wouter Fransman; Gerardus Antonius Henrikus Heussen; Dorothea Koppisch; Keld Alstrup Jensen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Occupational Exposure and Environmental Release: The Case Study of Pouring TiO2 and Filler Materials for Paint Production.

Authors:  Ana Sofia Fonseca; Anna-Kaisa Viitanen; Tomi Kanerva; Arto Säämänen; Olivier Aguerre-Chariol; Sebastien Fable; Adrien Dermigny; Nicolas Karoski; Isaline Fraboulet; Ismo Kalevi Koponen; Camilla Delpivo; Alejandro Vilchez Villalba; Socorro Vázquez-Campos; Alexander Christian Østerskov Jensen; Signe Hjortkjær Nielsen; Nicklas Sahlgren; Per Axel Clausen; Bianca Xuan Nguyen Larsen; Vivi Kofoed-Sørensen; Keld Alstrup Jensen; Joonas Koivisto
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 7.  Evaluating the Theoretical Background of STOFFENMANAGER® and the Advanced REACH Tool.

Authors:  Antti Joonas Koivisto; Michael Jayjock; Kaarle J Hämeri; Markku Kulmala; Patrick Van Sprang; Mingzhou Yu; Brandon E Boor; Tareq Hussein; Ismo K Koponen; Jakob Löndahl; Lidia Morawska; John C Little; Susan Arnold
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 2.779

8.  On the Strength and Validity of Hazard Banding.

Authors:  Theo Scheffers; Blandine Doornaert; Nathalie Berne; Gerard van Breukelen; Antoine Leplay; Erik van Miert
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2016-09-12

9.  Comparison between Communicated and Calculated Exposure Estimates Obtained through Three Modeling Tools.

Authors:  Andrea Spinazzè; Francesca Borghi; Daniele Magni; Costanza Rovida; Monica Locatelli; Andrea Cattaneo; Domenico Maria Cavallo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  How to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Occupational Exposure? Review and Discussion of Models' Reliability.

Authors:  Andrea Spinazzè; Francesca Borghi; Davide Campagnolo; Sabrina Rovelli; Marta Keller; Giacomo Fanti; Andrea Cattaneo; Domenico Maria Cavallo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 3.390

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.