Literature DB >> 21389111

A quantitative comparison of the safety margins in the european indicative occupational exposure limits and the derived no-effect levels for workers under REACH.

Linda Schenk1, Gunnar Johanson.   

Abstract

The new European Union (EU) REACH legislation requires derived no-effect levels (DNELs) to be calculated for substances produced in quantities above 10 tonnes/year. Meanwhile, the setting of occupational exposure limits (OELs) continues both at the member state and the EU levels. According to REACH, indicative OEL values (IOELVs) from the Commission may under some circumstances be used as worker-DNELs. On the other hand, worker-DNELs will be derived for several thousand substances, far more than the approximately 100 substances for which IOELVs have been established. Thus, the procedure to set health-based OELs may become influential on that of DNELs and vice versa. In this study, we compare the safety margins of 88 Scientific Committee on OELs (SCOEL) recommendations with those of the corresponding worker-DNELs, derived according to the default approach as described in the REACH guidance document. Overall, the REACH safety margins were approximately six times higher than those derived from the SCOEL documentation but varied widely with REACH/SCOEL safety margin ratios ranging by two orders of magnitude, from 0.3 to 58 (n = 88). The discrepancies may create confusion in terms of legal compliance, risk management, and risk communication. We also found that the REACH guidance document, although encompassing detailed advice on many issues, including default assessment factors for species and route extrapolation, gives little quantitative guidance on when and how to depart from defaults.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21389111     DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfr056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Sci        ISSN: 1096-0929            Impact factor:   4.849


  5 in total

1.  Risk Assessment's New Era: part 2: Evolving Methods and Future Directions.

Authors:  Pamela R D Williams; G Scott Dotson; Andrew Maier
Journal:  Synergist (Akron)       Date:  2012-05

2.  The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits--Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection.

Authors:  M Deveau; C-P Chen; G Johanson; D Krewski; A Maier; K J Niven; S Ripple; P A Schulte; J Silk; J H Urbanus; D M Zalk; R W Niemeier
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Industry Derived Occupational Exposure Limits: A Survey of Professionals on the Dutch System of Exposure Guidelines.

Authors:  Linda Schenk; Maaike J Visser; Nicole G M Palmen
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 2.179

4.  Derivation of occupational exposure limits: Differences in methods and protection levels.

Authors:  Klaus Schneider; Marco Dilger; Claudia Drossard; Heidi Ott; Eva Kaiser
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2022-03-13       Impact factor: 3.628

5.  Experiences from occupational exposure limits set on aerosols containing allergenic proteins.

Authors:  Gunnar D Nielsen; Søren T Larsen; Jitka S Hansen; Lars K Poulsen
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2012-07-28
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.