OBJECTIVES: This paper explores the usefulness of the exposure database MEGA for model validation and evaluates the capability of two Stoffenmanager model equations (i.e. handling of powders/granules and machining) to estimate workers exposure to inhalable dust. METHODS: For the task groups, 'handling of powders and granules' (handling) and 'machining of wood and stone' (machining) measurements were selected from MEGA and grouped in scenarios depending on task, product, and control measures. The predictive capability of the model was tested by calculating the relative bias of the single measurements and the correlation between geometric means (GMs) for scenarios. The conservatism of the model was evaluated by checking if the percentage of measurement values above the 90th percentile estimate was ≤10%. RESULTS: From 22 596 personal measurements on inhalable dust within MEGA, 390 could be selected for handling and 1133 for machining. The relative bias for the task groups was -25 and 68%, respectively, the percentage of measurements with a higher result than the estimated 90th percentile 11 and 7%. Correlations on a scenario level were good for both model equations as well for the GM (handling: r(s) = 0.90, n = 15 scenarios; machining: r(s) = 0.84, n = 22 scenarios) as for the 90th percentile (handling: r(s) = 0.79; machining: r(s) = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The MEGA database could be used for model validation, although the presented analyses have learned that improvements in the database are necessary for modelling purposes in the future. For a substantial amount of data, contextual information on exposure determinants in addition to basic core information is stored in this database. The relative low bias, the good correlation, and the level of conservatism of the tested model show that the Stoffenmanager can be regarded as a useful Tier 1 model for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals legislation.
OBJECTIVES: This paper explores the usefulness of the exposure database MEGA for model validation and evaluates the capability of two Stoffenmanager model equations (i.e. handling of powders/granules and machining) to estimate workers exposure to inhalable dust. METHODS: For the task groups, 'handling of powders and granules' (handling) and 'machining of wood and stone' (machining) measurements were selected from MEGA and grouped in scenarios depending on task, product, and control measures. The predictive capability of the model was tested by calculating the relative bias of the single measurements and the correlation between geometric means (GMs) for scenarios. The conservatism of the model was evaluated by checking if the percentage of measurement values above the 90th percentile estimate was ≤10%. RESULTS: From 22 596 personal measurements on inhalable dust within MEGA, 390 could be selected for handling and 1133 for machining. The relative bias for the task groups was -25 and 68%, respectively, the percentage of measurements with a higher result than the estimated 90th percentile 11 and 7%. Correlations on a scenario level were good for both model equations as well for the GM (handling: r(s) = 0.90, n = 15 scenarios; machining: r(s) = 0.84, n = 22 scenarios) as for the 90th percentile (handling: r(s) = 0.79; machining: r(s) = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The MEGA database could be used for model validation, although the presented analyses have learned that improvements in the database are necessary for modelling purposes in the future. For a substantial amount of data, contextual information on exposure determinants in addition to basic core information is stored in this database. The relative low bias, the good correlation, and the level of conservatism of the tested model show that the Stoffenmanager can be regarded as a useful Tier 1 model for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals legislation.
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
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
Authors: Jean-François Sauvé; Hugh W Davies; Marie-Élise Parent; Cheryl E Peters; Marie-Pierre Sylvestre; Jérôme Lavoué Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 2.179
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
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
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