Literature DB >> 30534938

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

Eun Gyung Lee1, Judith Lamb2, Nenad Savic3, Ioannis Basinas2, Bojan Gasic4, Christian Jung5, Michael L Kashon6, Jongwoon Kim7, Martin Tischer5, Martie van Tongeren2, David Vernez3, Martin Harper1.   

Abstract

Tier 1 occupational exposure assessment tools recommended for use under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) were evaluated using newly collected measurement data. Evaluated tools included the ECETOC TRAv2 and TRAv3, MEASEv1.02.01, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL. Fifty-three exposure situations (ESs) based on tasks/chemicals were developed from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health field surveys. During the field surveys, high quality contextual information required for evaluating the tools was also collected. For each ES, applicable tools were then used to generate exposure estimates using a consensus approach. Among 53 ESs, only those related to an exposure category of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa had sufficient numbers of exposure measurements (42 ESs with n = 251 for TRAv2 and TRAv3 and 40 ESs with n = 243 for EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) to be considered in detail. The results for other exposure categories (aqueous solutions, liquids with VP ≤ 10 Pa, metal processing, powders, and solid objects) had insufficient measurement to allow detailed analyses (results listed in the Supplementary File). Overall, EMKG-EXPO-TOOL generated more conservative results than TRAv2 and TRAv3 for liquids with high VP. This finding is at least partly due to the fact that the EMKG-EXPO-TOOL only considers pure substances and not mixtures of chemical agents. For 34 out of 40 ESs available for chemicals with VP > 10 Pa, the liquid was a mixture rather than a pure substance. TRAv3 was less conservative than TRAv2, probably due to additional refinement of some input parameters. The percentages of exposure measurement results exceeding the corresponding tool estimates for liquids with VP > 10 Pa by process category and by input parameters were always higher for TRAv3 compared to those for TRAv2. Although the conclusions of this study are limited to liquids with VP > 10 Pa and few process categories, this study utilized the most transparent contextual information compared to previous studies, reducing uncertainty from assumptions for unknown input parameters. A further validation is recommended by collecting sufficient exposure data covering other exposure categories and all process categories under REACH. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Occupational Hygiene Society 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  REACH; exposure assessment tools; inhalation tools; tier tools; validation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30534938      PMCID: PMC6939290          DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxy091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health        ISSN: 2398-7308            Impact factor:   2.179


  8 in total

1.  Use of the MEGA exposure database for the validation of the Stoffenmanager model.

Authors:  Dorothea Koppisch; Jody Schinkel; Stefan Gabriel; Wouter Fransman; Erik Tielemans
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2011-11-07

2.  Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part I-Tier 1 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

3.  Cross-validation and refinement of the Stoffenmanager as a first tier exposure assessment tool for REACH.

Authors:  Jody Schinkel; Wouter Fransman; Henri Heussen; Hans Kromhout; Hans Marquart; Erik Tielemans
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 4.402

4.  Evaluation of recommended REACH exposure modeling tools and near-field, far-field model in assessing occupational exposure to toluene from spray paint.

Authors:  Elizabeth Hofstetter; John W Spencer; Kathleen Hiteshew; Michelle Coutu; Mark Nealley
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2012-09-20

5.  Evaluation of Tier One Exposure Assessment Models (ETEAM): Project Overview and Methods.

Authors:  Martin Tischer; Judith Lamb; Susanne Hesse; Martie van Tongeren
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 2.179

6.  Use of read-across and tiered exposure assessment in risk assessment under REACH--a case study on a phase-in substance.

Authors:  S R Vink; J Mikkers; T Bouwman; H Marquart; E D Kroese
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 3.271

7.  Between-User Reliability of Tier 1 Exposure Assessment Tools Used Under REACH.

Authors:  Judith Lamb; Karen S Galea; Brian G Miller; Susanne Hesse; Martie Van Tongeren
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 2.179

8.  Validation of Lower Tier Exposure Tools Used for REACH: Comparison of Tools Estimates With Available Exposure Measurements.

Authors:  Martie van Tongeren; Judith Lamb; John W Cherrie; Laura MacCalman; Ioannis Basinas; Susanne Hesse
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 2.179

  8 in total
  8 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.  Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part I-Tier 1 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

3.  Nanomaterials, a New Challenge in the Workplace.

Authors:  Ana Rita Alberto; Cristina Matos; Gabriel Carmona-Aparicio; Muriel Iten
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 4.  Validity of Tier 1 Modelling Tools and Impacts on Exposure Assessments within REACH Registrations-ETEAM Project, Validation Studies and Consequences.

Authors:  Urs Schlueter; Martin Tischer
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Enhancing the use of exposure science across EU chemical policies as part of the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030.

Authors:  Yuri Bruinen de Bruin; Antonio Franco; Andreas Ahrens; Alick Morris; Hans Verhagen; Stylianos Kephalopoulos; Valeria Dulio; Jaroslav Slobodnik; Dick T H M Sijm; Theo Vermeire; Takaaki Ito; Koki Takaki; Jonathas De Mello; Jos Bessems; Maryam Zare Jeddi; Celia Tanarro Gozalo; Kevin Pollard; Josephine McCourt; Peter Fantke
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 6.371

6.  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

Review 7.  The ECETOC-Targeted Risk Assessment Tool for Worker Exposure Estimation in REACH Registration Dossiers of Chemical Substances-Current Developments.

Authors:  Jan Urbanus; Oliver Henschel; Qiang Li; Dave Marsh; Chris Money; Dook Noij; Paul van de Sandt; Joost van Rooij; Matthias Wormuth
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Development of a Web-Based Tool for Risk Assessment and Exposure Control Planning of Silica-Producing Tasks in the Construction Sector.

Authors:  Hugh W Davies; Melanie Gorman-Ng
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2020-08-05
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.