Assessment of exposure determinants and exposure levels by using stationary concentration measurements and a probabilistic near-field/far-field exposure model

Funding Information: The authors thank Prof. Paul Hewett (Exposure Assessment Solutions, Inc., Morgantown, WV) for his assistance with revising the probabilistic exposure model parametrization and interpretation of the results. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Koivisto AJ et al.Background: The Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation requires the establishment of Conditions of Use (CoU) for all exposure scenarios to ensure good communication of safe working practices. Setting CoU requires the risk assessment of all relevant Contributing Scenarios (CSs) in the exposure scenario. A new CS has to be created whenever an Operational Condition (OC) is changed, resulting in an excessive number of exposure assessments. An efficient solution is to quantify OC concentrations and to identify reasonable worst-case scenarios with probabilistic exposure modeling. Methods: Here, we appoint CoU for powder pouring during the industrial manufacturing of a paint batch by quantifying OC exposure levels and exposure determinants. The quantification was performed by using stationary measurements and a probabilistic Near-Field/Far-Field (NF/FF) exposure model. Work shift and OC concentration levels were quantified for pouring TiO 2 from big bags and small bags, pouring Micro Mica from small bags, and cleaning. The impact of exposure determinants on NF concentration level was quantified by (1) assessing exposure determinants correlation with the NF exposure level and (2) by performing simulations with different OCs. Results: Emission rate, air mixing between NF and FF and local ventilation were the most relevant exposure determinants affecting NF concentrations. Potentially risky OCs were identified by performing Reasonable Worst Case (RWC) simulations and by comparing the exposure 95 th percentile distribution with 10% of the occupational exposure limit value (OELV). The CS was shown safe except in RWC scenario (ventilation rate from 0.4 to 1.6 1/h, 100 m 3 room, no local ventilation, and NF ventilation of 1.6 m 3/min). Conclusions: The CoU assessment was considered to comply with European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) legislation and EN 689 exposure assessment strategy for testing compliance with OEL values. One RWC scenario would require measurements since the exposure level was 12.5% of the OELV.Peer reviewe

Evaluating the Theoretical Background of STOFFENMANAGER® and the Advanced REACH Tool

STOFFENMANAGER® and the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) are recommended tools by the European Chemical Agency for regulatory chemical safety assessment. The models are widely used and accepted within the scientific community. STOFFENMANAGER® alone has more than 37 000 users globally and more than 310 000 risk assessment have been carried out by 2020. Regardless of their widespread use, this is the first study evaluating the theoretical backgrounds of each model. STOFFENMANAGER® and ART are based on a modified multiplicative model where an exposure base level (mg m−3) is replaced with a dimensionless intrinsic emission score and the exposure modifying factors are replaced with multipliers that are mainly based on subjective categories that are selected by using exposure taxonomy. The intrinsic emission is a unit of concentration to the substance emission potential that represents the concentration generated in a standardized task without local ventilation. Further information or scientific justification for this selection is not provided. The multipliers have mainly discrete values given in natural logarithm steps (…, 0.3, 1, 3, …) that are allocated by expert judgements. The multipliers scientific reasoning or link to physical quantities is not reported. The models calculate a subjective exposure score, which is then translated to an exposure level (mg m−3) by using a calibration factor. The calibration factor is assigned by comparing the measured personal exposure levels with the exposure score that is calculated for the respective exposure scenarios. A mixed effect regression model was used to calculate correlation factors for four exposure group [e.g. dusts, vapors, mists (low-volatiles), and solid object/abrasion] by using ~1000 measurements for STOFFENMANAGER® and 3000 measurements for ART. The measurement data for calibration are collected from different exposure groups. For example, for dusts the calibration data were pooled from exposure measurements sampled from pharmacies, bakeries, construction industry, and so on, which violates the empirical model basic principles. The calibration databases are not publicly available and thus their quality or subjective selections cannot be evaluated. STOFFENMANAGER® and ART can be classified as subjective categorization tools providing qualitative values as their outputs. By definition, STOFFENMANAGER® and ART cannot be classified as mechanistic models or empirical models. This modeling algorithm does not reflect the physical concept originally presented for the STOFFENMANAGER® and ART. A literature review showed that the models have been validated only at the ‘operational analysis’ level that describes the model usability. This review revealed that the accuracy of STOFFENMANAGER® is in the range of 100 000 and for ART 100. Calibration and validation studies have shown that typical log-transformed predicted exposure concentration and measured exposure levels often exhibit weak Pearson’s correlations (r is <0.6) for both STOFFENMANAGER® and ART. Based on these limitations and performance departure from regulatory criteria for risk assessment models, it is recommended that STOFFENMANAGER® and ART regulatory acceptance for chemical safety decision making should be explicitly qualified as to their current deficiencies.Peer reviewe

Theoretical Background of Occupational-Exposure Models-Report of an Expert Workshop of the ISES Europe Working Group "Exposure Models"

On 20 October 2020, the Working Group "Exposure Models" of the Europe Regional Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science (ISES Europe) organised an online workshop to discuss the theoretical background of models for the assessment of occupational exposure to chemicals. In this report, participants of the workshop with an active role before and during the workshop summarise the most relevant discussion points and conclusions of this well-attended workshop. ISES Europe has identified exposure modelling as one priority area for the strategic development of exposure science in Europe in the coming years. This specific workshop aimed to discuss the main challenges in developing, validating, and using occupational-exposure models for regulatory purposes. The theoretical background, application domain, and limitations of different modelling approaches were presented and discussed, focusing on empirical "modifying-factor" or "mass-balance-based" approaches. During the discussions, these approaches were compared and analysed. Possibilities to address the discussed challenges could be a validation study involving alternative modelling approaches. The wider discussion touched upon the close relationship between modelling and monitoring and the need for better linkage of the methods and the need for common monitoring databases that include data on model parameters.Peer reviewe

Residential inter-zonal ventilation rates for exposure modeling

<p>Residential inter-zonal (e.g., between rooms) ventilation is comprised of fresh air infiltration in and exfiltration out of the whole house plus the “fresh” air that is entering (and exiting) the room of interest from other rooms or areas within the house. Clearly, the inter-zone ventilation rate in any room of interest will be greater than the infiltration/exfiltration ventilation rate of outdoor air for the whole house. The purpose of this study is to determine how much greater the inter-zonal ventilation rate is in typical U.S. residences compared to the whole house ventilation rate from outdoor air. The data for this statistical analysis came from HouseDB, a 1995 EPA database of residential ventilation rates. Analytical results indicate that a lognormal distribution provides the best fit to the data. Lognormal probability distribution functions (PDFs) are provided for various inter-zonal ventilation rates for comparison to the PDF for the whole house ventilation rates. All ventilation rates are expressed as air change rates per hour (ACH). These PDFs can be used as inputs to exposure models. This analysis suggests that if one were performing a deterministic analysis for unknown housing stocks in the U.S., a default mean and median ACH values of 0.4/hr and 0.3/hr, respectively, for whole house ventilation would be appropriate; and 0.7/hr and 0.6/hr, respectively, for inter-zonal ventilation.</p

Exposure Estimation and Interpretation of Occupational Risk: Enhanced Information for the Occupational Risk Manager

The fundamental goal of this article is to describe, define, and analyze the components of the risk characterization process for occupational exposures. Current methods are described for the probabilistic characterization of exposure, including newer techniques that have increasing applications for assessing data from occupational exposure scenarios. In addition, since the probability of health effects reflects variability in the exposure estimate as well as the dose-response curve—the integrated considerations of variability surrounding both components of the risk characterization provide greater information to the occupational hygienist. Probabilistic tools provide a more informed view of exposure as compared to use of discrete point estimates for these inputs to the risk characterization process. Active use of such tools for exposure and risk assessment will lead to a scientifically supported worker health protection program. Understanding the bases for an occupational risk assessment, focusing on important sources of variability and uncertainty enables characterizing occupational risk in terms of a probability, rather than a binary decision of acceptable risk or unacceptable risk. A critical review of existing methods highlights several conclusions: (1) exposure estimates and the dose-response are impacted by both variability and uncertainty and a well-developed risk characterization reflects and communicates this consideration; (2) occupational risk is probabilistic in nature and most accurately considered as a distribution, not a point estimate; and (3) occupational hygienists have a variety of tools available to incorporate concepts of risk characterization into occupational health and practice