Theoretical Background of Occupational-Exposure Models—Report of an Expert Workshop of the ISES Europe Working Group “Exposure Models”
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Challenges in Occupational-Exposure Modelling
1.3. Workshop Organization
1.3.1. Topics under Discussion
1.3.2. Workshop Format and Participants
- How can the ISES Europe Working Group promote validation exercises for occupational-exposure models?
- How can the ISES Europe Working Group further develop occupational-exposure models for regulatory purpose?
- For what specific regulatory questions can different stakeholders use occupational-exposure models?
- What has to happen to improve occupational-exposure models in the future?
2. Workshop Outcomes: Expert’s Comments on the Theoretical Background of Occupational-Exposure Models
2.1. Concept of Modifying-Factor Approaches (STOFFENMANAGER® and ART)
2.2. Mass-Balance-Based Exposure-Modelling Approaches
2.3. Requirements for the Validation of Models
2.4. Special Requirements for Regulatory Exposure Modelling
3. Discussion
3.1. Theoretical Background and Validation of Models
3.2. More and Improved Measurements as Background for Improved Models
- Measurements of parameters can be used more widely than workplace monitoring, as workplace monitoring is usually limited to specific situations and very often involves only a few samples.
- Parameters that are not available by measurements (e.g., emission values, etc.) can also be modelled, but of course are then subject to a higher degree of uncertainty.
- Some parameters (e.g., some physical data, etc.) are easily available in reference tables.
- Source emission rates are important values for modelling but need to be understood better. It would be beneficial to establish emission-rate libraries based on standard test methods.
- More measurement data (workplace monitoring, model parameters) may be available, but not in the public domain. The quality and accessibility of this data, however, are unknown and differ depending on the involved stakeholders. It is recognised that routinely collected exposure monitoring data often do not include the contextual parameters necessary for exposure modelling, e.g., effectiveness of local ventilation used or the behaviour of workers.
- Mass-balance-based exposure-modelling approaches may help to understand the underlying physical–chemical processes and thereby to identify the exposure-driving factors.
- Some legal frameworks require a risk assessment prior to the commencement of the activity. In this situation, monitoring is not possible and modelling or the use of existing exposure measurement data is the only option. Another example is workplace design where exposure modelling may be part of a Safe (and Sustainable)-by-Design strategy.
3.3. Subjectivity in Modelling Approaches and between-User Variability of Modelling Results
3.4. Practicalities of Modelling in Regulatory Contexts
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- ECHA. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.14: Occupational Exposure Assessment; ECHA: Helsinki, Finland, 2016; p. 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DIN EN 689. Workplace Exposure—Measurement of Exposure by Inhalation to Chemical Agents—Strategy for Testing Compliance with Occupational Exposure Limit Values (Includes Amendment:2019); DIN: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Tielemans, E.; Warren, N.; Schneider, T.; Tischer, M.; Ritchie, P.; Goede, H.; Kromhout, H.; Van Hemmen, J.; Cherrie, J.W. Tools for regulatory assessment of occupational exposure: Development and challenges. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2007, 17 (Suppl. 1), S72–S80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spinazze, A.; Borghi, F.; Campagnolo, D.; Rovelli, S.; Keller, M.; Fanti, G.; Cattaneo, A.; Cavallo, D.M. How to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Occupational Exposure? Review and Discussion of Models’ Reliability. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fransman, W. How Accurate and Reliable Are Exposure Models? Ann. Work Expo. Health 2017, 61, 907–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tischer, M.; Lamb, J.; Hesse, S.; van Tongeren, M. Evaluation of Tier One Exposure Assessment Models (ETEAM): Project Overview and Methods. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2017, 61, 911–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lamb, J.; Galea, K.S.; Miller, B.G.; Hesse, S.; Van Tongeren, M. Between-User Reliability of Tier 1 Exposure Assessment Tools Used Under REACH. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2017, 61, 939–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Tongeren, M.; Lamb, J.; Cherrie, J.W.; MacCalman, L.; Basinas, I.; Hesse, S. Validation of Lower Tier Exposure Tools Used for REACH: Comparison of Tools Estimates With Available Exposure Measurements. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2017, 61, 921–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlueter, U.; Tischer, M. Validity of Tier 1 Modelling Tools and Impacts on Exposure Assessments within REACH Registrations-ETEAM Project, Validation Studies and Consequences. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koivisto, A.J.; Jensen, A.C.O.; Koponen, I.K. The general ventilation multipliers calculated by using a standard Near-Field/Far-Field model. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2018, 15, D38–D43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cherrie, J.W.; Fransman, W.; Heussen, G.A.H.; Koppisch, D.; Jensen, K.A. Exposure Models for REACH and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cherrie, J.W.; Maccalman, L.; Fransman, W.; Tielemans, E.; Tischer, M.; Van Tongeren, M. Revisiting the effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near- and far-field air concentrations. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2011, 55, 1006–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cherrie, J.W. The effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near and far-field concentrations. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 1999, 14, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquart, H.; Heussen, H.; Le Feber, M.; Noy, D.; Tielemans, E.; Schinkel, J.; West, J.; Van Der Schaaf, D. ‘Stoffenmanager’, a web-based control banding tool using an exposure process model. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2008, 52, 429–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koivisto, A.J.; Jayjock, M.; Hameri, K.J.; Kulmala, M.; Van Sprang, P.; Yu, M.; Boor, B.E.; Hussein, T.; Koponen, I.K.; Londahl, J.; et al. Evaluating the Theoretical Background of STOFFENMANAGER(R) and the Advanced REACH Tool. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2021, wxab057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fantke, P.; von Goetz, N.; Schlüter, U.; Bessems, J.; Connolly, A.; Dudzina, T.; Ahrens, A.; Bridges, J.; Coggins, M.A.; Conrad, A.; et al. Building a European exposure science strategy. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2020, 30, 917–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Bruin, Y.B.; von Goetz, N.; Schlüter, U.; Bessems, J.; Connolly, A.; Dudzina, T.; Ahrens, A.; Bridges, J.; Coggins, M.; Conrad, A.; et al. Assessment of Needs for a European Strategy on Exposure Science; ISES Europe: Riethoven, The Netherlands, 2019; p. 48. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, S.F.; Shao, Y.; Ramachandran, G. Evaluation of the well mixed room and near-field far-field models in occupational settings. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2017, 14, 694–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koivisto, A.J.; Kling, K.I.; Hanninen, O.; Jayjock, M.; Londahl, J.; Wierzbicka, A.; Fonseca, A.S.; Uhrbrand, K.; Boor, B.E.; Jimenez, A.S.; et al. Source specific exposure and risk assessment for indoor aerosols. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISES_Europe. Working Group “Exposure Models”. Available online: https://ises-europe.org/group/exposure-models (accessed on 13 December 2021).
- Cherrie, J.W.; Schneider, T. Validation of A new method for structured, subjective assessments of past concentrations. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1999, 43, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schinkel, J.; Fransman, W.; Heussen, H.; Kromhout, H.; Marquart, H.; Tielemans, E. Cross-validation and refinement of the Stoffenmanager as a first tier exposure assessment tool for REACH. Occup. Environ. Med. 2010, 67, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schinkel, J.; Warren, N.; Fransman, W.; van Tongeren, M.; McDonnell, P.; Voogd, E.; Cherrie, J.W.; Tischer, M.; Kromhout, H.; Tielemans, E. Advanced REACH Tool (ART): Calibration of the mechanistic model. J. Environ. Monit. 2011, 13, 1374–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tielemans, E.; Schneider, T.; Goede, H.; Tischer, M.; Warren, N.; Kromhout, H.; Van Tongeren, M.; Van Hemmen, J.; Cherrie, J.W. Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure: Defining modifying factors. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2008, 52, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Keil, C.B. A Tiered Approach to Deterministic Models for Indoor Air Exposures. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2000, 15, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jayjock, M.A.; Armstrong, T.; Taylor, M. The Daubert standard as applied to exposure assessment modeling using the two-zone (NF/FF) model estimation of indoor air breathing zone concentration as an example. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2011, 8, D114–D122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kromhout, H.; Symanski, E.; Rappaport, S.M. A comprehensive evaluation of within- and between-worker components of occupational exposure to chemical agents. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1993, 37, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tischer, M.; Bredendiek-Kämper, S.; Poppek, U. Evaluation of the HSE COSHH Essentials exposure predictive model on the basis of BAuA field studies and existing substances exposure data. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2003, 47, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tielemans, E.; Warren, N.; Fransman, W.; Van Tongeren, M.; McNally, K.; Tischer, M.; Ritchie, P.; Kromhout, H.; Schinkel, J.; Schneider, T.; et al. Advanced REACH Tool (ART): Overview of Version 1.0 and Research Needs. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2011, 55, 949–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Landberg, H.E.; Axmon, A.; Westberg, H.; Tinnerberg, H. A Study of the Validity of Two Exposure Assessment Tools: Stoffenmanager and the Advanced REACH Tool. Ann. Work. Expo. Health 2017, 61, 575–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- EFSA. Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment for plant protection products. EFSA J. 2014, 12, 3874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ART_Consortium. ART Science Documents. Available online: https://www.advancedreachtool.com/science.aspx (accessed on 13 December 2021).
- Cosanta, B.V. What Is Stoffenmanager?—Validation Studies. Available online: https://stoffenmanager.com/what-is-stoffenmanager/ (accessed on 13 December 2021).
- Hofstetter, E.; Spencer, J.W.; Hiteshew, K.; Coutu, M.; Nealley, M. Evaluation of Recommended REACH Exposure Modeling Tools and Near-Field, Far-Field Model in Assessing Occupational Exposure to Toluene from Spray Paint. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2013, 57, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McNally, K.; Warren, N.; Fransman, W.; Entink, R.K.; Schinkel, J.; van Tongeren, M.; Cherrie, J.W.; Kromhout, H.; Schneider, T.; Tielemans, E. Advanced REACH Tool: A Bayesian model for occupational exposure assessment. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2014, 58, 551–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jayjock, M.A.; Hawkins, N.C. Exposure Database Improvements for Indoor Air Model Validation. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 1995, 10, 379–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tielemans, E.; Marquart, H.; De Cock, J.; Groenewold, M.; Van Hemmen, J. A proposal for evaluation of exposure data. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2002, 46, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Goede, H.; Kuijpers, E.; Krone, T.; le Feber, M.; Franken, R.; Fransman, W.; Duyzer, J.; Pronk, A. Future Prospects of Occupational Exposure Modelling of Substances in the Context of Time-Resolved Sensor Data. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2021, 65, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franken, R.; Shandilya, N.; Marquart, H.; McNally, K.; Fransman, W. Extrapolating the Applicability of Measurement Data on Worker Inhalation Exposure to Chemical Substances. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2020, 64, 250–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Landberg, H.E. The Use of Exposure Models in Assessing Occupational Exposure to Chemicals. Doctoral Dissertation, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hemeon, W.C.L. Plant and Process Ventilation; Industrial Press: New York, NY, USA, 1955. [Google Scholar]
- ECHA. Biocides Human Health Exposure Methodology; ECHA: Helsinki, Finland, 2015; p. 355. [Google Scholar]
- Koontz, M.D.; Nagda, N.L. A Multichamber Model For Assessing Consumer Inhalation Exposure. Indoor Air 1991, 1, 593–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SCCS. The SCCS Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and Their Safety Evaluation; LU Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2018; 10th revision. [Google Scholar]
- ECHA. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.15: Consumer Exposure Assessment; ECHA: Helsinki, Finland, 2015; p. 75. [Google Scholar]
- Heinemeyer, G.; Jantunen, M.; Hakkinen, P. (Eds.) The Practice of Consumer Exposure Assessment; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Topic under Discussion | Presenter/Moderator (Affiliation) |
---|---|
Opening, logistics, agenda, aim of the workshop, moderation | Natalie von Goetz, BAG, Swiss Federal Office of Public Health Urs Schlüter, BAuA, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health |
Concept of STOFFENMANAGER® and ART | John Cherrie, Heriot Watt University |
Mass-balance modelling approach | Susan Arnold, University of Minnesota Joonas Koivisto, ARCHE Consulting |
Requirements for the validation of models | Dorothea Koppisch, IFA, Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance |
Requirements for regulatory exposure modelling | Celia Tanarro, ECHA, European Chemicals Agency |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Schlüter, U.; Arnold, S.; Borghi, F.; Cherrie, J.; Fransman, W.; Heussen, H.; Jayjock, M.; Jensen, K.A.; Koivisto, J.; Koppisch, D.; et al. Theoretical Background of Occupational-Exposure Models—Report of an Expert Workshop of the ISES Europe Working Group “Exposure Models”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031234
Schlüter U, Arnold S, Borghi F, Cherrie J, Fransman W, Heussen H, Jayjock M, Jensen KA, Koivisto J, Koppisch D, et al. Theoretical Background of Occupational-Exposure Models—Report of an Expert Workshop of the ISES Europe Working Group “Exposure Models”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(3):1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031234
Chicago/Turabian StyleSchlüter, Urs, Susan Arnold, Francesca Borghi, John Cherrie, Wouter Fransman, Henri Heussen, Michael Jayjock, Keld Alstrup Jensen, Joonas Koivisto, Dorothea Koppisch, and et al. 2022. "Theoretical Background of Occupational-Exposure Models—Report of an Expert Workshop of the ISES Europe Working Group “Exposure Models”" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 3: 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031234