Advanced REACH Tool: a Bayesian model for occupational exposure assessment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McNally K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4053932 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In Europe, several occupational exposure models have been developed and are recommended for regulatory exposure assessment. Only some information on the substance of interest (e.g., vapor pressure) and the workplace conditions (e.g., ventilation rate) is required in these models to predict an exposure value that will be later used to characterize the risk. However, it has been shown that models may differ in their predictions and that usually, one of the models best fits a given set of exposure conditions. Unfortunately, there are no clear rules on how to select the best model. In this study, we developed a new modeling approach that together uses the three most popular models, Advanced REACH Tool, Stoffenmanger, and ECETOC TRAv3, to obtain a unique exposure prediction. This approach is an extension of the TREXMO tool, and is called TREXMO+. TREXMO+ applies a machine-learning technique on a set of exposure data with the measured values to split them into smaller subsets, corresponding to exposure conditions sharing similar characteristics. For each subset, TREXMO+ then establishes a regression model with the three REACH tools used as the exposure predictors. The performance of the new model was tested and a comparison was made between the results obtained by TREXMO+ and those obtained by conventional tools. TREXMO+ model was found to be less biased and more accurate than the REACH models. Its prediction differs generally from measurements by a factor of 2-3 from measurements, whereas conventional models were found to differ by a factor 2-14. However, as the available test dataset is limited, its results will need to be confirmed by larger-scale tests.
| S-EPMC7397525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Advanced REACH Tool (ART) is the most detailed exposure model currently available for estimating inhalation exposures to dusts, vapours, and aerosols under a broad range of exposure scenarios. The ART follows a Bayesian approach, making use of a calibrated source-receptor model to provide central estimates of exposures and information on exposure variability from meta-analyses in the literature. Uniquely amongst exposure models, the ART provides a facility to update the baseline estimates from the mechanistic model and variance components using measurement data collected on the exposure scenario; however, in practical use, this facility is little used. In this paper, the full capability of the ART tool is demonstrated using a small number of carefully chosen case studies that each had a sufficient breadth of personal exposure measurement data to support a measurement-led exposure assessment. In total, six cases studies are documented, three where the estimate from the source-receptor model of the ART was consistent with measurement data, and a further three case studies where the source-receptor model of the ART was inconsistent with measurement data, resulting in a prior-data conflict. A simulation study was designed that involved drawing subsets of between two and ten measurements from the available measurement dataset, with estimates of the geometric mean (GM) and 90th percentile of exposures from the posterior distribution of ART compared against measurement-based estimates of these summaries. Results from this work indicate that very substantial reductions in the uncertainty associated with estimates of the GM and 90th percentile could be achieved with as few as two measurements, with results in detail sensitive to both the measurements themselves and worker and company labels associated with the measurements. For case studies involving prior-data conflicts, the estimates of the GM and 90th percentile rapidly changed as measurement data were used to update the prior. However, results suggest that the current statistical model of the ART does not allow a complete resolution of a prior-data conflict.
| S-EPMC10094536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To estimate the current occupational cancer burden due to past exposures in Britain, estimates of the number of exposed workers at different levels are required, as well as risk estimates of cancer due to the exposures. This paper describes the methods and results for estimating the historical exposures. All occupational carcinogens or exposure circumstances classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as definite or probable human carcinogens and potentially to be found in British workplaces over the past 20-40 years were included in this study. Estimates of the number of people exposed by industrial sector were based predominantly on two sources of data, the CARcinogen EXposure (CAREX) database and the UK Labour Force Survey. Where possible, multiple and overlapping exposures were taken into account. Dose-response risk estimates were generally not available in the epidemiological literature for the cancer-exposure pairs in this study, and none of the sources available for obtaining the numbers exposed provided data by different levels of exposure. Industrial sectors were therefore assigned using expert judgement to 'higher'- and 'lower'-exposure groups based on the similarity of exposure to the population in the key epidemiological studies from which risk estimates had been selected. Estimates of historical exposure prevalence were obtained for 41 carcinogens or occupational circumstances. These include exposures to chemicals and metals, combustion products, other mixtures or groups of chemicals, mineral and biological dusts, physical agents and work patterns, as well as occupations and industries that have been associated with increased risk of cancer, but for which the causative agents are unknown. There were more than half a million workers exposed to each of six carcinogens (radon, solar radiation, crystalline silica, mineral oils, non-arsenical insecticides and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin); other agents to which a large number of workers are exposed included benzene, diesel engine exhaust and environmental tobacco smoke. The study has highlighted several industrial sectors with large proportions of workers potentially exposed to multiple carcinogens. The relevant available data have been used to generate estimates of the prevalence of past exposure to occupational carcinogens to enable the occupational cancer burden in Britain to be estimated. These data are considered adequate for the present purpose, but new data on the prevalence and intensity of current occupational exposure to carcinogens should be collected to ensure that future policy decisions be based on reliable evidence.
| S-EPMC3384017 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesThe US National Toxicology Program (NTP) recently recommended in its Report on Carcinogens Monograph for Antimony Trioxide that antimony trioxide be listed as 'reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen' based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and supporting evidence from mechanistic studies. Our goal was to estimate the possible human cancer risk from occupational exposure to antimony trioxide.MethodsWe selected data from 2-year inhalation studies in male and female mice conducted by the NTP and performed cancer dose-response analyses using cancer models and benchmark dose methods developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency. In these analyses, we generated benchmark doses and cancer slope factors for antimony trioxide, and then estimated human cancer risk under various exposure scenarios. Typical and worst-case inhalation scenarios in multiple occupational settings were used in risk estimation.ResultsIn typical case scenarios, the occupational cancer risk from antimony trioxide was estimated to be 0.025 (25 in 1000) for persons working with flame retardants in plastics and textiles for 40 years. Under worst-case scenarios, the occupational cancer risk was estimated to be 0.11 (110 in 1000) for persons working with flame retardants in plastics and textiles. At the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit, the cancer risk for occupational inhalation exposure of antimony trioxide was estimated to be 0.096 (96 in 1000).ConclusionThe risk estimates calculated in this study suggest that exposure to antimony trioxide at levels present in certain occupational settings results in a large increase in the risk of developing cancer.
| S-EPMC8149478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stoffenmanager®v4.5 and Advanced REACH Tool (ART) v1.5, two higher tier exposure assessment tools for use under REACH, were evaluated by determining accuracy and robustness. A total of 282 exposure measurements from 51 exposure situations (ESs) were collected and categorized by exposure category. In this study, only the results of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa category having a sufficient number of exposure measurements (n = 251 with 42 ESs) were utilized. In addition, the results were presented by handling/activity description and input parameters for the same exposure category. It should be noted that the performance results of Stoffenmanager and ART in this study cannot be directly compared for some ESs because ART allows a combination of up to four subtasks (and nonexposed periods) to be included, whereas the database for Stoffenmanager, separately developed under the permission of the legal owner of Stoffenmanager, permits the use of only one task to predict exposure estimates. Thus, it would be most appropriate to compare full-shift measurements against ART predictions (full shift including nonexposed periods) and task-based measurements against task-based Stoffenmanager predictions. For liquids with VP > 10 Pa category, Stoffenmanager®v4.5 appeared to be reasonably accurate and robust when predicting exposures [percentage of measurements exceeding the tool's 90th percentile estimate (%M > T) was 15%]. Areas that could potentially be improved include ESs involving the task of handling of liquids on large surfaces or large work pieces, allocation of high and medium VP inputs, and absence of local exhaust ventilation input. Although the ART's median predictions appeared to be reasonably accurate for liquids with VP > 10 Pa, the %M > T for the 90th percentile estimates was 41%, indicating that variance in exposure levels is underestimated by ART. The %M > T using the estimates of the upper value of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 90th percentile estimate (UCI90) was considerably reduced to 18% for liquids with VP > 10 Pa. On the basis of this observation, users might be to consider using the upper limit value of 90% CI of the 90th percentile estimate for predicting reasonable worst case situations. Nevertheless, for some activities and input parameters, ART still shows areas to be improved. Hence, it is suggested that ART developers review the assumptions in relation to exposure variability within the tool, toward improving the tool performance in estimating percentile exposure levels. In addition, for both tools, only some handling/activity descriptions and input parameters were considered. Thus, further validation studies are still necessary.
| S-EPMC6939284 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6939290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe Network on the Coordination and Harmonisation of European Occupational Cohorts (OMEGA-NET) was set up to enable optimization of the use of industrial and general population cohorts across Europe to advance aetiological research. High-quality harmonized exposure assessment is crucial to derive comparable results and to enable pooled analyses. To facilitate a harmonized research strategy, a concerted effort is needed to catalogue available occupational exposure information. We here aim to provide a first comprehensive overview of exposure assessment tools that could be used for occupational epidemiological studies.MethodsAn online inventory was set up to collect meta-data on exposure assessment tools. Occupational health researchers were invited via newsletters, editorials, and individual e-mails to provide details of job-exposure matrices (JEMs), exposure databases, and occupational coding systems and their associated crosswalks to translate codes between different systems, with a focus on Europe.ResultsMeta-data on 36 general population JEMs, 11 exposure databases, and 29 occupational coding systems from more than 10 countries have been collected up to August 2021. A wide variety of exposures were covered in the JEMs on which data were entered, with dusts and fibres (in 14 JEMs) being the most common types. Fewer JEMs covered organization of work (5) and biological factors (4). Dusts and fibres were also the most common exposures included in the databases (7 out of 11), followed by solvents and pesticides (both in 6 databases).ConclusionsThis inventory forms the basis for a searchable web-based database of meta-data on existing occupational exposure information, to support researchers in finding the available tools for assessing occupational exposures in their cohorts, and future efforts for harmonization of exposure assessment. This inventory remains open for further additions, to enlarge its coverage and include newly developed tools.
| S-EPMC9168668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study introduces two semi-quantitative methods, Structured Subjective Assessment (SSA) and Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials, in conjunction with two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulations for determining prior probabilities. Prior distribution using expert judgment was included for comparison. Practical applications of the proposed methods were demonstrated using personal exposure measurements of isoamyl acetate in an electronics manufacturing facility and of isopropanol in a printing shop. Applicability of these methods in real workplaces was discussed based on the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Although these methods could not be completely independent of expert judgments, this study demonstrated a methodological improvement in the estimation of the prior distribution for the Bayesian decision analysis tool. The proposed methods provide a logical basis for the decision process by considering determinants of worker exposure.
| S-EPMC4665102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSubstances used as co-formulants in plant protection products (PPP) may require registration under Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 (REACH), and additionally where an exposure assessment is required, this must take into consideration the specifics of the PPP use.ObjectivesThis work reports a customized screening level model developed to support human health risk assessment of operators, workers, and bystanders (OWB) for co-formulants used in PPP. The OWB model was designed to closely integrate with REACH generic exposure scenarios (GES) for PPP developed by the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA). The use of these tools in combination is expected to lead to a more standardized and hence efficient risk assessment of co-formulants. This study describes the basis for OWB exposure predictions as well as benchmarking against relevant REACH exposure models for equivalent tasks. The benchmarking was carried out to gain some insight into the initial assumption that the most commonly used tier 1 REACH model would be more conservative than the specific PPP models used for regulatory risk assessments under PPP legislation.MethodExisting exposure models with regulatory acceptance for the most common types of PPP and their professional and consumer uses were selected. The German BBA model was used to assess spray applications. Granule and seed dispersal was assessed using the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED). ECETOC TRA was employed to assess exposure during certain tasks performed in seed treatment, not covered by these PPP models. Where the underlying models featured multiple exposure determinants, the exposure was calculated for all permutations, and the worst-case exposure selected and reported for use in risk assessment. The PPP models are based on measured data collected during actual application of PPP; hence, the worst-case exposure predicted was expected to reflect a realistic worst case for these tasks.ResultsOWB was implemented as an Excel spreadsheet. Exposure models, parameters, and exposure and risk estimates are reported in a REACH-compliant output format to facilitate the registration of co-formulant uses. As would be expected, benchmarking OWB against the PPP-specific exposure models demonstrated equivalence with the worst-case prediction from these underlying PPP models. For the scenarios modelled, the tier 1 ECETOC TRA gave more conservative predictions than OWB. The reduction in conservatism is attributed to the underlying PPP models being based on measured data collected specifically during the use of PPP, compared to the data underlying ECETOC TRA, based mainly on industrial workplace uses.ConclusionsOWB provides inhalation and dermal exposure estimates for co-formulants used in PPP which are equivalent to the worst-case estimates from existing specialized PPP exposure models based on measured data. OWB has simplified information requirements in comparison to higher-tier REACH or PPP models. Use of OWB in combination with the defined ECPA GES facilitates an efficient and standardized REACH risk assessment and registration of co-formulant uses in PPP. A defined assessment framework and default inputs potentially decreases the anticipated inter-user variability compared with the use of higher-tier PPP or REACH models in this screening level context.
| S-EPMC6356032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo ascertain the safe use of chemicals that are used in multiple consumer products, the aggregate human exposure, arising from combined use of multiple consumer products needs to be assessed.ObjectiveIn this work the Probabilistic Aggregate Consumer Exposure Model (PACEM) is presented and discussed. PACEM is implemented in the publicly available web tool, PACEMweb, for aggregate consumer exposure assessment.MethodsPACEM uses a person-oriented simulation method that is based on realistic product usage information obtained in surveys from several European countries. PACEM evaluates aggregate exposure in a population considering individual use and co-use patterns as well as variation in product composition. Product usage data is included on personal care products (PCPs) and household cleaning products (HCPs).ResultsPACEM has been implemented in a web tool that supports broad use in research as well as regulatory risk assessment. PACEM has been evaluated in a number of applications, testing and illustrating the advantage of the person-oriented modeling method. Also, PACEM assessments have been evaluated by comparing its results with biomonitoring information.SignificancePACEM enables the assessment of realistic aggregate exposure to chemicals in consumer products. It provides detailed insight into the distribution of exposure in a population as well as products that contribute the most to exposure. This allows for better informed decision making in the risk management of chemicals.ImpactRealistic assessment of the total, aggregate exposure of consumers to chemicals in consumer products is necessary to guarantee the safe use of chemicals in these products. PACEMweb provides, for the first time, a publicly available tool to assist in realistic aggregate exposure assessment of consumers to chemicals in consumer products.
| S-EPMC10733135 | biostudies-literature