Dataset Information

How to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Occupational Exposure? Review and Discussion of Models' Reliability.

ABSTRACT: Evaluation and validation studies of quantitative exposure models for occupational exposure assessment are still scarce and generally only consider a limited number of exposure scenarios. The aim of this review was to report the current state of knowledge of models' reliability in terms of precision, accuracy, and robustness. A systematic review was performed through searches of major scientific databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed), concerning reliability of Tier1 ("ECETOC TRA"-European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Targeted Risk Assessment, MEASE, and EMKG-Expo-Tool) and Tier2 models (STOFFENMANAGER^® and "ART"-Advanced Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Tool). Forty-five studies were identified, and we report the complete information concerning model performance in different exposure scenarios, as well as between-user reliability. Different studies describe the ECETOC TRA model as insufficient conservative to be a Tier1 model, in different exposure scenarios. Contrariwise, MEASE and EMKG-Expo-Tool seem to be conservative enough, even if these models have not been deeply evaluated. STOFFENMANAGER^® resulted the most balanced and robust model. Finally, ART was generally found to be the most accurate and precise model, with a medium level of conservatism. Overall, the results showed that no complete evaluation of the models has been conducted, suggesting the need for correct and harmonized validation of these tools.

SUBMITTER: Spinazze A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6695664 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Occupational Exposure? Review and Discussion of Models' Reliability.

Spinazzè Andrea A Borghi Francesca F Campagnolo Davide D Rovelli Sabrina S Keller Marta M Fanti Giacomo G Cattaneo Andrea A Cavallo Domenico Maria DM

International journal of environmental research and public health 20190802 15

Evaluation and validation studies of quantitative exposure models for occupational exposure assessment are still scarce and generally only consider a limited number of exposure scenarios. The aim of this review was to report the current state of knowledge of models' reliability in terms of precision, accuracy, and robustness. A systematic review was performed through searches of major scientific databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed), concerning reliability of Tier1 ("ECETOC TRA"-Europea ...[more]

PMID: 31382456

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesJob exposure matrices (JEMs) are important tools for estimating occupational exposures in study populations where only information on industry and occupation (I&O) are available. JEMs The objective of this work was to create JEMs for solar and artificial ultraviolet radiation (UVR) using a US standardized coding scheme.MethodsUsing U.S. Census Bureau industry and occupation codes, separate lists of I&O pairs were developed for solar and artificial UVR by a panel of Certified Industrial Hygienists who assigned exposure ratings to I&O pairs with potential exposure. Parameters for exposure included prevalence (P) and frequency (F) for solar UVR and P, F, and intensity (I) for artificial UVR. Prevalence, or percent of all workers employed in an I&O pair who were exposed, was categorically rated: 0 to <1, 1 to <20; 20 to <80, and ≥80. Frequency of exposure, defined by the number of hours per week workers were exposed, was categorically rated: 0 to <5, 5 to <20, 20 to <35, and ≥35 h per week. For artificial UVR only, intensity of exposure was assigned three ratings: low, low with rare excursions, and >low under normal conditions. Discrepant ratings were resolved via consensus.ResultsAfter excluding I&O pairs assigned P and F ratings of 0 (solar UVR) and P, F, and I ratings of 0 (artificial UVR) from the JEM, 9206 I&O pairs were rated for solar UVR and 2010 I&O pairs for artificial UVR. For solar UVR, 723 (7.9% of all rated pairs) had ratings in the highest category for P and F; this group included 45 occupations in varied industries. Construction and extraction occupations represented most of the occupations (n = 20; 44%), followed by farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (n = 6; 13%). For artificial UVR, 87 I&O pairs (4.3% of all rated pairs) had maximum ratings for P, F, and I; these comprised a single occupation (welding, soldering, and brazing workers) in diverse industries.ConclusionsJEMs for solar and artificial UVR were developed for a broad range of I&O pairs in the US population and are available for use by researchers conducting occupational epidemiological studies.

Project description:BackgroundIn epidemiologic studies that rely on professional judgment to assess occupational exposures, the raters' accurate assessment is vital to detect associations. We examined the influence of the type of questionnaire, type of industry, and type of rater on the raters' ability to reliably and validly assess within-industry differences in exposure. Our aim was to identify areas where improvements in exposure assessment may be possible.MethodsSubjects from three foundries (n = 72) and three textile plants (n = 74) in Shanghai, China, completed an occupational history (OH) and an industry-specific questionnaire (IQ). Six total dust measurements were collected per subject and were used to calculate a subject-specific measurement mean, which was used as the gold standard. Six raters independently ranked the intensity of each subject's current job on an ordinal scale (1-4) based on the OH alone and on the OH and IQ together. Aggregate ratings were calculated for the group, for industrial hygienists, and for occupational physicians. We calculated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) to evaluate the reliability of the raters. We calculated the correlation between the subject-specific measurement means and the ratings to evaluate the raters' validity. Analyses were stratified by industry, type of questionnaire, and type of rater. We also examined the agreement between the ratings by exposure category, where the subject-specific measurement means were categorized into two and four categories.ResultsThe reliability and validity measures were higher for the aggregate ratings than for the ratings from the individual raters. The group's performance was maximized with three raters. Both the reliability and validity measures were higher for the foundry industry than for the textile industry. The ICCs were consistently lower in the OH/IQ round than in the OH round in both industries. In contrast, the correlations with the measurement means were higher in the OH/IQ round than in the OH round for the foundry industry (group rating, OH/IQ: Spearman rho = 0.77; OH: rho = 0.64). No pattern by questionnaire type was observed for the textile industry (group rating, Spearman rho = 0.50, both assessment rounds). For both industries, the agreement by exposure category was higher when the task was reduced to discriminating between two versus four exposure categories.ConclusionsAssessments based on professional judgment may reduce misclassification by using two or three raters, by using questionnaires that systematically collect task information, and by defining intensity categories that are distinguishable by the raters. However, few studies have the resources to use multiple raters and these additional efforts may not be adequate for obtaining valid subjective ratings. Thus, improving exposure assessment approaches for studies that rely on professional judgment remain an important research need.

Dataset Information

How to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Occupational Exposure? Review and Discussion of Models' Reliability.

Publications

How to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Occupational Exposure? Review and Discussion of Models' Reliability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets