Assessment of exposure to TDI and MDI during polyurethane foam production in Poland using integrated theoretical and experimental data

2-Bromopropionyl Esterified Cellulose Nanofibrils as Chain Extenders or Polyols in Stoichiometrically Optimized Syntheses of High-Strength Polyurethanes

2-Bromopropionyl bromide esterified cellulose nanofibrils (Br-CNFs) facilely synthesized from one-pot esterification of cellulose and in situ ultrasonication exhibited excellent N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) dispersibility and reactivity to partially replace either chain extender or soft segment diol in the stoichiometrically optimized syntheses of polyurethanes (PUs). PUs polymerized with Br-CNF to replace either 11 mol% 1,4-butadiol chain extender OHs or 1.8 mol% polytetramethylene ether glycol OHs, i.e., 1.5 or 0.3 wt% Br-CNF in PUs, exhibited an over 3 times increased modulus, nearly 4 times higher strength, and a 50% increase in strain. In either role, the experimental modulus exceeding those predicted by the Halpin-Tsai model gave evidence of the stoichiometrically optimized covalent bonding with Br-CNF, while the improved strain was attributed to increased hydrogen-bonding interactions between Br-CNF and the soft segment. These new Br-CNFs not only offer novel synthetic strategies to incorporate nanocelluloses in polyurethanes but also maximize their reinforcing effects via their versatile polyol reactant and cross-linking roles, demonstrating promising applications in the synthesis of other polymers.

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

(1) Background: The ECETOC Targeted Risk Assessment (TRA) tool is widely used for estimation of worker exposure levels in the development of dossiers for REACH registration of manufactured or imported chemical substances in Europe. A number of studies have been published since 2010 in which the exposure estimates of the tool are compared with workplace exposure measurement results and in some instances an underestimation of exposure was reported. The quality and results of these studies are being reviewed by ECETOC. (2) Methods: Original exposure measurement data from published comparison studies for which six or more data points were available for each workplace scenario and a TRA estimate had been developed to create a curated database to examine under what conditions and for which applications the tool is valid or may need adaptation. (3) Results: The published studies have been reviewed for completeness and clarity and TRA estimates have been constructed based on the available information, following a set of rules. The full review findings are expected to be available in the course of 2021. (4) Conclusions: The ECETOC TRA tool developers periodically review the validity and limitations of their tool, in line with international recommendations.

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

In the last years, the evaluation and validation of exposure modelling tools for inhalation exposure assessment at workplaces received new and highly increased attention by different stakeholders. One important study in this regard is the ETEAM (Evaluation of Tier 1 Exposure Assessment Models) project that evaluated exposure assessment tools under the European REACH regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals), (but next to the ETEAM project-as a project publicly funded by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA)-it is a rather new development that research groups from universities in Europe, but also internationally, investigated this issue. These other studies focused not only on REACH tier 1 tools but also investigated other tools and aspects of tool validity. This paper tries to summarise the major findings of studies that explored the different issues of tool validity by focusing on the scientific outcomes and the exposure on the science community. On the other hand, this publication aims to provide guidance on the choice and use of tools, addressing the needs of tool users. The consequences of different stakeholders under REACH are discussed from the results of the validation studies. The major stakeholders are: (1) REACH registrants or applicants for REACH authorisations, meaning those companies, consortia or associations who are subject to REACH; (2) Evaluating authorities within the scope of REACH, meaning the ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) secretariat and committees, but also the competent authorities of the member states or the European Union; (3) Developers of the different models and tools; (4) Users of the different models and tools.

Comparison between Communicated and Calculated Exposure Estimates Obtained through Three Modeling Tools

This study aims to evaluate the risk assessment approach of the REACH legislation in industrial chemical departments with a focus on the use of three models to calculate exposures, and discuss those factors that can determine a bias between the estimated exposure (and therefore the expected risk) in the extended safety data sheets (e-SDS) and the expected exposure for the actual scenario. To purse this goal, the exposure estimates and risk characterization ratios (RCRs) of registered exposure scenarios (ES; “communicated exposure” and “communicated RCR”) were compared with the exposure estimates and the corresponding RCRs calculated for the actual, observed ES, using recommended tools for the evaluation of exposure assessment and in particular the following tools: (i) the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Targeted Risk Assessment v.3.1 (ECETOC TRA), (ii) STOFFENMANAGER^® v.8.0 and (iii) the Advanced REACH Tool (ART). We evaluated 49 scenarios in three companies handling chemicals. Risk characterization ratios (RCRs) were calculated by dividing estimated exposures by derived no-effect levels (DNELs). Although the calculated exposure and RCRs generally were lower than communicated, the correlation between communicated and calculated exposures and RCRs was generally poor, indicating that the generic registered scenarios do not reflect actual working, exposure and risk conditions. Further, some observed scenarios resulted in calculated exposure values and RCR higher than those communicated through chemicals’ e-SDSs; thus ‘false safe’ scenarios (calculated RCRs > 1) were also observed. Overall, the obtained evidences contribute to doubt about whether the risk assessment should be performed using generic (communicated by suppliers) ES with insufficient detail of the specific scenario at all companies. Contrariwise, evidences suggested that it would be safer for downstream users to perform scenario-specific evaluations, by means of proper scaling approach, to achieve more representative estimates of chemical risk.

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

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.

Qualitative and quantitative differences between common control banding tools for nanomaterials in workplaces

A number of control banding (CB) tools have been developed specifically for managing the risk of exposure to engineered nanomaterials. However, data on the methodological differences between common CB tools for nanomaterials in workplaces are rare. A comparative study with different CB tools, such as Nanosafer, Stoffenmanager-Nano, Nanotool, Precautionary Matrix, ECguidance, IVAM Guidance, ISO, and ANSES, was performed to investigate their qualitative and quantitative differences in real exposure scenarios. These tools were developed for different purposes, with different application domains, methodological principles, and criteria. Multi-criteria analysis showed that there was a diverse distribution of these eight CB tools across different evaluation indicators. The total evaluation scores for Nanotool, Stoffenmanager-Nano, and Nanosafer were higher than the other tools. Quantitative comparisons demonstrated that ANSES, ECguidance, and IVAM Guidance tools were better in terms of information availability. Nanotool, Stoffenmanager-Nano, and ECguidance were better in terms of the sensitivity of outputs to changes in exposure parameters. The Nanotool, ANSES, and ECguidance tools were better in terms of accuracy of hazard outcomes evaluated with toxicological data. The Stoffenmanager-Nano, Nanotool, and Nanosafer tools' exposure scores for seven scenarios had a good correlation with measurement data. The Nanotool and Stoffenmanager-Nano tools had much higher comprehensive advantages based on quantitative and qualitative assessment. More comparative studies evaluating different tools are required, using more types of nanomaterials in real exposure scenarios.

A number of control banding (CB) tools have been developed specifically for managing the risk of exposure to engineered nanomaterials.

Comparing REACH Chemical Safety Assessment information with practice-a case-study of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in floor coating in The Netherlands

On June 1st, 2007 the European regulation on Registration, Evaluation and Restriction of Chemical substances (REACH) came into force. Aim of the regulation is safe use of chemicals for humans and for the environment. The core element of REACH is chemical safety assessment of chemicals and communication of health and safety hazards and risk management measures throughout the supply chain. Extended Safety Data Sheets (Ext-SDS) are the primary carriers of health and safety information. The aim of our project was to find out whether the actual exposure to methyl methacrylate (MMA) during the application of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in floor coatings as assessed in the chemical safety assessment, reflect the exposure situations as observed in the Dutch building practice. Use of PMMA flooring and typical exposure situations during application were discussed with twelve representatives of floor laying companies. Representative situations for exposure measurements were designated on the basis of this inventory. Exposure to MMA was measured in the breathing zone of the workers at four construction sites, 14 full shift samples and 14 task based samples were taken by personal air sampling. The task-based samples were compared with estimates from the Targeted Risk Assessment Tool (v3.1) of the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC-TRA) as supplied in the safety assessment from the manufacturer. For task-based measurements, in 12 out of 14 (86%) air samples measured exposure was higher than estimated exposure. Recalculation with a lower ventilation rate (50% instead of 80%) together with a higher temperature during mixing (40°C instead of 20°C) in comparison with the CSR, reduced the number of underestimated exposures to 10 (71%) samples. Estimation with the EMKG-EXPO-Tool resulted in unsafe exposure situations for all scenarios, which is in accordance with the measurement outcomes. In indoor situations, 5 out of 8 full shift exposures (62%) to MMA were higher than the Dutch occupational exposure limit of 205mg/m³ (8h TWA), which equals the DNEL. For semi-enclosed situations this was 1 out of 6 (17%). Exposures varied from 31 to 367mg/m³. The results emphasize that ECETOC-TRA exposure estimates in poorly controlled situations need better underpinning.

Sensitivity analysis, dominant factors, and robustness of the ECETOC TRA v3, Stoffenmanager 4.5, and ART 1.5 occupational exposure models

Occupational exposure modeling is widely used in the context of the E.U. regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals (REACH). First tier tools, such as European Centre for Ecotoxicology and TOxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) targeted risk assessment (TRA) or Stoffenmanager, are used to screen a wide range of substances. Those of concern are investigated further using second tier tools, e.g., Advanced REACH Tool (ART). Local sensitivity analysis (SA) methods are used here to determine dominant factors for three models commonly used within the REACH framework: ECETOC TRA v3, Stoffenmanager 4.5, and ART 1.5. Based on the results of the SA, the robustness of the models is assessed. For ECETOC, the process category (PROC) is the most important factor. A failure to identify the correct PROC has severe consequences for the exposure estimate. Stoffenmanager is the most balanced model and decision making uncertainties in one modifying factor are less severe in Stoffenmanager. ART requires a careful evaluation of the decisions in the source compartment since it constitutes ∼75% of the total exposure range, which corresponds to an exposure estimate of 20-22 orders of magnitude. Our results indicate that there is a trade off between accuracy and precision of the models. Previous studies suggested that ART may lead to more accurate results in well-documented exposure situations. However, the choice of the adequate model should ultimately be determined by the quality of the available exposure data: if the practitioner is uncertain concerning two or more decisions in the entry parameters, Stoffenmanager may be more robust than ART.

The clinical and immunomodulatory effects of green soybean extracts

The present study was performed to investigate the immune-modulating activities of extracts from green soybean (Glycine max) in a 2,4-toluene diisocyanate (TDI)-inducing guinea pig rhinitis model and a human trial study for allergic rhinitis. Hot water extracts of green soybean were chosen for animal experimentation on the basis of their ability to regulate the production of B cell-activating factor of the TNF family and a proliferation-inducing ligand in mouse spleen cells. Green soybean extracts significantly decreased the levels of ovalubumin (OVA)-specific IgE in mice and significantly suppressed the TDI-induced nasal mucosa secretion. An open-label human pilot study was performed on 16 subjects, using Japanese cedar pollinosis. The symptom scores for Japanese cedar pollinosis were better in the long-term green soybean extracts intake group than in the withdrawal short-term intake group. Green soybean extracts had great potential as an orally active immune modulator for the treatment of various allergic diseases.