Evaluation of the ECETOC TRA model for workplace inhalation exposure to ethylbenzene in Japan

Modelling Exposure by Spraying Activities-Status and Future Needs

Spray applications enable a uniform distribution of substances on surfaces in a highly efficient manner, and thus can be found at workplaces as well as in consumer environments. A systematic literature review on modelling exposure by spraying activities has been conducted and status and further needs have been discussed with experts at a symposium. This review summarizes the current knowledge about models and their level of conservatism and accuracy. We found that extraction of relevant information on model performance for spraying from published studies and interpretation of model accuracy proved to be challenging, as the studies often accounted for only a small part of potential spray applications. To achieve a better quality of exposure estimates in the future, more systematic evaluation of models is beneficial, taking into account a representative variety of spray equipment and application patterns. Model predictions could be improved by more accurate consideration of variation in spray equipment. Inter-model harmonization with regard to spray input parameters and appropriate grouping of spray exposure situations is recommended. From a user perspective, a platform or database with information on different spraying equipment and techniques and agreed standard parameters for specific spraying scenarios from different regulations may be useful.

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.

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.

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.