Exposure modelling in Europe: how to pave the road for the future as part of the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030

Accessible methods and tools to estimate chemical exposure in humans to support risk assessment: A systematic scoping review

Exposure assessment is a crucial component of environmental health research, providing essential information on the potential risks associated with various chemicals. A systematic scoping review was conducted to acquire an overview of accessible human exposure assessment methods and computational tools to support and ultimately improve risk assessment. The systematic scoping review was performed in Sysrev, a web platform that introduces machine learning techniques into the review process aiming for increased accuracy and efficiency. Included publications were restricted to a publication date after the year 2000, where exposure methods were properly described. Exposure assessments methods were found to be used for a broad range of environmental chemicals including pesticides, metals, persistent chemicals, volatile organic compounds, and other chemical classes. Our results show that after the year 2000, for all the types of exposure routes, probabilistic analysis, and computational methods to calculate human exposure have increased. Sixty-three mathematical models and toolboxes were identified that have been developed in Europe, North America, and globally. However, only twelve occur frequently and their usefulness were associated with exposure route, chemical classes and input parameters used to estimate exposure. The outcome of the combined associations can function as a basis and/or guide for decision making for the selection of most appropriate method and tool to be used for environmental chemical human exposure assessments in Ontology-driven and artificial intelligence-based repeated dose toxicity testing of chemicals for next generation risk assessment (ONTOX) project and elsewhere. Finally, the choice of input parameters used in each mathematical model and toolbox shown by our analysis can contribute to the harmonization process of the exposure models and tools increasing the prospect for comparison between studies and consistency in the regulatory process in the future.

A generic approach to estimate airborne concentrations of substances released by indoor spray processes using a deterministic 2-box model

Sprays are used both in workplace and consumer settings. Although spraying has advantages, such as uniform distribution of substances on surfaces in a highly efficient manner, it is often associated with a high inhalation burden. For an adequate risk assessment, this exposure has to be reliably quantified. Exposure models of varying complexity are available, which are applicable to spray applications. However, a need for improvement has been identified. In this contribution, a simple 2-box approach is suggested for the assessment of the time-weighted averaged exposure concentration (TWA) using a minimum of input data. At the moment, the model is restricted to binary spray liquids composed of a non-volatile fraction and volatile solvents. The model output can be refined by introducing correction factors based on the classification and categorization of two key parameters, the droplet size class and the vapor pressure class of the solvent, or by using a data set of experimentally determined airborne release fractions related to the used spray equipment. A comparison of model results with measured data collected at real workplaces showed that this simple model based on readily available input parameters is very useful for screening purposes. The generic 2-box spray model without refinement overestimates the measurements of the considered scenarios in approximately 50% of the cases by more than a factor of 100. The generic 2-box model performs better for room spraying than for surface spraying, as the airborne fraction in the latter case is clearly overestimated. This conservatism of the prediction was significantly reduced when correction factors or experimentally determined airborne release fractions were used in addition to the generic input parameters. The resulting predictions still overestimate the exposure (ratio tool estimate to measured TWA > 10) or they are accurate (ratio 0.5-10). If the available information on boundary conditions (application type, equipment) does not justify the usage of airborne release fraction, room spraying should be used resulting in the highest exposure estimate. The model scope may be extended to (semi)volatile substances. However, acceptance may be compromised by the limited availability of measured data for this group of substances and thus may have limited potency to evaluate the model prediction.

Human biomonitoring and toxicokinetics as key building blocks for next generation risk assessment

Human health risk assessment is historically built upon animal testing, often following Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines and exposure assessments. Using combinations of human relevant in vitro models, chemical analysis and computational (in silico) approaches bring advantages compared to animal studies. These include a greater focus on the human species and on molecular mechanisms and kinetics, identification of Adverse Outcome Pathways and downstream Key Events as well as the possibility of addressing susceptible populations and additional endpoints. Much of the advancement and progress made in the Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA) have been primarily focused on new approach methodologies (NAMs) and physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modelling without incorporating human biomonitoring (HBM). The integration of toxicokinetics (TK) and PBK modelling is an essential component of NGRA. PBK models are essential for describing in quantitative terms the TK processes with a focus on the effective dose at the expected target site. Furthermore, the need for PBK models is amplified by the increasing scientific and regulatory interest in aggregate and cumulative exposure as well as interactions of chemicals in mixtures. Since incorporating HBM data strengthens approaches and reduces uncertainties in risk assessment, here we elaborate on the integrated use of TK, PBK modelling and HBM in chemical risk assessment highlighting opportunities as well as challenges and limitations. Examples are provided where HBM and TK/PBK modelling can be used in both exposure assessment and hazard characterization shifting from external exposure and animal dose/response assays to animal-free, internal exposure-based NGRA.

Understanding the limitations and application of occupational exposure models in a REACH context

Exposure modeling plays a significant role for regulatory organizations, companies, and professionals involved in assessing and managing occupational health risks in workplaces. One context in which occupational exposure models are particularly relevant is the REACH Regulation in the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006). This commentary describes the models for the occupational inhalation exposure assessment of chemicals within the REACH framework, their theoretical background, applications, and limitations, as well as the latest developments and priorities for model improvement. Summing up the debate, despite its relevance and importance in the context of REACH not being in question, occupational exposure modeling needs to be improved in many respects. There is a need to reach a wide consensus on several key issues (e.g., the theoretical background and the reliability of modeling tools), to consolidate and monitor model performance and regulatory acceptance, and to align practices and policies regarding exposure modeling.

Risk assessment of chemicals and their mixtures are hindered by scarcity and inconsistencies between different environmental exposure limits

In chemical risk assessment, measured or modelled environmental concentrations are compared to environmental exposure limits (EELs), such as Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNECs) or hazardous concentrations for 5% of species (HC05s) derived from species sensitivity distributions (SSDs). However, for many chemicals the EELs include large uncertainties or, in the worst case, the necessary data for their estimation are completely missing. This makes the assessment of chemical risks and any subsequent implementation of management strategies challenging. In this study we analyzed the uncertainty of EELs and its impact on chemical risk assessment. First, we compared three individual EEL datasets, two primarily based on experimental data and one based on computational predictions. The comparison demonstrates large disagreements between EEL data sources, with experimentally derived EELs differing by more than seven orders of magnitude. In a case-study, based on the predicted emissions of 2005 chemicals, we showed that these uncertainties lead to significantly different risk assessment outcomes, including large differences in the magnitude of the total risk, risk driver identification, and the ranking of use categories as risk contributors. We also show that the large data-gaps in EEL datasets cannot be covered by commonly used computational approaches (QSARs). We conclude that an expanded framework for interpreting risk characterization outcomes is needed. We also argue that the large data-gaps present in ecotoxicological data need to be addressed in order to achieve the European zero pollution vision as the growing emphasis on ambient exposures will further increase the demand for accurate and well-established EELs.

Evaluation of Stoffenmanager® and ART for Estimating Occupational Inhalation Exposures to Volatile Liquids

In practice, workers often handle the same chemical(s) of interest under different control measures (e.g. local ventilation, enclosed system) during a full shift. Stoffenmanager® allows users to predict either task-based or full-shift exposures. However, most previous studies evaluated the tool by comparing task-based exposures with measured exposures. Also, limited evaluation studies of the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) with the Bayesian approach (ART+B) are available, requiring additional evaluation studies. The performance of Stoffenmanager® and ART with and without the Bayesian approach was evaluated with measured full-shift exposures to volatile liquids in terms of accuracy, precision, and conservatism. Forty-two exposure situation scenarios (including 251 exposures), developed based on job tasks and chemicals handled during tasks from workplaces, were used to generate full-shift estimates. The estimates were then compared with measured exposures using various comparison methods. Overall, Stoffenmanager® appeared to be the most accurate among the testing tools, while ART+B was the most precise. The percentage of measured exposures exceeding the tools' 90th percentile estimates (%M>T) demonstrated that Stoffenmanager® (16%M>T) and ART+B (13%M>T) were more conservative than ART (41%M>T). When the 90% upper confidence limit of the 90th percentile estimate was considered, the level of conservatism changed from low (41%M>T) to medium (17%M>T) for ART and from medium (13%M>T) to high (0.8%M>T) for ART+B. The findings of this study indicate that no single tool would work for all ESs. Thus, it is recommended that users select a tool based on the performance results of three components (i.e. accuracy, precision, and conservatism), not depending on one or two components. The strength of this study is that the required tools' input parameters were obtained during the sample collection to minimize assumptions for many input parameters. In addition, unlike other previous studies, multiple subtasks, which happen often in workplaces, were incorporated in this study. Nevertheless, the present study did not cover all activities listed in the tools and was limited to volatile liquids, suggesting further studies cover other exposure categories (e.g. solid, metal) and diverse activities.

The European exposure science strategy 2020-2030

Exposure science is an emerging and rapidly growing field dedicated to all aspects concerning the contact between chemical, biological, physical or psycho-social stressors and human and ecological receptors. With that, exposure science plays a central role in protecting human and ecosystem health, and contributes to the global transition towards a green and sustainable society. In Europe, however, exposure science is currently not sufficiently recognised as a scientific field, resulting in inefficient uptake into policies. In response, the wider European exposure science community developed elements and actions under the auspices of the Europe Regional Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science (ISES Europe), for identified priority areas, namely education, exposure models, exposure data, human biomonitoring, and policy uptake. In the present document, we synthesize these strategic elements into an overarching 'European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030', following three strategic objectives that focus on acknowledging exposure science as an independent and interconnected field, harmonizing approaches and tools across regulations, and exploring collaboration, education and funding mechanisms. To operationalise this strategy, we present concrete key actions and propose initiatives and funding options for advancing the underlying science, cultivating broader education and cross-sector exposure knowledge transfer, and fostering effective uptake of exposure information into policy. We aim at anchoring European efforts in the global exposure science context, with a special focus on the interface between scientific advancements, application in decision support, and dissemination and training. This will help to develop exposure science as a strong scientific field with the ultimate goal to successfully assess and manage various stressors across sectors and geographic scales.

Advancing exposure data analytics and repositories as part of the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030

High-quality and comprehensive exposure-related data are critical for different decision contexts, including environmental and human health monitoring, and chemicals risk assessment and management. However, exposure-related data are currently scattered, frequently of unclear quality and structure, not readily accessible, and stored in various-partly overlapping-data repositories, leading to inefficient and ineffective data usage in Europe and globally. We propose strategic guidance for an integrated European exposure data production and management framework for use in science and policy, building on current and future data analysis and digitalization trends. We map the existing exposure data landscape to requirements for data analytics and repositories across European policies and regulations. We further identify needs and ways forward for improving data generation, sharing, and usage, and translate identified needs into an operational action plan for European and global advancement of exposure data for policies and regulations. Identified key areas of action are to develop consistent exposure data standards and terminology for data production and reporting, increase data transparency and availability, enhance data storage and related infrastructure, boost automation in data management, increase data integration, and advance tools for innovative data analysis. Improving and streamlining exposure data generation and uptake into science and policy is crucial for the European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and European Digital Strategy, in line with EU Data policies on data management and interoperability.

Enhancing the use of exposure science across EU chemical policies as part of the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030

BACKGROUND

A scientific framework on exposure science will boost the multiuse of exposure knowledge across EU chemicals-related policies and improve risk assessment, risk management and communication across EU safety, security and sustainability domains.

OBJECTIVE

To stimulate public and private actors to align and strengthen the cross-policy adoption of exposure assessment data, methods and tools across EU legislation.

METHODS

By mapping and analysing the EU regulatory landscape making use of exposure information, policy and research challenges and key areas of action are identified and translated into opportunities enhancing policy and scientific efficiency.

RESULTS

Identified key areas of actions are to develop a common scientific exposure assessment framework, supported by baseline acceptance criteria and a shared knowledge base enhancing exchangeability and acceptability of exposure knowledge within and across EU chemicals-related policies. Furthermore, such framework will improve communication and management across EU chemical safety, security and sustainability policies comprising sourcing, manufacturing and global trade of goods and waste management. In support of building such a common framework and its effective use in policy and industry, exposure science innovation needs to be better embedded along the whole policymaking cycle, and be integrated into companies' safety and sustainability management systems. This will help to systemically improve regulatory risk management practices.

SIGNIFICANCE

This paper constitutes an important step towards the implementation of the EU Green Deal and its underlying policy strategies, such as the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.