Review of generic scenario environmental release and occupational exposure models used in chemical risk assessment

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is required to determine whether a new chemical substance poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment before the chemical is manufactured in or imported into the United States. This manuscript provides a review of the process used to evaluate the risk associated with a chemical based on the scenarios and models used in the evaluation. Specifically, the Generic Scenarios and Emission Scenario Documents developed by the USEPA were reviewed, along with background documentation prepared by USEPA to identify the core elements of the environmental release and occupational exposure scenarios used to assess the risk of the chemical being evaluated. Additionally, this contribution provides an overview of methods used to model occupational exposures and environmental releases as part of the chemical evaluation process used in other jurisdictions, along with work being performed to improve these models. Finally, the alternative methods to evaluate occupational exposures and environmental releases that may be used as part of the decision-making process regarding a chemical are identified. The contribution provides a path forward for reducing the time required and improving the chemical evaluation of the unreasonable risk determination regarding the manufacture or import of a chemical.

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.

Evaluation of One- and Two-Box Models as Particle Exposure Prediction Tools at Industrial Scale

One- and two-box models have been pointed out as useful tools for modelling indoor particle exposure. However, model performance still needs further testing if they are to be implemented as trustworthy tools for exposure assessment. The objective of this work is to evaluate the performance, applicability and reproducibility of one- and two-box models on real-world industrial scenarios. A study on filling of seven materials in three filling lines with different levels of energy and mitigation strategies was used. Inhalable and respirable mass concentrations were calculated with one- and two-box models. The continuous drop and rotating drum methods were used for emission rate calculation, and ranges from a one-at-a-time methodology were applied for local exhaust ventilation efficiency and inter-zonal air flows. When using both dustiness methods, large differences were observed for modelled inhalable concentrations but not for respirable, which showed the importance to study the linkage between dustiness and processes. Higher model accuracy (ratio modelled vs. measured concentrations 0.5-5) was obtained for the two- (87%) than the one-box model (53%). Large effects on modelled concentrations were seen when local exhausts ventilation and inter-zonal variations where parametrized in the models. However, a certain degree of variation (10-20%) seems acceptable, as similar conclusions are reached.

Adoption of Exposure Assessment Tools to Assist in Providing Respiratory Protection Recommendations

Selecting a proper respirator requires determining the ratio of an employee's maximum use concentration (MUC) divided by the occupational exposure limit of a chemical. Current industrial hygiene practice often is to obtain a percentile estimate (e.g. 95th) of the measured exposure distribution to apply as the MUC. However, practitioners who are not yet familiar with statistical or mathematical approaches may choose the highest exposure data point as the MUC, a method that is still considered appropriate by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Nonetheless, choosing a respirator using the highest exposure data point when only limited data are available may result in not always providing the most adequate respirator. Because some practitioners are not familiar with exposure assessment tools, our primary goal in this study was to demonstrate the best process when selecting respiratory protection by using a combination of exposure data and assessment tools. Three user-friendly tools, IHDataAnalyst, Advanced REACH Tool, and IHSTAT, were selected to demonstrate how to use different types of tool outputs when choosing a respirator. A decision logic was developed to help users navigate the combining of different data inputs. Personal full-shift exposure data collected in four different workplaces were used to describe four different outcomes generated when the maximum exposure data point and the tool's output are compared with the exposure limit of the chemical. Outcomes varied, from determinations of 'high confidence' (or final decision) to 'low confidence' (or indicating more data are needed) in the selection of a respirator recommendation. In conclusion, systematically adopting the combination of exposure data and assessment tools could increase practitioners' confidence in decision-making when choosing respirators from a limited exposure data set. These suggested guidelines will lead practitioners toward good industrial hygiene practices.

Evaluation of Stoffenmanager and a New Exposure Model for Estimating Occupational Exposure to Styrene in the Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics Lamination Process

This study aims to evaluate occupational exposure models by comparing model estimations of Stoffenmanager, version 8.2, and exposure scores calculated using a new exposure model with personal exposure measurements for styrene used in the fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) lamination processes in Korea. Using the collected exposure measurements (n = 160) with detailed contextual information about the type of process, working conditions, local exhaust ventilation, respiratory protections, and task descriptions, we developed a new model algorithm to estimate the score for occupational exposures on situation level. We assumed that the source of exposure originates from the near field only (within the breathing zone of workers). The new model is designed as a simple formula of multiplying scores for job classification, exposure potential, engineering controls, chemical hazard, and exposure probability and then dividing the score for workplace size. The final score is log-transformed, ranging from 1 to 14, and the exposure category is divided into four ratings: no exposure (1), low (2), medium (3), and high (4) exposures. Using the contextual information, all the parameters and modifying factors are similarly entered into the two models through direct translation and coding processes with expert judgement, and the exposure estimations and scores using the two models are calculated for each situation. Overall bias and precision for Stoffenmanager are −1.00 ± 2.07 (50th) and −0.32 ± 2.32 (90th) for all situations (n = 36), indicating that Stoffenmanager slightly underestimated styrene exposures. Pearson’s correlation coefficients are significantly high for Stoffenmanager (r = 0.87) and the new model (r = 0.88), and the correlation between the two models is significantly high (r = 0.93) (p < 0.01). Therefore, the model estimations using Stoffenmanager and the new model are significantly correlated with the styrene exposures in the FRP lamination process. Further studies are needed to validate and calibrate the models using a larger number of exposure measurements for various substances in the future.

Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part II-Higher Tier Tools

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.

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.

Characterization of the Selective Recording of Workplace Exposure Measurements into OSHA's IMIS Databank

Objectives

The Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) is the largest multi-industry source of exposure results available in North America. In 2010, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released the Chemical Exposure Health Data (CEHD) that contains analytical results of samples collected by OSHA inspectors. However, the two databanks only partially overlap, raising suspicion of bias in IMIS data. We investigated the factors associated with selective recording of CEHD results into the IMIS databank.

Methods

This analysis was based on personal exposure measurements of 24 agents from 1984 to 2009. The association between nine variables (level of exposure coded as detected versus non-detected (ND), whether a sampling result was part of a panel of chemicals, duration of sampling, issuance of a citation, presence of other detected levels during the same inspection, year, OSHA region, amount of penalty, and establishment size) and a CEHD sampling result being reported in IMIS was analyzed using modified Poisson regression.

Results

A total of 461900 CEHD sampling results were examined. The proportion of CEHD sampling results recorded into IMIS was 38% (51% for detected and 28% for ND measurements). In the models, the detected sampling results were associated with a higher probability of recording into IMIS than ND sampling results, and this difference was similar for panel versus non-panel samples. Probability of recording remained constant from 1984 to 2009 for sampling results measured on panels but increased for sampling results of single determinations of an agent. Some OSHA regions had probability of recording two times higher than others. No other variables that we examined were associated with a CEHD sampling result being reported in IMIS.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the under-reporting of sampling results in IMIS is differential: ND results (especially those determined from the panels) seem less likely to be recorded in IMIS than other results. It is important to consider both IMIS and CEHD data in order to reduce bias in evaluation of exposures in workplaces inspected by OSHA.

Understanding workers' exposure: Systematic review and data-analysis of emission potential for NOAA

Exposure assessment for nano-objects, and their aggregates and agglomerates (NOAA), has evolved from explorative research toward more comprehensive exposure assessment, providing data to further develop currently used conservative control banding (CB) tools for risk assessment. This study aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on emission potential of NOAA across the occupational life cycle stages by a systematic review and subsequently use the results in a data analysis. Relevant parameters that influence emission were collected from peer-reviewed literature with a focus on the four source domains (SD) in the source-receptor conceptual framework for NOAA. To make the reviewed exposure data comparable, we applied an approach to normalize for workplace circumstances and measurement location, resulting in comparable "surrogate" emission levels. Finally, descriptive statistics were performed. During the synthesis of nanoparticles (SD1), mechanical reduction and gas phase synthesis resulted in the highest emission compared to wet chemistry and chemical vapor condensation. For the handling and transfer of bulk manufactured nanomaterial powders (SD2) the emission could be differentiated for five activity classes: (1) harvesting; (2) dumping; (3); mixing; (4) cleaning of a reactor; and (5) transferring. Additionally, SD2 was subdivided by the handled amount with cleaning further subdivided by energy level. Harvesting and dumping resulted in the highest emissions. Regarding processes with liquids (SD3b), it was possible to distinguish emissions for spraying (propellant gas, (high) pressure and pump), sonication and brushing/rolling. The highest emissions observed in SD3b were for propellant gas spraying and pressure spraying. The highest emissions for the handling of nano-articles (SD4) were found to nano-sized particles (including NOAA) for grinding. This study provides a valuable overview of emission assessments performed in the workplace during the occupational handling of NOAA. Analyses were made per source domain to derive emission levels which can be used for models to quantitatively predict the exposure.

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.

Including exposure variability in the life cycle impact assessment of indoor chemical emissions: the case of metal degreasing

The present paper describes a method that accounts for variation in indoor chemical exposure settings and accompanying human toxicity in life cycle assessment (LCA). Metal degreasing with dichloromethane was used as a case study to show method in practice. We compared the human toxicity related to the degreasing of 1m(2) of metal surface in different exposure scenarios for industrial workers, professional users outside industrial settings, and home consumers. The fraction of the chemical emission that is taken in by exposed individuals (i.e. the intake fraction) was estimated on the basis of operational conditions (e.g. exposure duration), and protective measures (e.g. local exhaust ventilation). The introduction of a time-dependency and a correction for protective measures resulted in reductions in the intake fraction of up to 1.5 orders of magnitude, compared to application of existing, less advanced models. In every exposure scenario, the life cycle impacts for human toxicity were mainly caused by indoor exposure to metal degreaser (>60%). Emissions released outdoors contributed up to 22% of the life cycle impacts for human toxicity, and the production of metal degreaser contributed up to 19%. These findings illustrate that human toxicity from indoor chemical exposure should not be disregarded in LCA case studies. Particularly when protective measures are taken or in the case of a short duration (1h or less), we recommend the use of our exposure scenario-specific approach.

Advanced REACH Tool: a Bayesian model for occupational exposure assessment

This paper describes a Bayesian model for the assessment of inhalation exposures in an occupational setting; the methodology underpins a freely available web-based application for exposure assessment, the Advanced REACH Tool (ART). The ART is a higher tier exposure tool that combines disparate sources of information within a Bayesian statistical framework. The information is obtained from expert knowledge expressed in a calibrated mechanistic model of exposure assessment, data on inter- and intra-individual variability in exposures from the literature, and context-specific exposure measurements. The ART provides central estimates and credible intervals for different percentiles of the exposure distribution, for full-shift and long-term average exposures. The ART can produce exposure estimates in the absence of measurements, but the precision of the estimates improves as more data become available. The methodology presented in this paper is able to utilize partially analogous data, a novel approach designed to make efficient use of a sparsely populated measurement database although some additional research is still required before practical implementation. The methodology is demonstrated using two worked examples: an exposure to copper pyrithione in the spraying of antifouling paints and an exposure to ethyl acetate in shoe repair.