IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i11p4175-d370335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Spinazzè

    (Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy)

  • Francesca Borghi

    (Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy)

  • Daniele Magni

    (Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy)

  • Costanza Rovida

    (TEAM mastery S.r.l. Via Ferrari 14, 22100 Como, Italy)

  • Monica Locatelli

    (TEAM mastery S.r.l. Via Ferrari 14, 22100 Como, Italy)

  • Andrea Cattaneo

    (Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy)

  • Domenico Maria Cavallo

    (Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Spinazzè & Francesca Borghi & Daniele Magni & Costanza Rovida & Monica Locatelli & Andrea Cattaneo & Domenico Maria Cavallo, 2020. "Comparison between Communicated and Calculated Exposure Estimates Obtained through Three Modeling Tools," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:4175-:d:370335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/4175/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/4175/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Spinazzè & Francesca Borghi & Davide Campagnolo & Sabrina Rovelli & Marta Keller & Giacomo Fanti & Andrea Cattaneo & Domenico Maria Cavallo, 2019. "How to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Occupational Exposure? Review and Discussion of Models’ Reliability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-29, August.
    2. John William Cherrie & Wouter Fransman & Gerardus Antonius Henrikus Heussen & Dorothea Koppisch & Keld Alstrup Jensen, 2020. "Exposure Models for REACH and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-8, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Urs Schlueter & Martin Tischer, 2020. "Validity of Tier 1 Modelling Tools and Impacts on Exposure Assessments within REACH Registrations—ETEAM Project, Validation Studies and Consequences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Kevin McNally, 2023. "How Valuable Are Small Measurement Datasets in Supplementing Occupational Exposure Models? A Numerical Study Using the Advanced Reach Tool," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(7), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Urs Schlüter & Susan Arnold & Francesca Borghi & John Cherrie & Wouter Fransman & Henri Heussen & Michael Jayjock & Keld Alstrup Jensen & Joonas Koivisto & Dorothea Koppisch & Jessica Meyer & Andrea S, 2022. "Theoretical Background of Occupational-Exposure Models—Report of an Expert Workshop of the ISES Europe Working Group “Exposure Models”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Stefan Hahn & Jessica Meyer & Michael Roitzsch & Christiaan Delmaar & Wolfgang Koch & Janine Schwarz & Astrid Heiland & Thomas Schendel & Christian Jung & Urs Schlüter, 2021. "Modelling Exposure by Spraying Activities—Status and Future Needs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-26, July.
    5. Jan Urbanus & Oliver Henschel & Qiang Li & Dave Marsh & Chris Money & Dook Noij & Paul van de Sandt & Joost van Rooij & Matthias Wormuth, 2020. "The ECETOC-Targeted Risk Assessment Tool for Worker Exposure Estimation in REACH Registration Dossiers of Chemical Substances—Current Developments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-9, November.
    6. John William Cherrie & Wouter Fransman & Gerardus Antonius Henrikus Heussen & Dorothea Koppisch & Keld Alstrup Jensen, 2020. "Exposure Models for REACH and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-8, January.
    7. Sashoy G. Milton & Rachel A. Tejiram & Rashmi Joglekar & Kate Hoffman, 2023. "Characterizing the Contribution of Indoor Residential Phthalate and Phthalate Alternative Dust Concentrations to Internal Dose in the US General Population: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(16), pages 1-19, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:4175-:d:370335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.