Search

A response by Christian Strupp to a letter to the editor about his articles on beryllium toxicity is presented.

This paper provides an outline of the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) version 1.0 and a discussion of how it could be further developed. ART is a higher tier exposure assessment tool that combines mechanistically modelled inhalation exposure predictions with available exposure data using a Bayesian approach. ART assesses exposure for scenarios across different plants and sites. Estimates are provided for different percentiles of the exposure distribution and confidence intervals around the estimate. It also produces exposure estimates in the absence of data, but uncertainty of the estimates will decrease when results of exposure measurements are included. The tool has been calibrated using a broad range of exposure data and provides estimates for exposure to vapours, mists, and dusts. ART has a robust and stable conceptual basis but will be refined in the future and should therefore be considered an evolving system. High-priority areas for future research are identified in this paper and include the integration of partially analogous measurement series, inclusion of company and site-specific assessments, user decision strategies linked to ART predictions, evaluation of validity and reliability of ART, exploring the possibilities for incorporating the dermal route and integration of ART predictions with tools for modelling internal dose. ART is initially developed in the scope of REACH but is equally useful for exposure assessment in other areas. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: We have recently published a study on new-onset asthma in a large population in northern Europe using a modified job exposure matrix (N-JEM) to better reflect exposure assignment in these countries. The aim of this paper was to investigate how the N-JEM differs in exposure assignment and asthma risks from an already established JEM. Method: The study comprised 6253 men and 7031 women from northern Europe, born 1945–1973, who had answered both a screening (1989–1992) and a follow-up questionnaire (1999–2001). During the study period (1980–2000), there were 136 men and 293 women with new-onset asthma. Hazard ratios of new-onset asthma were calculated for both JEMs using Cox regression models. The analyses were made separately for men and women and were also stratified for atopy. Cohen’s kappa (κ) was used to show agreements in exposure assignment (yes/no) between the JEMs. Population attributable risks (PARs) were calculated as well. Results: The agreement in exposure assignment between the JEMs was substantial for the group ‘any exposure’ to asthma agents (κ = 0.78). The agreement between comparable exposure groups in the JEMs varied from κ = 1.00 (pharmaceutical product antigens, textile dust, cleaning agents) to κ = 0.27 (low molecular weight agents). Significant increased asthma risks were seen for men exposed to isocyanates and accidental peak exposure with both JEMs. With the N-JEM, increased asthma risks were seen for men exposed to plant-associated antigens (all and non-atopic), epoxy compounds (all and non-atopic), and acrylates (non-atopic). With the other JEM, increased asthma risks were seen in men and women exposed to ‘possible exposure to irritant gases or fumes’ (all and non-atopic), a group classified as having low asthma risk. Men and women exposed to cleaning agents also showed significant asthma risks with both JEMs. PAR with the N-JEM was 14.3% for men and 6.6% for women, compared with 12.9% and 8.3% with the other JEM. Conclusions: Acrylates, epoxy compounds, and isocyanates are three exposure groups in the modified asthma JEM that might better reflect exposure situations in northern Europe than the already established JEM. Exposure to ‘possible exposure to irritant gases or fumes’, a low asthma risk group in the established JEM, seems to be a group with high asthma risk in northern Europe. It is important to continuously update JEMs, which are based only on occupational titles, in order to find new risk groups and to better reflect changes in work exposures when old risks disappear and new emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the development of the mechanistic model within a collaborative project, referred to as the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) project, to develop a tool to model inhalation exposure for workers sharing similar operational conditions across different industries and locations in Europe. The ART mechanistic model is based on a conceptual framework that adopts a source receptor approach, which describes the transport of a contaminant from the source to the receptor and defines seven independent principal modifying factors: substance emission potential, activity emission potential, localized controls, segregation, personal enclosure, surface contamination, and dispersion. ART currently differentiates between three different exposure types: vapours, mists, and dust (fumes, fibres, and gases are presently excluded). Various sources were used to assign numerical values to the multipliers to each modifying factor. The evidence used to underpin this assessment procedure was based on chemical and physical laws. In addition, empirical data obtained from literature were used. Where this was not possible, expert elicitation was applied for the assessment procedure. Multipliers for all modifying factors were peer reviewed by leading experts from industry, research institutes, and public authorities across the globe. In addition, several workshops with experts were organized to discuss the proposed exposure multipliers. The mechanistic model is a central part of the ART tool and with advancing knowledge on exposure, determinants will require updates and refinements on a continuous basis, such as the effect of worker behaviour on personal exposure, ‘best practice’ values that describe the maximum achievable effectiveness of control measures, the intrinsic emission potential of various solid objects (e.g. metal, glass, plastics, etc.), and extending the applicability domain to certain types of exposures (e.g. gas, fume, and fibre exposure). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A range of industrial minerals was tested using the rotating drum and the continuous drop methods, the two methods proposed by the published European standard EN 15051 [CEN. (2006) EN 15051 Workplace atmospheres—measurement of the dustiness of bulk materials—requirements and test methods. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization], to evaluate and compare their dustiness. The assessment of bulk materials dustiness can help to develop less dusty products and to reduce dust exposure to the workers by improving the processing of minerals. The European standard EN 15051 (CEN, 2006) proposes a classification system that was developed with the intention to assist in the labelling of products in the future. This paper presents a comparison of both test methods in classifying industrial minerals. The correlation between the dustiness measured by the two methods for the inhalable and respirable fractions is given. The results show there is no unambiguous dependence of the dustiness on the grain size of an industrial mineral. Although dustiness can significantly be affected by product moisture, the influence of this parameter is not studied in detail as the industrial minerals were tested in the conditions they are sold, as the standard requires. Especially, the classification of substances with respect to different classes of dustiness was found to be problematic, as the two methods are by no means yielding identical classification groups for all the substances. In any use of the standard (EN 15051; CEN, 2006) for labelling purposes, a revision of the present classification system provided in the standard is required for industrial minerals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]