sh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of Data Used for Setting Occupational Exposure Limits
KTH, Filosofi.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3799-4814
2010 (English)In: International journal of occupational and environmental health, ISSN 1077-3525, E-ISSN 2049-3967, Vol. 16, no 3, 249-262 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Resource type
Text
Abstract [en]

It has previously been shown that occupational exposure limits (OELs) for the same substance can vary significantly between different standard-setters. The work presented in this paper identifies the steps in the process towards establishing an OEL and how variations in those processes could account for these differences. This study selects for further scrutiny substances for which the level of OELs vary by a factor of 100, focussing on 45 documents concerning 14 substances from eight standard-setters. Several of the OELs studied were more than 20 years old and based on outdated knowledge. Furthermore, different standard-setters sometimes based their OELs on different sets of data, and data availability alone could not explain all differences in the selection of data sets used by standard-setters. While the interpretation of key studies did not differ significantly in standard-setters' documentations, the evaluations of the key studies' quality did. Also, differences concerning the critical effect coincided with differences in the level of OELs for half of the substances.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 16, no 3, 249-262 p.
Keyword [en]
occupational exposure limits, chemicals regulation, regulatory toxicology, risk assessment, risk management
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-29723DOI: 10.1179/107735210799160255ISI: 000280255400001PubMedID: 20662417Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-77955678506OAI: oai:DiVA.org:sh-29723DiVA: diva2:911660
Funder
The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, 988/42/2006:9Helge Ax:son Johnsons stiftelse
Available from: 2011-02-15 Created: 2016-03-14 Last updated: 2016-09-29Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Setting occupational exposure limits: Practices and outcomes of toxicological risk assessment
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Setting occupational exposure limits: Practices and outcomes of toxicological risk assessment
2011 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) are used as an important regulatory instrument to protect workers’ health from adverse effects of chemical exposures. The main objective of this thesis is to study risk assessment practices in the setting of OEL in order to produce knowledge that will help improve the consistency and transparency of OELs.

For the purpose of paper I a database of OELs for a total of 1341 substances was compiled. Of these, only 25 substances have OELs from all 18 included organisations while more than one third of the substances are only regulated by one organisation alone. The average level of OELs differs substantially between organisations; the US OSHA exposure limits are (on average) nearly 40 % higher than those of Poland.

In paper II six EU member states’ OELs are compared to the European Commission’s OELs. Also within Europe there is a large difference concerning the average level of OELs (35%). The average level of lists tends to decrease over time, although there are exceptions to this. There are also indications that the exposure limits of EU member states are converging towards the European Commission’s OELs.

The work presented in paper III identifies steps in the risk assessment that could account for the large differences in OELs for 14 different substances. Differences in the identification of the critical effect could explain the different level of the OELs for half of the substances. But the age of the data review could not account for all the differences in data selection, only one fifth of the documents referred to all available key studies. Also the evaluation of the key studies varied significantly.

The aim of paper IV was to investigate how the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) of the European Commission uses assessment factors when proposing health-based indicative OELs. For only one third of the investigated OELs were explicit assessment factors given. On average the safety margin of the recommendations was 2.1 higher when an explicit assessment factor had been used. It is recommended that the SCOEL develop and adhere to a more articulate framework on the use of assessment factors.

Paper V focuses on the Derived No-Effect Levels (DNELs) which are to be calculated under the new European Union REACH legislation. It is a comparison of the safety margins of 88 SCOEL recommendations with those of the corresponding worker-DNELs, derived according to the default approach as described in the REACH guidance document. Overall, the REACH safety margins were approximately six times higher than those derived from the SCOEL documentations but varied widely with REACH/SCOEL safety margin ratios ranging by two orders of magnitude, from 0.3 to 58.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2011. viii, 40 p.
Series
Theses in Risk and Safety from the Division of Philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1654-627X ; 6
Keyword
Assessment Factor, DNEL, Euroepan Union, Occupational Exposure Limit, REACH, Risk Assessment, Regulatory Toxicology, SCOEL, Uncertainty Factor
National Category
Pharmacology and Toxicology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-29722 (URN)978-91-7415-853-3 (ISBN)
Public defence
2011-02-28, F3, Lindstedtsvägen 26, Stockholm, 09:30 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2016-03-14 Created: 2016-03-14 Last updated: 2016-03-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Schenk, Linda
In the same journal
International journal of occupational and environmental health
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and ErgonomicsHealth Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 44 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf