oru.sePublikationer
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 and Evaluation of Multiple Users' Usage of the Exposure and Risk Tool: Stoffenmanager 5.1
Univ Hosp, Inst Lab Med, Dept Occupat & Environm Med, S-22185 Lund, Sweden..
Orebro Univ Hosp, Dept Occupat & Environm Med, Orebro, Sweden..
Orebro Univ Hosp, Dept Occupat & Environm Med, Orebro, Sweden..
Univ Hosp, Inst Lab Med, Dept Occupat & Environm Med, S-22185 Lund, Sweden..
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: Annals of Occupational Hygiene, ISSN 0003-4878, E-ISSN 1475-3162, Vol. 59, no 7, 821-835 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Stoffenmanager is an exposure and risk assessment tool that has a control banding part, with risk bands as outcome and a quantitative exposure assessment part, with the 90th percentile of the predicted exposure as a default outcome. The main aim of the study was to investigate whether multiple users of Stoffenmanager came to the same result when modelling the same scenarios. Other aims were to investigate the differences between outcomes of the control banding part with the measured risk quota and to evaluate the conservatism of the tool by testing whether the 90th percentiles are above the measured median exposures. We investigated airborne exposures at companies in four different types of industry: wood, printing, metal foundry, and spray painting. Three scenarios were modelled and measured, when possible, at each company. When modelled, 13 users visited each company on the same occasion creating individual assessments. Consensus assessments were also modelled for each scenario by six occupational hygienists. The multiple users' outcomes were often spread over two risk bands in the control banding part, and the differences in the quantitative exposure outcomes for the highest and lowest assessments per scenario varied between a factor 2 and 100. Four parameters were difficult for the users to assess and had a large impact on the outcome: type of task, breathing zone, personal protection, and control measures. Only two scenarios had a higher measured risk quota than predicted by the control banding part, also two scenarios had slightly higher measured median exposure value than modelled consensus in the quantitative exposure assessment part. Hence, the variability between users was large but the model performed well.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 59, no 7, 821-835 p.
Keyword [en]
exposure assessment, exposure modelling, occupational exposure, REACH, risk assessment
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-56399DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mev027ISI: 000361490900001PubMedID: 25858432OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-56399DiVA: diva2:1082117
Available from: 2017-03-15 Created: 2017-03-15 Last updated: 2017-03-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Westberg, Håkan
By organisation
Orebro University Hospital
In the same journal
Annals of Occupational Hygiene
Environmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 23 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