oru.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
Evaluation of risk assessment approaches of occupational chemical exposures based on models in comparison with measurements
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Örebro University, School of Medical Sciences. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
2018 (English)In: Safety Science, ISSN 0925-7535, E-ISSN 1879-1042, Vol. 109, p. 412-420Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Risk assessments of chemicals in work places are needed to protect workers' health and safety. Several different strategies can be used for conducting risk assessments. The aim of this study was to investigate approaches to risk assessment of chemicals based on exposure assessment models relative to occupational exposure limits values (OELs) and derived no-effect levels (DNELs) and in comparison with measurements relative to OELs. A second aim was to evaluate the modelled recommended outcome and compare it with measurements of exposure. In this study, 29 situations were assessed with ECETOC TRA, Stoffenmanager (R) 5.1 and ART. Personal exposure measurements were also performed. The percentage of measured exposure exceeding the recommended output was calculated to investigate the level of conservatism. All the modelled exposures were compared with OELs and DNELs where possible, and the GM of the measured exposure was compared with OELs (risk quotas). For ECETOC TRA, 31% of measured exposure exceeded modelled exposure. For Stoffenmanager (R) it was 17% and for ART and ART B it was 3% and 0% respectively. Hence, according to our data, ECETOC TRA is the least conservative. An investigation of the risk quotas showed that ECETOC TRA had 4 false safe situations, meaning the risk was low when the model was used but was high when measurements were used. This may lead to underestimating risks. All models had an elevated proportion, ECETOC TRA and ART the highest, of false unsafe situations meaning the risk was low when measurements were used but high when models were used.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018. Vol. 109, p. 412-420
National Category
Occupational Health and Environmental Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-68750DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.006ISI: 000441491700040Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85049483563OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-68750DiVA, id: diva2:1246898
Funder
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, 2008-0228_ForteAFA Insurance, 100127Available from: 2018-09-10 Created: 2018-09-10 Last updated: 2018-09-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Westberg, Håkan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Westberg, Håkan
By organisation
School of Medical Sciences
In the same journal
Safety Science
Occupational Health and Environmental Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 73 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