Objectives Diisocyanates are a chemical group that are widely used at workplaces in many sectors. They are also potent skin- and respiratory sensitizers. Exposure to diisocyanates is a main cause of occupational asthma in the European Union. To reduce occupational exposure to diisocyanates and consequently the cases of diisocyanate-induced asthma, a restriction on diisocyanates was recently adopted under the REACH Regulation in the European Union. Methods A comprehensive evaluation of the data on occupational exposure to the most important diisocyanates at workplaces was made and is reported here. The diisocyanates considered are methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), toluene diisocyanate (TDI), and hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), accounting for more than 95% of the market volume in the EU. The exposure assessment is based on data from Chemical Safety Reports (CSRs) of REACH Registration Dossiers, workplace air monitoring data from Germany, from the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and literature data relevant for the EU, and the USA. Results Occupational exposure to diisocyanates is particularly relevant in: (i) C.A.S.E. applications (Coatings, Adhesives, Sealants, Elastomers), (ii) production of polyurethanes (PUs) (e.g. slab-stock foam), (iii) handling of partly uncured PU products (e.g. cutting, demoulding, spray application of foam), and (iv) when diisocyanates/PUs are heated (e.g. hot lamination, foundry applications/casting forms). Ranking of the reported data on inhalation to diisocyanate exposure at workplaces (maximum values) leads to following order: (i) HDI and its oligomers in coatings, (ii) MDI in spray foam applications, (iii) TDI in manufacture of foam, (iv) TDI in manufacture of PUs and PU composite materials, (v) TDI in adhesives, (vi) MDI in adhesives, (vii) MDI in manufacture of PUs and PU composite materials, (viii) TDI in coatings, (ix) MDI in manufacture of foam, and (x) HDI in adhesives.
Exposure information is a critical element in various regulatory and non-regulatory frameworks in Europe and elsewhere. Exposure science supports to ensure safe environments, reduce human health risks, and foster a sustainable future. However, increasing diversity in regulations and the lack of a professional identity as exposure scientists currently hamper developing the field and uptake into European policy. In response, we discuss trends, and identify three key needs for advancing and harmonizing exposure science and its application in Europe. We provide overarching building blocks and define six long-term activities to address the identified key needs, and to iteratively improve guidelines, tools, data, and education. More specifically, we propose creating European networks to maximize synergies with adjacent fields and identify funding opportunities, building common exposure assessment approaches across regulations, providing tiered education and training programmes, developing an aligned and integrated exposure assessment framework, offering best practices guidance, and launching an exposure information exchange platform. Dedicated working groups will further specify these activities in a consistent action plan. Together, these elements form the foundation for establishing goals and an action roadmap for successfully developing and implementing a 'European Exposure Science Strategy' 2020-2030, which is aligned with advances in science and technology.
The use of aligned exposure science terminology is crucial for ease of comparison and appropriate interpretation of exposure information, regulatory reports, and scientific publications. Sometimes the use of different terminology in different contexts and areas of exposure science results in diverging interpretations of the same descriptor. During the development of the European strategy for exposure science, the need was identified to agree on a defined terminology requiring an evaluation of the commonly used terms, synonymous uses, and their relationships between each other. This paper presents the first steps in compiling the most important exposure-related terms from existing guidance documents and publications for exposure and risk assessment and adapting them to be useful for different contexts and areas. This initial step is intended to trigger discussion on terminology among exposure scientists around the globe and across regulatory and methodological silos. The glossary itself is intended as a living document to be hosted by the International Society for Exposure Science.
On 20 October 2020, the Working Group “Exposure Models” of the Europe Regional Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science (ISES Europe) organised an online workshop to discuss the theoretical background of models for the assessment of occupational exposure to chemicals. In this report, participants of the workshop with an active role before and during the workshop summarise the most relevant discussion points and conclusions of this well-attended workshop. ISES Europe has identified exposure modelling as one priority area for the strategic development of exposure science in Europe in the coming years. This specific workshop aimed to discuss the main challenges in developing, validating, and using occupational-exposure models for regulatory purposes. The theoretical background, application domain, and limitations of different modelling approaches were presented and discussed, focusing on empirical “modifying-factor” or “mass-balance-based” approaches. During the discussions, these approaches were compared and analysed. Possibilities to address the discussed challenges could be a validation study involving alternative modelling approaches. The wider discussion touched upon the close relationship between modelling and monitoring and the need for better linkage of the methods and the need for common monitoring databases that include data on model parameters.
Spray applications enable a uniform distribution of substances on surfaces in a highly efficient manner, and thus can be found at workplaces as well as in consumer environments. A systematic literature review on modelling exposure by spraying activities has been conducted and status and further needs have been discussed with experts at a symposium. This review summarizes the current knowledge about models and their level of conservatism and accuracy. We found that extraction of relevant information on model performance for spraying from published studies and interpretation of model accuracy proved to be challenging, as the studies often accounted for only a small part of potential spray applications. To achieve a better quality of exposure estimates in the future, more systematic evaluation of models is beneficial, taking into account a representative variety of spray equipment and application patterns. Model predictions could be improved by more accurate consideration of variation in spray equipment. Inter-model harmonization with regard to spray input parameters and appropriate grouping of spray exposure situations is recommended. From a user perspective, a platform or database with information on different spraying equipment and techniques and agreed standard parameters for specific spraying scenarios from different regulations may be useful.
There is a principal need for more precise methodology with regard to the determination of occupational dermal exposure. The goal of the Systematic analysis of Dermal Exposure to hazardous chemical Agents at the workplace project was therefore to generate scientific knowledge to improve and standardize measurement methods for dermal exposure to chemicals at the workplace. In addition, the comparability of different measurement methods was investigated. Different methods (body sampling by means of coveralls and patches, hand sampling by means of gloves and washing, and head sampling by means of headbands and wiping) were compared. Volunteers repeatedly performed a selection of tasks under standardized conditions in test chambers to increase the reproducibility and decrease variability. The selected tasks were pouring, rolling, spraying, and handling of objects immersed in liquid formulations, as well as dumping and handling objects contaminated with powder. For the chemical analysis, the surrogate test substance Tinopal SWN was analyzed by means of a high-performance liquid chromatographic method using a fluorescence detector. Tinopal SWN was either applied as a solid product in its pure form, or as a low and high viscosity liquid containing Tinopal SWN in dissolved form. To compare the sampling methods with patches and coveralls, the exposure values as measured on the patches were extrapolated to the surface areas of the respective parts of the coverall. Based on this extrapolation approach, using the patch method resulted in somewhat higher exposure values compared to using a coverall for all exposure situations, but the differences were only statistically significant in case of the liquid exposure situations. Using gloves resulted in significantly higher exposure values compared to hand wash for handling immersed objects, rolling, and handling contaminated objects, and slightly higher (not significant) exposure values during pouring and spraying. In the same context, applying wipe sampling resulted in higher exposure values than using a headband, which was at least partly due to extrapolation of the wipe results to the surface area of the headband. No ‘golden standard’ with regard to a preferred measurement method for dermal exposure could be identified from the methods as investigated in the current study.
Exposure models are essential in almost all relevant contexts for exposure science. To address the numerous challenges and gaps that exist, exposure modelling is one of the priority areas of the European Exposure Science Strategy developed by the European Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science (ISES Europe). A strategy was developed for the priority area of exposure modelling in Europe with four strategic objectives. These objectives are (1) improvement of models and tools, (2) development of new methodologies and support for understudied fields, (3) improvement of model use and (4) regulatory needs for modelling. In a bottom-up approach, exposure modellers from different European countries and institutions who are active in the fields of occupational, population and environmental exposure science pooled their expertise under the umbrella of the ISES Europe Working Group on exposure models. This working group assessed the state-of-the-art of exposure modelling in Europe by developing an inventory of exposure models used in Europe and reviewing the existing literature on pitfalls for exposure modelling, in order to identify crucial modelling-related strategy elements. Decisive actions were defined for ISES Europe stakeholders, including collecting available models and accompanying information in a living document curated and published by ISES Europe, as well as a long-term goal of developing a best-practices handbook. Alongside these actions, recommendations were developed and addressed to stakeholders outside of ISES Europe. Four strategic objectives were identified with an associated action plan and roadmap for the implementation of the European Exposure Science Strategy for exposure modelling. This strategic plan will foster a common understanding of modelling-related methodology, terminology and future research in Europe, and have a broader impact on strategic considerations globally.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.