Accuracy Evaluation of Three Modelling Tools for Occupational Exposure Assessment

Abstract

ART may lead to more accurate results when well-documented ESs are available. In other situations, Stoffenmanager appears to be a safer alternative because of its greater robustness, particularly when entry data uncertainty is difficult to assess. ECETOC TRA cannot be directly compared to higher tiered models because of its simplistic nature: the use of this tool should be limited only to exceptional cases in which a strong conservative and worst-case evaluation is necessary.

Qualitative and quantitative differences between common control banding tools for nanomaterials in workplaces

“…While Stoffenmanager-Nano, ISO, and IVAM Guidance were consistent with the inherent toxicity to some extent. Interestingly, the article of Sanchez Jiménez et al provided that the Nanotool classication followed approximately the experimental hazard assessment, and Stoffenmanager-Nano ranked the nanomaterials in the same order as the experimental results, 38 which are partially consistent with our results. It is possible that the differences in evaluated nanomaterials and their information availability led to the inconsistency in the results of the two studies.…”

The general ventilation multipliers calculated by using a standard Near-Field/Far-Field model

“…[5,12] In general, the ventilation multiplier Considering that Stoffenmanager and the ART are classified as higher tier exposure assessment tools, [5,17] both are recommended by ECHA for regulatory exposure assessment, [22] and that Stoffenmanager has alone over 32,000 users, [3] the errors is general ventilation multipliers should not be ignored. The studies [5,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] concerning the tools evaluation, validation, applicability, and sensitivity analysis should be revised and corrected before the tools are used in regulatory risk assessment or before implementing them to tools combining different exposure models, such as a Translation Tool to Support the Use of Regulatory Occupational Exposure Models (TREXMO; [31] see also letter to the editors, [31][32][33] ) SUN decision support system, [34] or risk governance tools developed in caLIBERAte. [35] In our opinion, the regulatory exposure modeling should rely only on mathematical models following general physical principles, such as conservation of mass, rather than conceptual models based on non-physical models or exposure determinants.…”

“…A higher multiplier means a lower dilution than in the reference environment, i.e., smaller room and poorer ventilation. Conceptual exposure models Stoffenmanager v.7.1 [3][4][5][6] (hereinafter referred to as Stoffenmanager) and the Advanced REACH Tool v.1.5 (hereinafter referred to as ART) [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] describes the dilution by using the general ventilation multipliers calculated by using the standard NF/FF modelings by Cherrie [15] and Cherrie et al, [16] respectively. This is the first study revising the NF and FF concentrations and the ventilation multipliers calculated by Cherrie [15] and CONTACT Antti J.…”

Comparing the Advanced REACH Tool’s (ART) Estimates With Switzerland’s Occupational Exposure Data

“…For ART, a comparison with pharmaceutical data (McDonnell et al, 2011) found that this model tends to underestimate the measured exposure data. Two recent studies (Landberg et al, 2017;Spinazzè et al, 2017) confirmed these findings for ART. However, these studies were restricted to the limited diversity of exposure situations and relatively small number of measurements per exposure situation (McDonnell et al, 2011).…”