Letter to the Editor

McKee, Richard H.; Rohde, Arlean; Daughtrey, Wayne C.

doi:10.1080/15459620701328089

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted, WGs are supposed to report on factors known to contribute to exposures. 29 This requirement is especially important because occupational exposures to benzene are known to occur under widely different conditions 31,33,[36][37][38][39][40] with exposures from the same job varying significantly in different facilities-and even in the same facility. 41 The WG was remiss in not reporting the many factors contributing to benzene exposure, including (a) time using a benzene-containing product, (b) product benzene content, (c) air and solvent temperatures, (d) specifics of engineering and administrative controls, and (e) pattern of product usage (e.g., volume used, application method, and distance between evaporating product and breathing zone).…”

Section: No Discussion About Factors Contributing To Benzene Exposuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A widely referenced API-sponsored study (''Carpenter'') published in 1975 reports Stoddard solvent (mineral spirits-ASTM Type 1 Regular 53 ) typically contains more than 1000 ppm benzene (w/w). 54 Since the process for manufacturing Stoddard solvent is unchanged since the 1970s, 39 the expectation is that the benzene content of Stoddard solvent has remained relatively the same for at least four decades. 23,39 In fact, numerous published sources-including IARC 55 and the Williams 1 authors 56 -rely on the 1975 Carpenter article in reporting that Stoddard solvent typically contains more than 1000 ppm w/w benzene.…”

Section: Example Of Wg Errors In Its Reporting Of Benzene Content Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…54 Since the process for manufacturing Stoddard solvent is unchanged since the 1970s, 39 the expectation is that the benzene content of Stoddard solvent has remained relatively the same for at least four decades. 23,39 In fact, numerous published sources-including IARC 55 and the Williams 1 authors 56 -rely on the 1975 Carpenter article in reporting that Stoddard solvent typically contains more than 1000 ppm w/w benzene. 23,48,[57][58][59][60] Two other references report Stoddard solvent may contain as much as 1 percent (10,000 ppm) benzene.…”

Section: Example Of Wg Errors In Its Reporting Of Benzene Content Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Critique of the IARC 100F Working Group Evaluation of Occupational Benzene Exposure: Suggestions for the October 2017 Benzene-Only Working Group Meeting

Kopstein

2017

New Solut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health agencies and institutions utilize International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monographs because they are said to represent authoritative cancer evaluations and scientific references. The United States National Cancer Institute has provided support for the IARC Monographs Program for more than three decades. The Volume 100F Monograph, which was published in 2012, reports the evaluations of benzene and more than two dozen other agents performed by the IARC Working Group (WG) that met in Lyon, France from 20 to 27 October 2009. All had already been judged to be human carcinogens. This commentary discusses errors in the occupational exposure section (1.1.3) of the 100F Benzene Monograph ("monograph"). Millions of workers in developed and developing countries have long been known to be routinely exposed to benzene. Since exposures may exceed occupational exposure limits, the hope is that this commentary will be considered by the IARC benzene-only WG at its meeting in October 2017.

show abstract

Section: No Discussion About Factors Contributing To Benzene Exposuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Example Of Wg Errors In Its Reporting Of Benzene Content Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Example Of Wg Errors In Its Reporting Of Benzene Content Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critique of the IARC 100F Working Group Evaluation of Occupational Benzene Exposure: Suggestions for the October 2017 Benzene-Only Working Group Meeting

Kopstein

2017

New Solut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…JOEH has published letters to the editor in the past containing over 2,000 words. 25,26,27,28,29,30 My four letters to the EIC set forth many scientific and other concerns that are explained in Appendix 1. In her decision email the EIC incorrectly distilled the many concerns into what she characterized as two "original" "main points of argument" (App.…”

Section: Final Decision To Not Publish Letters 3 and 4 And Author Rebuttalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behind the Scenes at JOEH: Questionable Actions Lead to the Publication of an Industry-funded Benzene Exposure Article and Refusal to Publish Letter to the Editor

Kopstein¹

2019

JoSPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In fact, there are at least nine substantive differences between the AM and SR. JOEH policy is unclear on whether such major changes are standard practice, but their "Instructions for Authors" does state: "When in proof, only necessary corrections such as typographical errors or errors of scientific fact may be submitted by the authors." 3 Unpublished data in the SR, but not the AM, does not conform to requirements for unpublished data and the citing of unpublished sources as set forth in the JOEH "Manuscript Style Guide" and "Instructions for Authors." 3,4 In addition, the Fries et al. article was based on an unpublished report funded by CRC industries as part of the defense against lawsuits claiming that their benzenecontaining non-chlorinated Brakleen® brake cleaners were defective products and caused blood cancers. 5 All results in the AM and SR come from the unpublished report (henceforth "litigation report"). One of the authors, Dr. Williams, referenced the report while serving as an expert witness in benzene exposure lawsuits for CRC, and referenced its results as an expert witness for Ashland, Inc. d/b/a Valvoline. 6,7,8 Fries et al. neither cited the litigation Abstract This Commentary discusses the decision-making and conduct of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (JOEH) and its Editor in Chief (EIC) regarding two versions of a scientifically flawed benzene exposure article published in JOEH. 1,2 The author of this commentary submitted a letter to the editor concerning an "Accepted" manuscript (AM) 1 published on the JOEH website. JOEH did not publish the letter, but permitted the authors to make at least nine substantive revisions to the AM that were all responsive to Letter 1. The AM was removed from the JOEH website and replaced by a Short Report (SR) 2 having the same title. Questions of publishing ethics arise as a result of the refusal by JOEH to publish any of my additional Letters to the Editor, submitted between May and December of 2018. JOEH failed to address author conflicts of interest and major analytical testing anomalies that led to scientifically untenable results. Further, JOEH did not require the authors to disclose that 1) all tabulated results were drawn from an unpublished 2017 report prepared by the authors for the study sponsor (CRC Industries), and 2) one of the authors based her testimony on behalf of CRC on the unpublished report in at least two trials. JOEH's refusal to publish the Letters to the Editor regarding undisclosed conflicts of interests, flawed scientific results, misleading conclusions, and other issues brings up numerous ethical questions.

show abstract

Assessment of the potential human health risks from exposure to complex substances in accordance with REACH requirements. “White spirit” as a case study

McKee

Tibaldi

Adenuga

et al. 2018

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European chemical control regulation (REACH) requires that data on physical/chemical, toxicological and environmental hazards be compiled. Additionally, REACH requires formal assessments to ensure that substances can be safely used for their intended purposes. For health hazard assessments, reference values (Derived No Effect levels, DNELs) are calculated from toxicology data and compared to estimated exposure levels. If the ratio of the predicted exposure level to the DNEL, i.e. the Risk Characterization Ratio (RCR), is less than 1, the risk is considered controlled; otherwise, additional Risk Management Measures (RMM) must be applied. These requirements pose particular challenges for complex substances. Herein, "white spirit", a complex hydrocarbon solvent, is used as an example to illustrate how these procedures were applied. Hydrocarbon solvents were divided into categories of similar substances. Representative substances were identified for DNEL determinations. Adjustment factors were applied to the no effect levels to calculate the DNELs. Exposure assessments utilized a standardized set of generic exposure scenarios (GES) which incorporated exposure predictions for solvent handling activities. Computer-based tools were developed to automate RCR calculations and identify appropriate RMMs, allowing consistent communications to users via safety data sheets.

show abstract

Letter to the Editor

Cited by 11 publications

References 5 publications

Critique of the IARC 100F Working Group Evaluation of Occupational Benzene Exposure: Suggestions for the October 2017 Benzene-Only Working Group Meeting

Critique of the IARC 100F Working Group Evaluation of Occupational Benzene Exposure: Suggestions for the October 2017 Benzene-Only Working Group Meeting

Behind the Scenes at JOEH: Questionable Actions Lead to the Publication of an Industry-funded Benzene Exposure Article and Refusal to Publish Letter to the Editor

Assessment of the potential human health risks from exposure to complex substances in accordance with REACH requirements. “White spirit” as a case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About