Occupational exposure limits in Europe and Asia – Continued divergence or global harmonization?

Ding, Qian; Schenk, Linda; Małkiewicz, Katarzyna; Hansson, Sven Ove

doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.08.011

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Perhaps as a result of data sharing, many of the OELs adopted around the world are based on those from other organizations, such as ACGIH, NIOSH, OSHA, and the EU. (77) Cross-membership among OEL groups, for example with SCOEL members acting as representatives for other OEL-deriving organizations, also provides a significant opportunity for shared information. In addition, significant efforts have been initiated to improve the transportability of toxicity and health effects data that serve as the input to the OEL derivation process.…”

Section: International Harmonization Of Oelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits—Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

Deveau

Chen

Johanson

et al. 2015

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) serve as health-based benchmarks against which measured or estimated workplace exposures can be compared. In the years since the introduction of OELs to public health practice, both developed and developing countries have established processes for deriving, setting, and using OELs to protect workers exposed to hazardous chemicals. These processes vary widely, however, and have thus resulted in a confusing international landscape for identifying and applying such limits in workplaces. The occupational hygienist will encounter significant overlap in coverage among organizations for many chemicals, while other important chemicals have OELs developed by few, if any, organizations. Where multiple organizations have published an OEL, the derived value often varies considerably—reflecting differences in both risk policy and risk assessment methodology as well as access to available pertinent data. This paper explores the underlying reasons for variability in OELs, and recommends the harmonization of risk-based methods used by OEL-deriving organizations. A framework is also proposed for the identification and systematic evaluation of OEL resources, which occupational hygienists can use to support risk characterization and risk management decisions in situations where multiple potentially relevant OELs exist.

show abstract

Section: International Harmonization Of Oelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits—Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

Deveau

Chen

Johanson

et al. 2015

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the number of wDNELs available is several times higher than the 100-800 substances found on national lists of OELs (Ding et al 2011). Based on the GESTIS DNEL list, some 5200 unique EC numbers, and 3700 CAS numbers, are associated with one or several wDNELs.…”

Section: How Many Substances Have Wdnels?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the GESTIS DNEL list, some 5200 unique EC numbers, and 3700 CAS numbers, are associated with one or several wDNELs. This can be compared to the 1406 CAS numbers covered by a compilation of OELs from ACGIH and 23 OEL setters across Asia and Europe (Ding et al 2011). The European subset in this study covered 17 OEL lists and 1305 substances with CAS numbers (Ding et al 2011).…”

Section: How Many Substances Have Wdnels?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Will worker DNELs derived under the European REACH regulation extend the landscape of occupational exposure guidance values?

Schenk

Johanson

2019

Arch Toxicol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Derived no-effect levels for workers (wDNELs) under the European REACH legislation have many aspects in common with occupational exposure limits (OELs). In an attempt to examine under which circumstances wDNELs might be used as exposure guidance outside their intended application, we compared derivation methods, coverage of substances and numerical values of wDNELs against two regulatory OEL lists (European Commission and Sweden) and three sets of recommendations (European SCOEL, German MAK and US ACGIH). Finally, we looked closer at wDNELs where SCOEL concluded that data were insufficient to derive an OEL. Major differences between wDNELs and OELs include regulatory background, intended use, actors involved, substance selection criteria, transparency and procedure of derivation, and operationalisation in terms of risk management measures. As of summer 2018, approximately five times more substances were covered by wDNELs than by the five sets of OELs examined herein. Meanwhile, many occupationally relevant pollutants were not covered by wDNELs, e.g. one-third of Swedish OELs lack corresponding wDNELs. We also note that wDNELs and OELs for the same substance may vary considerably, up to several orders of magnitude. In conclusion, with extensive substance coverage, wDNELs extend the landscape beyond the OELs. That said, important limitations are (1) that many air pollutants relevant for workers' health are not covered by REACH, and (2) concerns for inconsistencies in the derivation of wDNELs and in their level of protection. In particular, that route-to-route extrapolation is a common practice that may be grossly misleading when the effect of concern is local, e.g. sensitisation.

show abstract

“…After the first registration deadline had passed some 1800 substances had received long-term workerDNELs for the inhalation route (Nies et al, 2013), and currently more than 3000 individual substances (as identified by ECnumbers) have DNELs for workers and long-term inhalation exposure (http://www.dguv.de/ifa/Gefahrstoffdatenbanken/GESTIS-DNEL-Datenbank/index-2.jsp,2015-03-15). This can be compared with the number of substances on national lists of OELs that cover some 100-800 individual substances depending on country/organisation (Ding et al, 2011).…”

Section: Reach Impact On Occupational Risk Management Of Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of the chemicals regulation REACH – Exploring the impact on occupational health and safety management among Swedish downstream users

Schenk

Antonsson

2015

Safety Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn the present study we have examined how the European chemicals regulation Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) has influenced occupational risk management of chemicals at Swedish downstream user companies. The data were collected through interviews with occupational health and safety professionals, safety representatives and authority employees. The results show that most of the informants had scarce knowledge about REACH and that REACH implementation has not had any major impacts on downstream users' occupational risk management, but the impacts the regulation has had were perceived as positive. For instance, clear substance identification and increased hazard information were appreciated improvements of safety data sheets (SDS). However, with regards to identifying how to safely use a substance or product neither the SDSs nor the attached exposure scenarios were perceived as sufficient. REACH was not perceived as a major driver for substitution but has had some impact on substitution, either by requiring it for certain substances as through the authorisation procedure or facilitating the identification of relevant substances to substitute as more information on hazards has become available. The obstacles to REACH implementation are similar to those of occupational health and safety legislation; lack of awareness, understanding and/or incentives to take action. Especially smaller companies with their limited resources lag behind. Reaching the full potential of REACH requires more work on motivating and supporting downstream users to fulfil their REACH obligations.

show abstract

Occupational exposure limits in Europe and Asia – Continued divergence or global harmonization?

Cited by 16 publications

References 21 publications

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits—Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits—Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

Will worker DNELs derived under the European REACH regulation extend the landscape of occupational exposure guidance values?

Implementation of the chemicals regulation REACH – Exploring the impact on occupational health and safety management among Swedish downstream users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About