Comparison between Communicated and Calculated Exposure Estimates Obtained through Three Modeling Tools

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Domenico Maria Cavallo¹  Francesca Borghi¹  Daniele Magni¹  Andrea Cattaneo¹  Andrea Spinazzè¹  Costanza Rovida²  Monica Locatelli² 

[1] Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy;TEAM mastery S.r.l. Via Ferrari 14, 22100 Como, Italy;

关键词: occupational exposure assessment;    advanced REACH tool (ART);    ECETOC TRA;    STOFFENMANAGER®;    scaling;    exposure scenario;   

DOI  :  10.3390/ijerph17114175

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

This study aims to evaluate the risk assessment approach of the REACH legislation in industrial chemical departments with a focus on the use of three models to calculate exposures, and discuss those factors that can determine a bias between the estimated exposure (and therefore the expected risk) in the extended safety data sheets (e-SDS) and the expected exposure for the actual scenario. To purse this goal, the exposure estimates and risk characterization ratios (RCRs) of registered exposure scenarios (ES; “communicated exposure” and “communicated RCR”) were compared with the exposure estimates and the corresponding RCRs calculated for the actual, observed ES, using recommended tools for the evaluation of exposure assessment and in particular the following tools: (i) the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Targeted Risk Assessment v.3.1 (ECETOC TRA), (ii) STOFFENMANAGER^® v.8.0 and (iii) the Advanced REACH Tool (ART). We evaluated 49 scenarios in three companies handling chemicals. Risk characterization ratios (RCRs) were calculated by dividing estimated exposures by derived no-effect levels (DNELs). Although the calculated exposure and RCRs generally were lower than communicated, the correlation between communicated and calculated exposures and RCRs was generally poor, indicating that the generic registered scenarios do not reflect actual working, exposure and risk conditions. Further, some observed scenarios resulted in calculated exposure values and RCR higher than those communicated through chemicals’ e-SDSs; thus ‘false safe’ scenarios (calculated RCRs > 1) were also observed. Overall, the obtained evidences contribute to doubt about whether the risk assessment should be performed using generic (communicated by suppliers) ES with insufficient detail of the specific scenario at all companies. Contrariwise, evidences suggested that it would be safer for downstream users to perform scenario-specific evaluations, by means of proper scaling approach, to achieve more representative estimates of chemical risk.

【 授权许可】

Unknown