Schenk Linda, Deng Uriell, Johanson Gunnar
1.Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden 2.Department of Philosophy and History, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
1.Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2015 May;59(4):416-38. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meu103. Epub 2014 Dec 2.
The European REACH regulation places responsibility for providing safety information, including derived no-effect levels (DNELs), on chemicals and chemical products on 'industry', i.e. manufacturers and importers. We compared long-term inhalation worker-DNELs (wDNELs) presented by industry with the corresponding Swedish occupational exposure limits (OELs), and for a subset, with wDNELs derived by us. Our wDNELs were derived using toxicological evaluations published by the Swedish Criteria Group and our interpretation of the REACH Guidance. On average, industry's wDNELs were the same as the Swedish OELs (median of wDNEL-OEL ratios: 0.98, n = 235). However, the variation was huge, the extremes being up to 450 times higher, and up to 230 times lower than the corresponding OEL. Nearly one-fifth of the wDNELs were ≥2 times higher and one-third ≥2 times lower than the OEL. No time trend was seen in the wDNEL/OEL ratios, suggesting that older OELs were not systematically higher than the more recent ones. Industry's wDNELs varied widely and were generally higher (median 4.2 times, up to 435 times higher, down to 13 times lower, n = 23) also compared to our wDNELs. Only five industry wDNELs were equal to or lower than ours. The choices of key studies, dose descriptors, and assessment factors all seemed to contribute to the discrepancies. We conclude that although the REACH guidance is detailed, many choices that will influence the wDNEL lack firm instructions. A major problem is that little advice is given on when and how to depart from default assessment factors.
欧洲化学品注册、评估、授权和限制法规(REACH)规定,“行业”,即制造商和进口商,有责任提供化学品和化学产品的安全信息,包括推导无效应水平(DNELs)。我们将行业提供的长期吸入工人DNELs(wDNELs)与相应的瑞典职业接触限值(OELs)进行了比较,并对一部分数据与我们推导的wDNELs进行了比较。我们的wDNELs是根据瑞典标准小组公布的毒理学评估以及我们对REACH指南的解读推导得出的。平均而言,行业的wDNELs与瑞典的OELs相同(wDNEL - OEL比率的中位数:0.98,n = 235)。然而,差异巨大,极端情况是比相应的OEL高450倍,低230倍。近五分之一的wDNELs比OEL高≥2倍,三分之一比OEL低≥2倍。在wDNEL/OEL比率中未发现时间趋势,这表明旧的OELs并不系统地高于较新的OELs。与我们的wDNELs相比,行业的wDNELs差异也很大,且总体上更高(中位数为4.2倍,最高高435倍,最低低至13倍,n = 23)。只有五个行业wDNELs等于或低于我们的推导值。关键研究、剂量描述符和评估因素的选择似乎都导致了差异。我们得出结论,尽管REACH指南很详细,但许多会影响wDNEL的选择缺乏明确的指导。一个主要问题是,关于何时以及如何偏离默认评估因素的建议很少。