Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital, 221 85 Lund, Sweden.
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Örebro University Hospital, 701 85 Örebro, Sweden.
Ann Work Expo Health. 2017 Jun 1;61(5):575-588. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxx008.
The use of exposure modelling tools for estimating chemical airborne exposure has increased since the European Union's REACH legislation for safe use of industrial chemicals came into force. Two tools that European Chemicals Agency recommends are Stoffenmanager® and the Advanced REACH Tool (ART). The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of these two exposure modelling tools by comparing the lack of agreement between estimated and measured exposure. We examined the airborne chemical exposure at companies in seven different types of industries: wood, printing, foundry, spray painting, flour milling, chemical industry, and plastic moulding industry. The inhalable exposure of liquids or powders at two to three situations at each company was modelled with both tools and measured. To study the validity of the tools, the mean differences and precisions (lack of agreement) of exposures from both situations handling liquids and powders were calculated by using the 50th percentile outcome of the tools and the geometric mean of the measured exposure (all data were ln transformed). For Stoffenmanager, the mean difference and precision of the situations concerning liquids were 0.22 ± 1.0 and for powders -0.024 ± 0.66. It was also shown that Stoffenmanager overestimated low exposures and underestimated high exposures. Stoffenmanager showed higher agreement with the measured exposure in the wood and flour mill industries than in foundry and the plastic moulding industry. For ART, the mean difference and precision of liquids were -0.55 ± 0.88 and for powders -1.4 ± 1.6. ART showed lower agreement with the measured exposure in the wood industry.
自欧盟 REACH 法规（有关工业化学品安全使用的法规）生效以来，使用暴露建模工具来估计化学空气暴露的情况有所增加。欧洲化学品管理局推荐使用两种工具，即 Stoffenmanager®和高级 REACH 工具（ART）。本研究旨在通过比较估计暴露与测量暴露之间的差异，来评估这两种暴露建模工具的有效性。我们研究了七个不同行业（木材、印刷、铸造、喷涂、面粉厂、化工和塑料成型）的公司中的空气化学暴露情况。使用两种工具对每个公司的两个至三个情况进行建模，并测量了可吸入性液体或粉末暴露。为了研究工具的有效性，使用工具的第 50 百分位数结果和测量暴露的几何平均值计算了处理液体和粉末的两种情况的暴露的平均差异和精度（差异程度）（所有数据均经过对数转换）。对于 Stoffenmanager，涉及液体的情况的平均差异和精度分别为 0.22 ± 1.0 和 -0.024 ± 0.66。结果还表明，Stoffenmanager 高估了低暴露水平，低估了高暴露水平。Stoffenmanager 在木材和面粉厂行业与铸造和塑料成型行业相比，与测量暴露的一致性更高。对于 ART，液体的平均差异和精度为-0.55 ± 0.88，粉末为-1.4 ± 1.6。ART 在木材行业与测量暴露的一致性较低。
