Institute for Work and Health (IST), University of Lausanne and University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Chemicals and Occupational Health Unit, Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Switzerland.
Ann Work Expo Health. 2017 Dec 15;62(1):72-87. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxx079.
Several occupational exposure models are recommended under the EU's REACH legislation. Due to limited availability of high-quality exposure data, their validation is an ongoing process. It was shown, however, that different models may calculate significantly different estimates and thus lead to potentially dangerous conclusions about chemical risk. In this paper, the between-model translation rules defined in TREXMO were used to generate 319000 different in silico exposure situations in ART, Stoffenmanager, and ECETOC TRA v3. The three models' estimates were computed and the correlation and consistency between them were investigated. The best correlated pair was Stoffenmanager-ART (R, 0.52-0.90), whereas the ART-TRA and Stoffenmanager-TRA correlations were either lower (R, 0.36-0.69) or no correlation was found. Consistency varied significantly according to different exposure types (e.g. vapour versus dust) or settings (near-field versus far-field and indoors versus outdoors). The percentages of generated situations for which estimates differed by more than a factor of 100 ranged from 14 to 97%, 37 to 99%, and 1 to 68% for Stoffenmanager-ART, TRA-ART, and TRA-Stoffenmanager, respectively. Overall, the models were more consistent for vapours than for dusts and solids, near-fields than for far-fields, and indoor than for outdoor exposure. Multiple linear regression analyses evidenced the relationship between the models' parameters and the relative differences between the models' predictions. The relative difference can be used to estimate the consistency between the models. Furthermore, the study showed that the tiered approach is not generally applicable to all exposure situations. These findings emphasize the need for a multiple-model approach to assessing critical exposure scenarios under REACH. Moreover, in combination with occupational exposure measurements, they might also be used for future studies to improve prediction accuracy.
欧盟的 REACH 法规中推荐了几种职业暴露模型。由于高质量暴露数据的有限可用性，它们的验证是一个持续的过程。然而，研究表明，不同的模型可能会计算出显著不同的估计值，从而导致对化学风险的潜在危险结论。在本文中，TREXMO 中定义的模型间转换规则被用于在 ART、Stoffenmanager 和 ECETOC TRA v3 中生成 319000 种不同的虚拟暴露情况。计算了这三个模型的估计值，并研究了它们之间的相关性和一致性。相关性最高的一对是 Stoffenmanager-ART（R，0.52-0.90），而 ART-TRA 和 Stoffenmanager-TRA 的相关性要么较低（R，0.36-0.69），要么没有相关性。一致性因不同的暴露类型（例如蒸气与粉尘）或设置（近场与远场、室内与室外）而有显著差异。对于 Stoffenmanager-ART、TRA-ART 和 TRA-Stoffenmanager，估计值相差 100 倍以上的生成情况的百分比分别为 14%至 97%、37%至 99%和 1%至 68%。总体而言，模型对于蒸气的一致性高于粉尘和固体，近场的一致性高于远场，室内的一致性高于室外。多元线性回归分析证明了模型参数与模型预测之间相对差异的关系。相对差异可用于估计模型之间的一致性。此外，研究表明，分层方法并不适用于所有暴露情况。这些发现强调了在 REACH 下评估关键暴露情景需要采用多模型方法。此外，结合职业暴露测量，它们也可用于未来的研究，以提高预测精度。
