Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

Korean Society of Environmental Health (한국환경보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Enhancement of Occupational Exposure Assessment in Korea through the Evaluation of ECETOC TRA according to PROCs

공정 범주에 따른 ECETOC TRA 모델 평가로부터 도출한 한국 작업장 노출 평가 개선 방안

  • Kim, Ki-Eun (Environmental Safety Group, KIST Europe) ;
  • Kim, Jongwoon (Chemical Safety Center, Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology) ;
  • Jeon, Hyunpyo (Environmental Safety Group, KIST Europe) ;
  • Kim, Sanghun (Department of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Kyungsung University) ;
  • Cheong, Yeonseung (Department of Environmental Engineering, Pusan National University)
  • 김기은 (KIST Europe 환경안전사업단) ;
  • 김종운 (한국화학연구원 화학안전연구센터) ;
  • 전현표 (KIST Europe 환경안전사업단) ;
  • 김상헌 (경성대학교 제약공학과) ;
  • 정연승 (부산대학교 환경공학과)
  • Received : 2019.03.26
  • Accepted : 2019.04.20
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to evaluate the accuracy and precision of exposure model ECETOC TRA v.3.1 by comparing model predictions with repeated exposure measurements in Korean workplaces and to investigate the applicability of ECETOC TRA to Korean workplace exposure assessment in K-REACH. Methods: Measured values and work conditions for 14 kinds of chemicals collected from exposure field surveys conducted at 10 companies in Korea were utilized for this study. All possible process categories (PROCs) considered to be relevant to each work process classification were selected and applied to ECETOC TRA as major determining parameters. In order to quantify the accuracy of the model, the lack of agreement (bias, relative bias, precision) was calculated and the risk ratios for each exposure situation between estimated and measured were also compared. Results: The estimated values varied between five and 25 times according to the PROCs for all exposure situations (ESs) based on tasks/chemicals. The results showed that most of the estimated values were below the measured values, and just 13 of 53 tasks were above the measured values. The overall bias and precision were $-2.91{\pm}1.62$ with ECETOC TRA, and we found that ECETOC TRA showed a low level of conservatism when applied to Korean workplaces, similar to previous studies. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the existed PROC codes have limitations in fully covering various ESs in Korea. In order to improve the applicability of ECETOC TRA in K-REACH, the addition of new PROCs for Korean industries are necessary.

Keywords

References

  1. Korea ministry of government legislation. Act on registration, evaluation, etc. of chemical. http://law.go.kr. [accessed 23 January 2019].
  2. National institute of environmental research. Guidance for make chemical safety report. 2017. p. 197-198.
  3. Yoon C, Ham S, Park J, Kim S, Lee S, Lee K, et al. Comparison between the Chemical Management Contents of Laws Pertaining to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of the Employment and Labor. J Environ Health Sci. 2014; 40(5): 331-345.
  4. Moon J, Ock J, Jung U-H, Ra J-S, Kim K-T. Occupational Exposure Assessment for Benzene Using Exposure Models (ECETOC TRA and Stoffenmanager) and Applicability Evaluation of Exposure Models in K-REACH. J Environ Health Sci. 2018; 44: 460-467.
  5. Clayton C, Mosquin P, Pellizzari E, Quackenboss J. Limitations on the uses of multimedia exposure measurements for multipathway exposure assessment- Part I: handling observations below detection limits. Quality Assurance. 2004; 10(3-4): 123-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10529410390892133
  6. European Chemicals Agency. Chesar 3 User manual. 2016. https://chesar.echa.europa.eu/documents/2326902/22375900/Chesar3userManual_en.pdf. [accessed 28 Feburaray 2019].
  7. European Chemicals Agency. Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.14: Occupational exposure assessment. 2016. p. 48-70.
  8. Kupczewska-Dobecka M, Czerczak S, Jakubowski M. Evaluation of the TRA ECETOC model for inhalation workplace exposure to different organic solvents for selected process categories. International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health. 2011; 24(2): 208-217. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13382-011-0021-3
  9. Spinazze A, Lunghini F, Campagnolo D, Rovelli S, Locatelli M, Cattaneo A, et al. Accuracy evaluation of three modelling tools for occupational exposure assessment. Annals of work exposures and health. 2017; 61(3): 284-298. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxx004
  10. Van Tongeren M, Lamb J, Cherrie JW, Maccalman L, Basinas I, Hesse S. Validation of lower tier exposure tools used for REACH: comparison of tools estimates with available exposure measurements. Annals of work exposures and health. 2017; 61(8): 921-938. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxx056
  11. Landberg HE, Axmon A, Westberg H, Tinnerberg H. A study of the validity of two exposure assessment tools: Stoffenmanager and the Advanced REACH Tool. Annals of work exposures and health. 2017; 61(5): 575-588. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxx008
  12. Schinkel J, Warren N, Fransman W, Van Tongeren M, Mcdonnell P, Voogd E, et al. Advanced REACH Tool (ART): calibration of the mechanistic model. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 2011; 13(5): 1374-1382. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1em00007a
  13. Ishii S, Katagiri R, Kitamura K, Shimojima M, Wada T. Evaluation of the ECETOC TRA model for workplace inhalation exposure to ethylbenzene in Japan. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety. 2017; 24(1): 8-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2016.03.003
  14. Lee EG, Lamb J, Savic N, Basinas I, Gasic B, Jung C, et al. Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part I-Tier 1 Tools. Annals of work exposures and health. 2018; 63(2): 2018-2229.
  15. Lee JH, Lee KS, Hong MK. Evaluation of the Application of a European Chemical Risk Assessment Tool in Korea. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2012; 22(3): 191-199.
  16. Lee S, Lee K, Kim H. Comparison of Quantitative Exposure Models for Occupational Exposure to Organic Solvents in Korea. Annals of work exposures and health. 2018; 63(2): 1-21.
  17. Riedmann R, Gasic B, Vernez D. Sensitivity analysis, dominant factors, and robustness of the ECETOC TRA v3, Stoffenmanager 4.5, and ART 1.5 occupational exposure models. Risk Analysis. 2015; 35(2): 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12286
  18. Korea ministry of government legislation. Occupational Safety and health act. http://law.go.kr. [accessed 13 March 2019].
  19. Arnold SM, Greggs B, Goyak KO, Landenberger BD, Mason AM, Howard B, et al. A quantitative screening?level approach to incorporate chemical exposure and risk into alternative assessment evaluations. Integrated environmental assessment and management. 2017; 13(6): 1007-1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1926
  20. Koppisch D, Schinkel J, Gabriel S, Fransman W, Tielemans E. Use of the MEGA exposure database for the validation of the Stoffenmanager model. Annals of occupational hygiene. 2011; 56(4): 426-439. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mer097
  21. Walther BA, Moore JL. The concepts of bias, precision and accuracy, and their use in testing the performance of species richness estimators, with a literature review of estimator performance. Ecography. 2005; 28(6): 815-829. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2005.0906-7590.04112.x
  22. Tielemans E, Schneider T, Goede H, Tischer M, Warren N, Kromhout H, et al. Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure: defining modifying factors. Annals of occupational hygiene. 2008; 52(7): 577-586. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men059
  23. RIVM. Validating simplebox-computed steady-state concentration ratios. 2004. https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/ rapporten/607220010.html. [accessed 25 March 2019].
  24. RIVM. Predictions by the multimedia environmental fate model SimpleBox compared to field data: Intermedia concentration ratios of two phthalate esters. 2003. https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/ 607220008.html. [accessed 26 March 2019].
  25. Jae Pil Y, Hyun Joon S. Portfolio Selection Strategy with Management Efficiency and Consideration of Growth Potential of Semiconductor and Display Corporations. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business & Commerce. 2012; 4(2): 89-107.