• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.173-185
• /
• 2019

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.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.317-330
• /
• 2021

Objectives: By law, companies in Korea must periodically measure workers' exposure to harmful chemicals (the system is called the Work Environment Monitoring Program (WMP)[a]) and report the results to the government. The government also measures exposure to monitor the WMP's reliability (called Reliability Assessment (RA) for WMP[b]). The issue is that measured data from these two sources are so different that the objectivity of WMP needs to be confirmed by comparing the results using the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals' Targeted Risk Assessment (ECETOC TRA). Methods: Step 1: Data collection from WMP reports submitted by companies (n=586) and RA for WMP written by the government (n=33). Step 2: Data Standardization by key information included. Step 3: Data conversion to input-variables required to run the ECETOC TRA model, and run the model with specific data (n=514) which meet the predetermined exposure scenario. Step 4: Statistical data analysis by process category (PROC) and ventilation type from each source ([A] and [B]). Step 5: Additional analysis of any unexpected results. Results: The process categories of the production and handling of Dichloromethane were classified into 12 PROCs, and ten of them were selected to run ECETOC TRA. Modeled values tended to be higher than measured values from both sources. For the measured values from WMP, RCR distribution by PROC was narrow (0.197-0.267, 95% CI) and did not have a relationship with ventilation type, which differs from the tendency of the modeling result. Meanwhile, the measured values from RA for WMP were relatively widely distributed (0.301-1.177, 95% CI) by PROC. In particular PROCs (13,19) were high enough to exceed 1. Also, they become low with better ventilation types and appear differently depending on the ventilation type, similar to the model result. Conclusions: This study revealed that ECETOC TRA might have the potential to serve as a screening tool for exposure assessment and to be used as assistive method for WMP to estimate exposure. Further empirical study is required to confirm its availability as a screening tool.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.44 no.5
• /
• pp.460-467
• /
• 2018

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to estimate the inhalation exposure level of benzene for workers using Tier 1 exposure models ECETOC TRA (European Center for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Target Risk Assessment) and Stoffenmanager, and to investigate their reliability for exposure assessment in K-REACH. Methods: Two exposure scenarios, 'manufacture of benzene' and 'use as solvents,' were developed for assessment of workers' exposure to benzene. The Process Category (PROC) for ECETOC TRA was collected from the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) registration dossier, and the Activity for Stoffenmanager was converted from PROC using translation of exposure models (TREXMO). The information related to exposure, such as working duration, Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE), Local Exhaust Ventilation (LEV), and Risk Management Measure (RMM) were classified into high, medium, and low exposure conditions. The risk was determined by the ratio of the estimated exposure and occupational exposure limits of benzene. Results: Under high exposure conditions, the worker exposure level calculated from all PROCs and Activities exceeded the risk level, with the exception of PROC 1 and Activity 1. In the medium exposure condition, PROC 8a, 8b, and 9 and Activity 3, 7, and 8 all exceeded the risk, whereas in the low condition, all PROCs and Activities were determined to be safe. As a result, action corresponding with the low exposure condition is required to reduce the risk of exposure among workers in workplaces where benzene is manufactured or used as a solvent. In addition, the predicted exposure levels derived from the exposure models were lower than measured levels. The exposure levels estimated from Stoffenmanager were more conservative than those from ECETOC TRA. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of exposure models for exposure assessment through the example of occupational inhalation exposure assessment for benzene. For more active utilization of exposure models in K-REACH, the exact application of collected information and accurate interpretation of obtained results are necessary.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.358-367
• /
• 2019

Objectives: This study aimed to review model algorithms and input parameters applied to some exposure models and to compare the simulated estimates using an exposure scenario from each model. Methods: A total of five exposure models which can estimate inhalation exposure were selected; the Korea Ministry of Environment(KMOE) exposure model, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Targeted Risk Assessment(ECETOC TRA), SprayExpo, and ConsExpo model. Algorithms and input parameters for exposure estimation were reviewed and the exposure scenario was used for comparing the modeled estimates. Results: Algorithms in each model commonly consist of the function combining physicochemical properties, use characteristics, user exposure factors, and environmental factors. The outputs including air concentration ($mg/m^3$) and inhaled dose(mg/kg/day) are estimated applying input parameters with the common factors to the algorithm. In particular, the input parameters needed to estimate are complicated among the models and models need more individual input parameters in addition to common factors. In case of CEM, it can be obtained more detailed exposure estimates separating user's breathing zone(near-field) and those at influencing zone(far-field) by two-box model. The modeled exposure estimates using the exposure scenario were similar between the models; they were ranged from 0.82 to $1.38mg/m^3$ for concentration and from 0.015 to 0.180 mg/kg/day for inhaled dose, respectively. Conclusions: Modeling technique can be used for a useful tool in the process of exposure assessment if the exposure data are scarce, but it is necessary to consider proper input parameters and exposure scenario which can affect the real exposure conditions.