Comparison and Evaluation of Multiple Users' Usage of the Exposure and Risk Tool: Stoffenmanager 5.1.

Annals of Occupational Hygiene Pub Date : 2015-08-01 Epub Date: 2015-04-09 DOI:10.1093/annhyg/mev027
Hanna E Landberg, Peter Berg, Lennart Andersson, Ulf Bergendorf, Jan-Eric Karlsson, Håkan Westberg, Håkan Tinnerberg
{"title":"Comparison and Evaluation of Multiple Users' Usage of the Exposure and Risk Tool: Stoffenmanager 5.1.","authors":"Hanna E Landberg,&nbsp;Peter Berg,&nbsp;Lennart Andersson,&nbsp;Ulf Bergendorf,&nbsp;Jan-Eric Karlsson,&nbsp;Håkan Westberg,&nbsp;Håkan Tinnerberg","doi":"10.1093/annhyg/mev027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stoffenmanager is an exposure and risk assessment tool that has a control banding part, with risk bands as outcome and a quantitative exposure assessment part, with the 90th percentile of the predicted exposure as a default outcome. The main aim of the study was to investigate whether multiple users of Stoffenmanager came to the same result when modelling the same scenarios. Other aims were to investigate the differences between outcomes of the control banding part with the measured risk quota and to evaluate the conservatism of the tool by testing whether the 90th percentiles are above the measured median exposures. We investigated airborne exposures at companies in four different types of industry: wood, printing, metal foundry, and spray painting. Three scenarios were modelled and measured, when possible, at each company. When modelled, 13 users visited each company on the same occasion creating individual assessments. Consensus assessments were also modelled for each scenario by six occupational hygienists. The multiple users' outcomes were often spread over two risk bands in the control banding part, and the differences in the quantitative exposure outcomes for the highest and lowest assessments per scenario varied between a factor 2 and 100. Four parameters were difficult for the users to assess and had a large impact on the outcome: type of task, breathing zone, personal protection, and control measures. Only two scenarios had a higher measured risk quota than predicted by the control banding part, also two scenarios had slightly higher measured median exposure value than modelled consensus in the quantitative exposure assessment part. Hence, the variability between users was large but the model performed well. </p>","PeriodicalId":8458,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Occupational Hygiene","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/annhyg/mev027","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Occupational Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/4/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

Stoffenmanager is an exposure and risk assessment tool that has a control banding part, with risk bands as outcome and a quantitative exposure assessment part, with the 90th percentile of the predicted exposure as a default outcome. The main aim of the study was to investigate whether multiple users of Stoffenmanager came to the same result when modelling the same scenarios. Other aims were to investigate the differences between outcomes of the control banding part with the measured risk quota and to evaluate the conservatism of the tool by testing whether the 90th percentiles are above the measured median exposures. We investigated airborne exposures at companies in four different types of industry: wood, printing, metal foundry, and spray painting. Three scenarios were modelled and measured, when possible, at each company. When modelled, 13 users visited each company on the same occasion creating individual assessments. Consensus assessments were also modelled for each scenario by six occupational hygienists. The multiple users' outcomes were often spread over two risk bands in the control banding part, and the differences in the quantitative exposure outcomes for the highest and lowest assessments per scenario varied between a factor 2 and 100. Four parameters were difficult for the users to assess and had a large impact on the outcome: type of task, breathing zone, personal protection, and control measures. Only two scenarios had a higher measured risk quota than predicted by the control banding part, also two scenarios had slightly higher measured median exposure value than modelled consensus in the quantitative exposure assessment part. Hence, the variability between users was large but the model performed well.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多用户使用暴露与风险工具的比较与评价:Stoffenmanager 5.1。
Stoffenmanager是一种暴露和风险评估工具,它有控制分级部分,风险分级作为结果,定量暴露评估部分,预测暴露的第90个百分位数作为默认结果。这项研究的主要目的是调查在模拟相同的场景时,Stoffenmanager的多个用户是否会得出相同的结果。其他目的是调查控制分级部分的结果与测量风险配额之间的差异,并通过测试第90百分位数是否高于测量的中位数暴露来评估该工具的保守性。我们调查了四种不同行业公司的空气暴露情况:木材、印刷、金属铸造和喷漆。在可能的情况下,对每家公司的三种情况进行了建模和测量。当建模时,13个用户在同一场合访问每个公司,创建单独的评估。六名职业卫生学家还为每种情景建立了共识评估模型。在控制分级部分,多个用户的结果通常分布在两个风险等级上,每个情景的最高和最低评估的定量暴露结果差异在2至100倍之间。用户难以评估且对结果影响较大的四个参数:任务类型、呼吸区、个人防护和控制措施。只有两种情景的测量风险配额高于控制分级部分预测的风险配额,两种情景的测量中位暴露值略高于定量暴露评估部分的建模共识。因此,用户之间的差异很大,但模型表现良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated With Non-compliance of Asbestos Occupational Standards in Brake Repair Workers. Whole Body Vibration Exposures and Health Status among Professional Truck Drivers: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Physicochemical Characterization of Aerosol Generated in the Gas Tungsten Arc Welding of Stainless Steel. Effect of Occupational Exposure on A(H1N1)pdm09 Infection and Hospitalization. A Systematic Review of Reported Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1