Review of reference values for the assessment of inhalation risks for workers at industrial contaminated sites

Maria Dalma Mangiapia, I. Verginelli, R. Baciocchi, M. Bogliolo, S. Berardi
{"title":"Review of reference values for the assessment of inhalation risks for workers at industrial contaminated sites","authors":"Maria Dalma Mangiapia, I. Verginelli, R. Baciocchi, M. Bogliolo, S. Berardi","doi":"10.1080/10807039.2022.2071206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examines the procedures used to assess the inhalation risks of workers exposed to chemicals emitted from contaminated environmental matrices (“environmental exposure”) or to substances present in the productive cycle (“occupational exposure”). For the environmental exposure, the limit values for workers set by U.S. EPA (RBSLair) were considered. For the occupational exposure, the values set by EU directives (OELVs) and in the REACH regulation (DN(M)ELs) were examined. Despite a similar derivation methodology, the assessment and uncertainty factors employed to derive the RBSLair are more conservative than the corresponding factors adopted to calculate OELVs and DN(M)ELs. These differences can be ascribed to the toxicological parameters adopted for calculating RBSLair for workers that, although with different exposure factors, are the same used to calculate the limit values for sensitive receptors (e.g., children and the elderly). The comparison carried out on 110 substances typically of concern in contaminated sites showed that RBSLair for workers are noticeably more conservative than the corresponding OELV and DN(M)EL. RSBLair are more than two orders of magnitude lower than OELV and DN(M)EL for 50% of the examined substances and over three orders of magnitude in 25% of cases. In the future, a harmonization is desirable as, currently, the risk assessment for the same receptor and the same substance can lead to completely different outcomes depending on whether environmental or occupational exposure is considered.","PeriodicalId":13141,"journal":{"name":"Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":"664 - 682"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2022.2071206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This study examines the procedures used to assess the inhalation risks of workers exposed to chemicals emitted from contaminated environmental matrices (“environmental exposure”) or to substances present in the productive cycle (“occupational exposure”). For the environmental exposure, the limit values for workers set by U.S. EPA (RBSLair) were considered. For the occupational exposure, the values set by EU directives (OELVs) and in the REACH regulation (DN(M)ELs) were examined. Despite a similar derivation methodology, the assessment and uncertainty factors employed to derive the RBSLair are more conservative than the corresponding factors adopted to calculate OELVs and DN(M)ELs. These differences can be ascribed to the toxicological parameters adopted for calculating RBSLair for workers that, although with different exposure factors, are the same used to calculate the limit values for sensitive receptors (e.g., children and the elderly). The comparison carried out on 110 substances typically of concern in contaminated sites showed that RBSLair for workers are noticeably more conservative than the corresponding OELV and DN(M)EL. RSBLair are more than two orders of magnitude lower than OELV and DN(M)EL for 50% of the examined substances and over three orders of magnitude in 25% of cases. In the future, a harmonization is desirable as, currently, the risk assessment for the same receptor and the same substance can lead to completely different outcomes depending on whether environmental or occupational exposure is considered.
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
工业污染场所工人吸入风险评估参考值的审查
摘要:本研究考察了用于评估工人暴露于受污染的环境基质(“环境暴露”)或生产周期中存在的物质(“职业暴露”)的吸入风险的程序。对于环境暴露,考虑了美国环保署(RBSLair)规定的工人限值。对于职业暴露,检查了欧盟指令(OELVs)和REACH法规(DN(M)ELs)设定的值。尽管采用类似的推导方法,但用于推导RBSLair的评估因子和不确定因子比用于计算oelv和DN(M) el的相应因子更为保守。这些差异可归因于计算工人RBSLair所采用的毒理学参数,尽管暴露因素不同,但用于计算敏感受体(例如儿童和老年人)的极限值的毒理学参数是相同的。对污染场所110种典型关注物质的比较表明,工人的RBSLair明显比相应的OELV和DN(M)EL更为保守。50%的被检物质的RSBLair比OELV和DN(M)EL低两个数量级以上,25%的病例比OELV和DN(M)EL低三个数量级以上。在未来,统一是可取的,因为目前,对同一受体和同一物质的风险评估可能导致完全不同的结果,这取决于是否考虑环境或职业暴露。
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
期刊最新文献
Environmental implication identification on water quality variation and human health risk assessment in the middle and lower reaches of the Hanjiang River, China Estimation of glyphosate biological half-life among farmers and residents in Thailand Integrating ecosystem service value in the disclosure of landscape ecological risk changes: a case study in Yangtze River Economic Belt, China Exposure level and risk assessment of atrazine in Chinese adults based on the systematic review data and the Monte Carlo simulation method A novel biomonitoring method to detect pyrethroid metabolites in saliva of occupationally exposed workers as a tool for risk assessment
×
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