RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This paper describes a simple-to-use and reliable screening tool called Critical Task Exposure Screening (CTES), developed by a chemical company. The tool assesses if the exposure to a chemical for a task is likely to be within acceptable levels. METHODS: CTES is a Microsoft Excel tool, where the inhalation risk score is calculated by relating the exposure estimate to the corresponding occupational exposure limit (OEL) or occupational exposure band (OEB). The inhalation exposure is estimated for tasks by preassigned ART1.5 activity classes and modifying factors. RESULTS: CTES requires few inputs. The toxicological data, including OELs, OEBs, and vapor pressure are read from a database. Once the substance is selected, the user specifies its concentration and then chooses the task description and its duration. CTES has three outputs that may trigger follow-up: (1) inhalation risk score; (2) identification of the skin hazard with the skin warnings for local and systemic adverse effects; and (3) status for carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic effects. CONCLUSION: The tool provides an effective way to rapidly screen low-concern tasks, and quickly identifies certain tasks involving substances that will need further review with, nevertheless, the appropriate conservatism. This tool shows that the higher-tier ART1.5 inhalation exposure assessment model can be included effectively in a screening tool. After 2 years of worldwide extensive use within the company, CTES is well perceived by the users, including the shop floor management, and it fulfills its target of screening tool.
RESUMO
Hazard Banding (HB) is a process of allocating chemical substances in bands of increasing health hazard based on their hazard classifications. Recent Control Banding (CB) tools use the classifications of the United Nations Global Harmonized System (UN GHS) or the European Union Classifications, Labelling and Packaging (EU CLP) which are grouped over 5 HBs. The use of CB is growing worldwide for the risk control of substances without an Occupational Exposure Limit Value (OELV). Well-known CB-tools like HSE-COSHH Essentials, BAuA-Einfaches Maßnahmenkonzept Gefahrstoffe (EMKG), and DGUV-IFA-Spaltenmodell (IFA) use however different GHS/CLP groupings which may lead to dissimilar HBs and control regimes for individual substances. And as the choice for a CB tool seems to be determined by geography and/or local status these differences may hamper a global, aligned HSE approach. Therefore, the HB-engines of the three public CBs and an in-company (Solvay) CB called 'Occupational Exposure Banding' (S-OEB) were compared mutually and ranked in their relation with the OELV as the 'de facto' standard. This was investigated graphically and using a 5 strength indicator, statistical method. A data set of 229 substances with high-quality GHS/CLP classifications and OELVs was used. HB concentration ranges, as linked to S-OEB and COSHH, were validated against the corresponding OELV distributions. The four HB-engines allocate between 23 and 64% of the 229 substances in the same bands. The remaining substances differ at least one band, with IFA placing more substances in a higher hazard band, EMKG doing the opposite and COSHH and S-OEB in between. The overall strength scores of S-OEB, IFA, and EMGK HB-engines are higher than COSHH, with S-OEB having the highest overall strength score. The lower ends of the concentration ranges defined for the 3 'highest' hazard bands of S-OEB were in good agreement with the 10th percentiles of the corresponding OELV distributions obtained from the substance data set. The lower ends of the COSHH concentration ranges comply with the 10th percentiles of the COSHH OELV distributions for dust/aerosol but not for vapour/gas substances. Both the S-OEB and COSHH concentration ranges underestimate the overall width of the OELV distributions that can span 2-3 orders of magnitude. As the performance of the S-OEB HB-engine meets our criteria of being at least as good as the public engines, it will be used as a standard within Solvay's global operations. In addition, the method described here to evaluate the strength of HB-engines and the validity of their corresponding concentration ranges is a useful tool enabling further developments and worldwide alignment of HB.
