A New Model Algorithm for Estimating the Inhalation Exposure Resulting from the Spraying of (Semi)-Volatile Binary Liquid Mixtures (SprayEva).

The spraying of liquid multicomponent mixtures is common in many professional and industrial settings. Typical examples are cleaning agents, additives, coatings, and biocidal products. In all of these examples, hazardous substances can be released in the form of aerosols or vapours. For occupational and consumer risk assessment in regulatory contexts, it is therefore important to know the exposure which results from the amount of chemicals in the surrounding air. In this research, a mechanistic mass balance model has been developed that covers the spraying of (semi)-volatile substances, taking into account combined exposure to spray mist, evaporation from droplets, and evaporation from surfaces as well as the nonideal behaviour of components in liquids and backpressure effects. For wall-spraying scenarios, an impaction module has been developed that quantifies the amount of overspray and the amount of material that lands on the wall. Mechanistically, the model is based on the assumption that continuous spraying can be approximated by a number of sequentially released spray pulses, each characterized by a certain droplet size, where the total aerosol exposure is obtained by summation over all release pulses. The corresponding system of differential equations is solved numerically using an extended Euler algorithm that is based on a discretisation of time and space. Since workers typically apply the product continuously, the treated area and the corresponding evaporating surface area grows over time. Time-dependent concentration gradients within the sprayed liquid films that may result from different volatilities of the components are therefore addressed by the proposed model. A worked example is presented to illustrate the calculated exposure for a scenario where aqueous solutions of H2O2 are sprayed onto surfaces as a biocidal product. The results reveal that exposure to H2O2 aerosol reaches relevant concentrations only during the spraying phase. Evaporation from sprayed surfaces takes place over much longer time periods, where backpressure effects caused by large emission sources can influence the shape of the concentration time curves significantly. The influence of the activity coefficients is not so pronounced. To test the plausibility of the developed model algorithm, a comparison of model estimates of SprayExpo, SprayEva, and ConsExpo with measured data is performed. Although the comparison is based on a limited number (N = 19) of measurement data, the results are nevertheless regarded as supportive and acceptable for the plausibility and predictive power of SprayEva.

Correction: Tischer, M.; Roitzsch, M. Estimating Inhalation Exposure Resulting from Evaporation of Volatile Multicomponent Mixtures Using Different Modelling Approaches. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1957.

There was an error in the original publication [...].

Estimating Inhalation Exposure Resulting from Evaporation of Volatile Multicomponent Mixtures Using Different Modelling Approaches.

In many professional and industrial settings, liquid multicomponent mixtures are used as solvents, additives, coatings, biocidal products, etc. Since, in all of these examples, hazardous liquids can evaporate in the form of vapours, for risk assessments it is important to know the amount of chemicals in the surrounding air. Although several models are available in legal contexts, the current implementations seem to be unable to correctly simulate concentration changes that actually occur in volatile mixtures and in particular in thin films. In this research, the estimation of evaporation rates is based on models that take into account non-ideal behaviour of components in liquids and backpressure effects as well. The corresponding system of differential equations is solved numerically using an extended Euler algorithm that is based on a discretisation of time and space. Regarding air dispersion of volatile components, the model builds upon one-box and two-box mass balance models, because there is some evidence that these models, when selected and applied appropriately, can predict occupational exposures with sufficient precision. That way, numerical solutions for a wide variety of exposure scenarios with instantaneous and continuous/intermittent application, even considering "moving worker situations", can be obtained. A number of example calculations have been carried out on scenarios where binary aqueous solutions of hydrogen peroxide or glutaraldehyde are applied as a biocidal product to surfaces by wiping. The results reveal that backpressure effects caused by large emission sources as well as deviations from liquid-phase ideality can influence the shape of the concentration time curves significantly. The results also provide some evidence that near-/far-field models should be used to avoid underestimation of exposure in large rooms when small/medium areas are applied. However, the near-field/far-field model should not be used to estimate peak exposure assuming instantaneous application, because then the models tend to overestimate peak exposure significantly. Although the example calculations are restricted to aqueous binary mixtures, the proposed approach is general and can be used for arbitrary liquid multicomponent mixtures, as long as backpressure effects and liquid-phase non-idealities are addressed adequately.

Validity of Tier 1 Modelling Tools and Impacts on Exposure Assessments within REACH Registrations-ETEAM Project, Validation Studies and Consequences.

In the last years, the evaluation and validation of exposure modelling tools for inhalation exposure assessment at workplaces received new and highly increased attention by different stakeholders. One important study in this regard is the ETEAM (Evaluation of Tier 1 Exposure Assessment Models) project that evaluated exposure assessment tools under the European REACH regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals), (but next to the ETEAM project-as a project publicly funded by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA)-it is a rather new development that research groups from universities in Europe, but also internationally, investigated this issue. These other studies focused not only on REACH tier 1 tools but also investigated other tools and aspects of tool validity. This paper tries to summarise the major findings of studies that explored the different issues of tool validity by focusing on the scientific outcomes and the exposure on the science community. On the other hand, this publication aims to provide guidance on the choice and use of tools, addressing the needs of tool users. The consequences of different stakeholders under REACH are discussed from the results of the validation studies. The major stakeholders are: (1) REACH registrants or applicants for REACH authorisations, meaning those companies, consortia or associations who are subject to REACH; (2) Evaluating authorities within the scope of REACH, meaning the ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) secretariat and committees, but also the competent authorities of the member states or the European Union; (3) Developers of the different models and tools; (4) Users of the different models and tools.

Dermal Advanced REACH Tool (dART)-Development of a Dermal Exposure Model for Low-Volatile Liquids.

This article describes the development of a mechanistic model for underpinning the dermal Advanced REACH Tool (dART), an extension of the existing ART model and its software platform. It was developed for hand exposure to low volatile liquids (vapour pressure ≤ 10 Pa at 20°C) including solids-in-liquid products. The model is based on an existing conceptual dermal source-receptor model that has been integrated into the ART framework. A structured taxonomy of workplace activities referred to as activity classes are adopted from ART. Three key processes involved in mass transport associated with dermal exposure are applied, i.e. deposition, direct emission and contact, and transfer. For deposition, the model adopts all the relevant modifying factors (MFs) applied in ART. In terms of direct emission and contact (e.g. splashes) and transfer (e.g. hand-surface contacts), the model defines independent principal MFs, i.e. substance-related factors, activity-related factors, localized- and dispersion control and exposed surface area of the hands. To address event-based exposures as much as possible, the model includes crucial events during an activity (e.g. hand immersions) and translates objective information on tools and equipment (manual or automated) to probable events (e.g. splashes) and worker behaviours (e.g. surface contacts). Based on an extensive review of peer-reviewed literature and unpublished field studies, multipliers were assigned to each determinant and provide an approximated (dimensionless) numerical value. In the absence of (sufficient) evidence, multipliers were assigned to determinants based on assumptions made during discussions by experts in the consortium. A worked example is presented to illustrate the calculation of hand exposure for a specific scenario. The dART model is not yet implemented in the ART software platform, and a robust validation of the model is necessary to determine its predictive ability. With advancing knowledge on dermal exposure and its determinants, this model will require periodic updates and refinements, in addition to further expansion of the applicability domain of the model.

Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part I-Tier 1 Tools.

Tier 1 occupational exposure assessment tools recommended for use under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) were evaluated using newly collected measurement data. Evaluated tools included the ECETOC TRAv2 and TRAv3, MEASEv1.02.01, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL. Fifty-three exposure situations (ESs) based on tasks/chemicals were developed from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health field surveys. During the field surveys, high quality contextual information required for evaluating the tools was also collected. For each ES, applicable tools were then used to generate exposure estimates using a consensus approach. Among 53 ESs, only those related to an exposure category of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa had sufficient numbers of exposure measurements (42 ESs with n = 251 for TRAv2 and TRAv3 and 40 ESs with n = 243 for EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) to be considered in detail. The results for other exposure categories (aqueous solutions, liquids with VP ≤ 10 Pa, metal processing, powders, and solid objects) had insufficient measurement to allow detailed analyses (results listed in the Supplementary File). Overall, EMKG-EXPO-TOOL generated more conservative results than TRAv2 and TRAv3 for liquids with high VP. This finding is at least partly due to the fact that the EMKG-EXPO-TOOL only considers pure substances and not mixtures of chemical agents. For 34 out of 40 ESs available for chemicals with VP > 10 Pa, the liquid was a mixture rather than a pure substance. TRAv3 was less conservative than TRAv2, probably due to additional refinement of some input parameters. The percentages of exposure measurement results exceeding the corresponding tool estimates for liquids with VP > 10 Pa by process category and by input parameters were always higher for TRAv3 compared to those for TRAv2. Although the conclusions of this study are limited to liquids with VP > 10 Pa and few process categories, this study utilized the most transparent contextual information compared to previous studies, reducing uncertainty from assumptions for unknown input parameters. A further validation is recommended by collecting sufficient exposure data covering other exposure categories and all process categories under REACH.

Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part II-Higher Tier Tools.

Stoffenmanager®v4.5 and Advanced REACH Tool (ART) v1.5, two higher tier exposure assessment tools for use under REACH, were evaluated by determining accuracy and robustness. A total of 282 exposure measurements from 51 exposure situations (ESs) were collected and categorized by exposure category. In this study, only the results of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa category having a sufficient number of exposure measurements (n = 251 with 42 ESs) were utilized. In addition, the results were presented by handling/activity description and input parameters for the same exposure category. It should be noted that the performance results of Stoffenmanager and ART in this study cannot be directly compared for some ESs because ART allows a combination of up to four subtasks (and nonexposed periods) to be included, whereas the database for Stoffenmanager, separately developed under the permission of the legal owner of Stoffenmanager, permits the use of only one task to predict exposure estimates. Thus, it would be most appropriate to compare full-shift measurements against ART predictions (full shift including nonexposed periods) and task-based measurements against task-based Stoffenmanager predictions. For liquids with VP > 10 Pa category, Stoffenmanager®v4.5 appeared to be reasonably accurate and robust when predicting exposures [percentage of measurements exceeding the tool's 90th percentile estimate (%M > T) was 15%]. Areas that could potentially be improved include ESs involving the task of handling of liquids on large surfaces or large work pieces, allocation of high and medium VP inputs, and absence of local exhaust ventilation input. Although the ART's median predictions appeared to be reasonably accurate for liquids with VP > 10 Pa, the %M > T for the 90th percentile estimates was 41%, indicating that variance in exposure levels is underestimated by ART. The %M > T using the estimates of the upper value of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 90th percentile estimate (UCI90) was considerably reduced to 18% for liquids with VP > 10 Pa. On the basis of this observation, users might be to consider using the upper limit value of 90% CI of the 90th percentile estimate for predicting reasonable worst case situations. Nevertheless, for some activities and input parameters, ART still shows areas to be improved. Hence, it is suggested that ART developers review the assumptions in relation to exposure variability within the tool, toward improving the tool performance in estimating percentile exposure levels. In addition, for both tools, only some handling/activity descriptions and input parameters were considered. Thus, further validation studies are still necessary.

Advanced REACH Tool (ART): overview of version 1.0 and research needs.

This paper provides an outline of the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) version 1.0 and a discussion of how it could be further developed. ART is a higher tier exposure assessment tool that combines mechanistically modelled inhalation exposure predictions with available exposure data using a Bayesian approach. ART assesses exposure for scenarios across different plants and sites. Estimates are provided for different percentiles of the exposure distribution and confidence intervals around the estimate. It also produces exposure estimates in the absence of data, but uncertainty of the estimates will decrease when results of exposure measurements are included. The tool has been calibrated using a broad range of exposure data and provides estimates for exposure to vapours, mists, and dusts. ART has a robust and stable conceptual basis but will be refined in the future and should therefore be considered an evolving system. High-priority areas for future research are identified in this paper and include the integration of partially analogous measurement series, inclusion of company and site-specific assessments, user decision strategies linked to ART predictions, evaluation of validity and reliability of ART, exploring the possibilities for incorporating the dermal route and integration of ART predictions with tools for modelling internal dose. ART is initially developed in the scope of REACH but is equally useful for exposure assessment in other areas.

Advanced REACH Tool: development and application of the substance emission potential modifying factor.

The Advanced REACH Tool (ART) is an exposure assessment tool that combines mechanistically modelled inhalation exposure estimates with available exposure data using a Bayesian approach. The mechanistic model is based on nine independent principal modifying factors (MF). One of these MF is the substance emission potential, which addresses the intrinsic substance properties as determinants of the emission from a source. This paper describes the current knowledge and evidence on intrinsic characteristics of solids and liquids that determine the potential for their release into workplace air. The principal factor determining the release of aerosols from handling or processing powdered, granular, or pelletized materials is the dustiness of the material, as well as the weight fraction of the substance of interest in the powder and the moisture content. The partial vapour pressure is the main intrinsic factor determining the substance emission potential for emission of vapours. For generation of mist, the substance emission potential is determined by the viscosity of the liquid as well as the weight fraction of the substance of interest in the liquid. Within ART release of vapours is considered for substances with a partial vapour pressure at the process temperature of 10 Pa or more, while mist formation is considered for substances with a vapour pressure ≤ 10 Pa. Relative multipliers are assigned for most of the intrinsic factors, with the exception of the weight fraction and the vapour pressure, which is applied as a continuous variable in the estimation of the substance emission potential. Currently, estimation of substance emission potential is not available for fumes, fibres, and gases. The substance emission potential takes account of the latest thinking on emissions of dusts, mists, and vapours and in our view provides a good balance between theory and pragmatism. Expanding the knowledge base on substance emission potential will improve the predictive power of occupational exposure models and thereby the accuracy and precision of the exposure estimates.

Revisiting the effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near- and far-field air concentrations.

OBJECTIVES: In 1999, Cherrie carried out a series of mathematical simulations to investigate dispersion of pollutants through two indoor zones: the near-field (NF) and the far-field (FF). The results of these simulations were used to derive modifying factors for use in exposure modeling. However, in the original simulations, no account was taken of deposition on surfaces, either from sedimentation of aerosols or other mechanisms or the potential effects of intermittent or short duration sources. These factors may affect pollutant dispersion, particularly the relationship between NF and FF levels. The Advanced REACH Tool (ART) is based on a two-zone dispersion paradigm. Further simulations have been carried out to help ensure that the ART realistically reflects pollutant dispersion. METHODS: Pollutant dispersion has been simulated using a two-compartment well-mixed box model to represent the NF and the FF. Simulations were repeated for a range of room sizes and ventilation conditions. Intermittent sources (e.g. batch processes) were simulated by having the source active for 1 h followed by a 1-h gap, while short duration work emissions were set to last for 10 min, 30 min, 1 h, or 4 h, within the working day. Deposition was modeled by adding an equivalent air exchange rate based on published research data. Simulations were undertaken for non-volatile, monodisperse aerosols of aerodynamic diameter: 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30, and 100 µm and the results were then interpreted in terms of typical polydisperse industrial aerosols. RESULTS: Room size and general ventilation strongly influenced dispersion from the NF to the FF as Cherrie had originally found. When varying the duration of the simulation, the biggest difference from continuous work was seen in small poorly ventilated rooms, with the ratio of the NF to FF concentration for 1-h work in the smallest room and lowest air exchange rate being a fifth of that calculated for continuous work. For large rooms and high general ventilation rates, the duration of the activity made little difference to dispersion. The results suggest that for the purposes of dispersion intermittent batch work is equivalent to continuous work. For typical simulated poly-disperse aerosols, the main effect of aerosol deposition was to reduce the predicted high concentrations compared to vapours when working in confined spaces. CONCLUSIONS: Both short duration of source emissions and deposition of aerosols have an important effect on dispersion, and the results from this study have been reflected in the ART model.

Advanced Reach Tool (ART): development of the mechanistic model.

This paper describes the development of the mechanistic model within a collaborative project, referred to as the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) project, to develop a tool to model inhalation exposure for workers sharing similar operational conditions across different industries and locations in Europe. The ART mechanistic model is based on a conceptual framework that adopts a source receptor approach, which describes the transport of a contaminant from the source to the receptor and defines seven independent principal modifying factors: substance emission potential, activity emission potential, localized controls, segregation, personal enclosure, surface contamination, and dispersion. ART currently differentiates between three different exposure types: vapours, mists, and dust (fumes, fibres, and gases are presently excluded). Various sources were used to assign numerical values to the multipliers to each modifying factor. The evidence used to underpin this assessment procedure was based on chemical and physical laws. In addition, empirical data obtained from literature were used. Where this was not possible, expert elicitation was applied for the assessment procedure. Multipliers for all modifying factors were peer reviewed by leading experts from industry, research institutes, and public authorities across the globe. In addition, several workshops with experts were organized to discuss the proposed exposure multipliers. The mechanistic model is a central part of the ART tool and with advancing knowledge on exposure, determinants will require updates and refinements on a continuous basis, such as the effect of worker behaviour on personal exposure, 'best practice' values that describe the maximum achievable effectiveness of control measures, the intrinsic emission potential of various solid objects (e.g. metal, glass, plastics, etc.), and extending the applicability domain to certain types of exposures (e.g. gas, fume, and fibre exposure).

Classification of occupational activities for assessment of inhalation exposure.

There is a large variety of activities in workplaces that can lead to emission of substances. Coding systems based on determinants of emission have so far not been developed. In this paper, a system of Activity Classes and Activity Subclasses is proposed for categorizing activities involving chemical use. Activity Classes share their so-called 'emission generation mechanisms' and physical state of the product handled and the underlying determinants of emission. A number of (industrial) stakeholders actively participated in testing and fine-tuning the system. With the help of these stakeholders, it was found to be relatively easy to allocate a large number of activities to the Activity Classes and Activity Subclasses. The system facilitates a more structured classification of activities in exposure databases, a structured analysis of the analogy of exposure activities, and a transparent quantification of the activity emission potential in (new) exposure assessment models. The first use of the system is in the Advanced REACH Tool.

Advanced REACH Tool (ART): calibration of the mechanistic model.

The mechanistic model of the Advanced Reach Tool (ART) provides a relative ranking of exposure levels from different scenarios. The objectives of the calibration described in this paper are threefold: to study whether the mechanistic model scores are accurately ranked in relation to exposure measurements; to enable the mechanistic model to estimate actual exposure levels rather than relative scores; and to provide a method of quantifying model uncertainty. Stringent data quality guidelines were applied to the collated data. Linear mixed effects models were used to evaluate the association between relative ART model scores and measurements. A random scenario and company component of variance were introduced to reflect the model uncertainty. Stratified analyses were conducted for different forms of exposure (abrasive dust, dust, vapours and mists). In total more than 2000 good quality measurements were available for the calibration of the mechanistic model. The calibration showed that after calibration the mechanistic model of ART was able to estimate geometric mean (GM) exposure levels with 90% confidence for a given scenario to lie within a factor between two and six of the measured GM depending upon the form of exposure.

How safe is control banding? Integrated evaluation by comparing OELs with measurement data and using monte carlo simulation.

The present study aims to explore the protection level that can be achieved by the German control banding (CB) tool Einfaches Massnahmenkonzept Gefahrstoffe, 'Easy-to-use workplace control scheme for hazardous substances'. The rationale of our integrated approach is based on the Bewertungsindex (BWI), which is the quotient of the exposure level and the occupational exposure limit (OEL), with BWI <1 indicating compliance. The frequency distributions of the BWI were calculated in order to reflect statistically the variability of workplace conditions. The corresponding statistical values of the frequency distributions (percentiles etc.) are interpreted as an indicator of the level of protection that is achieved. The occupational exposure data sets used in the calculation of the BWI frequency distribution were mainly collected from Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin field studies. The data sets taken into account were selected according to the criteria 'hazard band, exposure potential, control approach'. Such a combination is called the 'control banding scenario' (CBS). Measurement data are only available for two CBS: in the case of the CBS 'hazard band A, EPL3, CS1' the only data that are available (n = 220) relate to propane-2-ol as used in the area of offset printing. Only 0.4 % of the BWI are above 1, this indicating a high level of compliance. In the case of the CBS 'Hazard band B, EPL2, CS1', exposure data are available from screen-printing firms (n = 50), optician workshops (n = 49), and from the area of furniture production (n = 13). The frequency distributions of the BWI reveal almost no instances of values being exceeded in the three branches. In a subsequent step, a Monte Carlo Simulation was employed to explore whether the BWI frequency distributions can be generalized using a probabilistic model. The frequency distributions of the exposure levels and the OELs were used as the input data for the model. The simulation results show that the model distribution, called Modellierter Bewertungsindex distribution, can reproduce the BWI distribution if the data basis is homogeneous (data from one branch) and less correlated. In case of a heterogeneous data set (pooled data from different branches), the simulation results can be interpreted as generic statements about the attainable protection level. It was found that CB does not (at least potentially) guarantee compliance in either case. On the other hand, the generic simulation showed that compliance was high for volatile liquids used in closed systems (CBS: 'hazard band C, EPL3, CS3') and for solids in the presence of local exhaust ventilation (CBS: 'hazard band B, EPS3, CS2').

Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure: defining modifying factors.

The present paper proposes a source-receptor model to schematically describe inhalation exposure to help understand the complex processes leading to inhalation of hazardous substances. The model considers a stepwise transfer of a contaminant from the source to the receptor. The conceptual model is constructed using three components, i.e. (i) the source, (ii) various transmission compartments and (iii) the receptor, and describes the contaminant's emission and its pattern of transport. Based on this conceptual model, a list of nine mutually independent principal modifying factors (MFs) is proposed: activity emission potential, substance emission potential, localized control, separation, segregation, dilution, worker behavior, surface contamination and respiratory protection. These MFs describe the exposure process at a high level of abstraction so that the model can be generically applicable. A list of exposure determinants underlying each of these principal MFs is proposed to describe the exposure process at a more detailed level. The presented conceptual model is developed in conjunction with an activity taxonomy as described in a separate paper. The proposed conceptual model and MFs should be seen as 'building blocks' for development of higher tier exposure models.

Tools for regulatory assessment of occupational exposure: development and challenges.

REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of CHemicals) requires improved exposure models that can be incorporated into screening tools and refined assessment tools. These are referred to as tier 1 and 2 models, respectively. There are a number of candidate in tier 1 models that could be used with REACH. Tier 2 models, producing robust and realistic exposure assessments, are currently not available. A research programme is proposed in this paper that will result in a new, advanced exposure assessment tool for REACH. In addition, issues related to variability and uncertainty are discussed briefly, and some examples of tier 1 screening tools are presented. The proposed framework for the tier 2 tool is based on a Bayesian approach, and makes full use of mechanistically modelled estimates and any relevant measurements of exposure. The new approach will preclude the necessity to conduct of case-by-case exposure measurements for each chemical and scenario, since the system will allow for the use of analogous exposure data from relatively comparable scenarios. The development of the new approach requires substantial effort in the area of mechanistic modelling, database development and Bayesian statistical techniques. In this paper, the data gaps and areas for future research are identified to help realise and further improve this type of approach within REACH. A structured data collection and storage system is a central element of the research programme and the availability of this type of tool may also facilitate the sharing of exposure data down and up the supply chain. In addition, new data that are stored according to the proposed structure could enable the validation of any exposure model and thus this programme enhances the exposure assessment field as a whole.