Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (한국산업보건학회지)

Korean Industrial Hygiene Association (한국산업보건학회)
권호 표지

Evaluation of the Application of worker-DNELs under REACH Guidance as Provisional Occupational Exposure Limits in the Workplace

작업자 무영향도출수준(worker-DNEL)의 사업장 적용을 위한 평가 연구

  • Yoon, Young Hee (Samsung Health Research Institute, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.) ;
  • Lee, Seok Won (Samsung Health Research Institute, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.) ;
  • Jung, Hyun Hee (Samsung Health Research Institute, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.) ;
  • Kim, Kwan Sick (Envrionmnet Safety Center, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.)
  • Published : 2013.03.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to calculate the worker-DNEL (Derived No Effect Level) values using the REACH guidance and compare the calculated DNELs with existing Korea occupational exposure limits (KOELs) for evaluation of the applicability of the worker-DNELs as provisional occupational exposure limits for chemicals that are not established KOELs in the workplace. Methods: The worker-DNELs for 46 chemicals among 113 hazardous substance requiring management were calculated using the REACH guidance, and a paired t-test was performed to see if there is any statistical difference between two lists (worker-DNELs vs KOELs). The ratios of KOELs over worker-DNELs were also calculated to compare the overall levels of two lists using the geometric means method. Results: The calculated worker-DNELs for 46 chemicals ranged from 0.001 to $329mg/m^3$ (GM= 6.9, GSD = 10.8), and appeared to be a significant difference between the worker-DNELs and the KOELs (p < 0.01). In addition, the ratios of KOELs over worker-DNELs ranged from 0.3 to 394 times (GM = 10.2, GSD = 3.9), indicating that the worker-DNELs were, on average, 27 times lower than the KOELs. Conclusions: Therefore, the study results show that the calculated worker-DNELs can be applied and used as provisional occupational exposure limits in the workplace in order to reduce worker exposures to chemicals and health risks, and manage potential worker exposures based on the precautionary principle through comprehensive chemical risk assessment.

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of Employment and Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Standards. No. 12 (MoL Public Notice No. 54). 2012.
  2. Ministry of Employment and Labor. Exposure limits for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents (MoL Public Notice No. 2012-31). 2012.
  3. Ministry of Employment and Labor. Standard for Classification and Labelling of Chemical Substance and Material Safety Data Sheet (MoL Public Notice No. 2012-14). 2012.
  4. Chung EK, A Review on Chemical Occupational Exposure Limits in Korea. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2007;17(2):K1-K6.
  5. Basf AG 1969. Department of Toxicology, unpublished report (XVIII/320), 27 Jan 1969. Cited in OECD 2004, SIAR on Ethanol, 2-(diethylamino)-(100-37-8). [cited 2012 Feb]. http://webnet.oecd.org/hpv/UI/handler.axd?id=ce6dbeae
  6. Ding Q, Schenk L, Malkiewicz K, Hansson SO. Occupational exposure limits in Europe and Asia Continued divergence or global harmonization? Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2011;61:296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.08.011
  7. European Chemicals Agency(ECHA). Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.8: Characterisation of Dose[Concentration]- Response for Human Health. ECHA, Helsinki, Finland. 2008.
  8. Marisa L. Kreider E. Spencer W. Interpreting REACH guidance in the determination of the derived no effect level (DNEL). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2010;58:323-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.07.005
  9. Paustenbach DJ. Occupational Exposure Limits: The Critical Role in Preventive Medicine and Risk Management. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J 1990;51:332- 336. Editorial.
  10. Millischer RJ, de Rooij CG, Rush GM, Farr CH, Ben-dyke R, Hardy DJ, Hodson-walker G. Evaluation of the Genotoxicity Potential and Chronic Inhalation Toxicity of 1,1-Dichloro- 1-Fluoroethane (HCFC- 141 b). Food and Chemical Toxicology 1995;33(6):491-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6915(95)00015-T
  11. Roach SA. On assessment of hazards to health at work. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 1994;17:727-753.
  12. Schenk L, Hansson SO, Ruden C, Gilek M. Occupational exposure limits: A comparative study. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2007;50:261-270.
  13. Schenk L, Johanson G. Aquantitative comparison of the safety margins in the European Indicative Occupational Exposure Limits and the Derived No-Effect Levels for Workers under REACH. Toxicological science 2011;121(2):408-416. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfr056
  14. US EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). [cited 2012 Feb]. Available from:URL:http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/
  15. Whaley D, Attfield M, Bedillion E, Walter K, Yi Q. Regression method to estimate provisional TLV/WEEL-equivalents for Non-carcinogens. American Occupational Hygiene 2000;44(5):361-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4878(99)00108-8
  16. NLM TOXNET. Hazardous Substances　Data Bank (HSDB). [cited 2012 Feb]. Available from:URL:http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB
  17. Williams ES, Panko JM, Paustenbach DJ. The European Union's REACH regulation: a review of its history and requirements. Crit. Rev. Toxicol 2009;39: 553-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408440903036056