Human Exposure Assessement

  • J.G.M. Van Engelen
  • P. J. Hakkinen
  • C. Money
  • M.G.J. Rikken
  • T.G. Vermeire

Humans may be exposed to a variety of substances from multiple exposure routes. In Chapter 5 we will distinguish between exposure through the environment (Section 5.2), exposure from use of consumer products (Section 5.3), and exposure at the workplace (occupational exposure; Section 5.4). In this chapter information is provided on how to perform an exposure assessment for each of these human populations. This information pertains to the general principles, the data needed and how to perform the actual quantitative assessment, based on either measured or modelled data.

Keywords

Surfactant Toxicity Dust Welding Lactate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Commission of the European Communities. 2003. Technical Guidance Document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Joint Research Centre, European Chemicals Bureau, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off J Eur UnionL 396/1 of 30.12.2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2003. Description of selected key generic terms used in chemical hazard/risk assessment. Joint project with the international programme on chemical safety (IPCS) on the harmonization of hazard/risk assessment terminology. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications. Series on Testing and Assessment44. OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Commission of the European Communities. 2004. European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances 2.0 (EUSES 2.0). Prepared for the European Chemicals Bureau by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Available from European Chemicals Bureau, http://ecb. jrc.it.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McKone TE. 1993. CalTOX, A multimedia total exposure model for hazardous-waste sites UCRL-CR-111456PtIIV. US Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czub G, McLachlan MS. 2004. A food chain model to predict the levels of lipophilic organic contaminants in humans. Environ Toxicol Chem23 (10):2356-2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    US Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Exposure and Fate Assessment, Screening Tool (E-FAST) Version 2.0 Documentation Manual. US EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Exposure Assessment Branch, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    UMS, 1993. Umweltmedizinische Beurteilung der Exposition des Menschen durch altlastbedingte Schadstoffe (UMS) Anslussbericht ‘‘Weiterentwicklung und Erbrobung des Bewertungsmodells zur Gefahrenbeurteilung bei Altlasten’’ von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Fresenius Consult GmbH und focon-Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH F&E-Vorhaben 10340107 [in German].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slob W, Bakker MI. 2004. Probabilistic calculation of intake of substances via incidentally consumed food products. Supplement to the handbook for modelling of intake of substances via food. RIVM report 320103003. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Briggs GG, Bromilow RH, Evans AA. 1982. Relationships between lipophilicity and root uptake and translocation of non-ionised chemicals by barley. Pestic. Sci.13:495-504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trapp S., Matthies M. 1995. Generic one-compartment model for uptake of organic chemicals by foliar vegetation. Environl Sci Technol 29: 2333-2338. Erratum vol. 30:360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith KEC, Jones KC. 2000. Particles and vegetation: implications for the transfer of particle-bound organic contaminants to vegetation. Sci Total Environ 246:207- 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheppard SC, Evenden WG. 1992. Contaminant enrichment of sparingly soluble contaminants (U, Th and Pb) by erosion and by soil adhesion to plants and skin. Environ Geochem Health14:121-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trapp S, Matthies M. 1998. Chemodynamics and environmental modeling. An introduction. Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1998. ISBN 3-540- 63096-1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rikken MGJ, Lijzen JPA, Cornelese AA. 2001. Evaluation of model concepts on human exposure. Proposals for updating the most relevant exposure routes of CSOIL. RIVM report 71170 1022. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Veith GD, DeFoe DL, Bergstedt BV. 1979. Measuring and estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 36:1040-1048.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bintein S, Devillers J, Karcher W. 1993. Nonlinear dependence of fish bioconcentration on n-octanol/water partition coefficient. SAR QSAR Environ Res 1(1):29-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Devillers J, Domine D, Bintein S, Karcher W. 1998. Fish bioconcentration modeling with log P. Toxicol Methods 8(1):1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Connell DW, Hawker DW. 1988. Use of polynomial expressions to describe the bioconcentration of hydrophobic chemicals by fish. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 16(3):242-257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomann RV. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic food chains. Environ Sci Technol 23(6):699-707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thomann RV, Connolly JP, Parkerton TF. 1992. An equilibrium model of organic chemical accumulation in aquatic food webs with sediment interaction. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:615-629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gobas FAPC. 1993. Gastrointestinal magnification: the mechanism of biomagnification and food chain accumulation of organic chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 27(13):2855-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Campfens J, Mackay D. 1997. Fugacity-based model of PCB bioaccumulation in complex aquatic food webs. Environ Sci Technol 31 (2):577-583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Czub G, McLachlan MS. 2003. A food chain model to predict the levels of lipophilic organic contaminants in humans. Environ Toxicol Chem 23(10):2356-2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kelly BC, Gobas APC, McLachlan MS. 2004. Intestinal absorption and biomagnification of organic contaminants in fish, wildlife and humans. Environ Toxicol Chem 23(10):2324-2336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hrubec J, Toet C. 1992. Predictability of the removal of organic compounds by drinking-water treatment. RIVM report 71430 007. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rikken MGJ, Lijzen JPA. 2004. Update of risk assessment models for the indirect human exposure. RIVM report 601516011/2004. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vonk MW. 1985. Permeatie van organische verbindingen door leidingmaterialen. mededeling nr 85, KIWA, Nieuwegein [in Dutch].Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vonk MW. 1985. Permeatie van organische verbindingen door leidingmaterialen. H2O 18:529-538 [in Dutch].Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heijden BG van der. 1985. Enkele ervaringen met de permeatie van organische stoffen door kunststof drinkwaterleidingen. H2O 18, nr. 5:88-95 [in Dutch].Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Travis CC, Arms AD. 1988. Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk and vegetation. Environ Sci Technol 22:271- 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kenaga EE. 1990. Correlation of bioconcentration factors of chemicals in aquatic and terrestrial organisms with their physical and chemical properties. J Am Soc 14:553- 556.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dowdy DL, McKone TE, Hsieh PH. 1996. Prediction of Chemical Biotransfer of Organic Chemicals from Cattle Diet into Beef and Milk Using the Molecular Connectivity Index. Environ Sci Technol 30(3): 984-989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McLachlan MS. 1994. Model of the Fate of Hydrophobic Contaminants in Cows. Environ Sci Technol 28(13):2407- 2414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosenbaum R. 2006 Multimedia and food chain modelling of toxics for comparative risk and life cycle impact assessment. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Derks HJGM, Berende PLM, Olling M, Everts H, Liem AKD 1994. Pharmacokinetic modeling of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and furans (PCDFs) in cows. Chemosphere 28 (4):711-715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Freijer JI, van Eijkeren JHC, Sips AJAM. 1999. Model for Estimating Initial Burden and Daily Absorption of Lipophylic Contaminants in Cattle. RIVM report 64381 0005. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eijkeren JCH van, Jager DT, Sips AJAM. 1998. Generic PBPK-modelling of lipophilic contaminants in the cow. RIVM report 67910 2042. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwartz S, Berding V, Trapp S, Matthies M. 1998. Quality Criteria for environmental Risk Assessment Software - Using the Example of EUSES. Environ Sci Pollut Res 5:217-222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals. 1994. Assessment of non-occupational Exposure to chemicals. Technical Report No. 58. ECETOC, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hendricks MH. 1970. Measurement of enzyme laundry product dust levels and characteristics in consumer use. J Am Oil Chem Soc 47(6):207-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Becker D. 1979. Methodology for Estimating Direct Exposure to New Chemical Substances. Office of Toxic Substances, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Versar Inc. 1986. Standard scenarios for estimating exposure to chemical substances during use of consumer products. Volumes I and II. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency. (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/Versar_ 1986_Standard_Scenarios Volume_I.pdf and http://www. epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/Versar_1986_Standard_ Scenarios_Volume_II.pdf)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    US Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. National usage survey of household cleaning products. Westat, Inc., Rockville, Maryland. Prepared for USEPA, Exposure Evaluation Division, Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, USA Contract Number 68-02-4243. (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/Westat_ 1987a_Household_Cleaning_Products.pdf).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    US Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Household solvent products. A national usage survey. Westat, Inc., Rockville, Maryland. Prepared for USEPA, Exposure Evaluation Division, Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, USA. Contract Number 68-02-4243. (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/Westat_ 1987b_Household_Solvent_Products.pdf)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    US Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Methods for Assessing Exposure to Chemical Substances, Volume 7. Methods for Assessing Consumer Exposure to Chemical Substances. USEPA, Exposure Evaluation Division, Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington DC, USA. EPA Contract 68-02-3968. (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/USEPA_ 1987c_Methods_for_Assessing_Exposure_Volume_ 7.pdf)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    US Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Exposure Factors Handbook. US-EPA, Washington, DC. (EPA/600/8-89/043)(http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/homepage/ EFH_1989_EPA600889043.pdf).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA No. 600C99001. US EPA, National Service Center for Environmental Publications, Cincinnati. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=1 2464&CFID=404517&CF).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1993. Occupational and consumer exposure assessments. OECD Environmental MonographsNo. 70. OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Commission of the European Communities. 1992. Council Directive 92/32/EEC of 30 April 1992 amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances OJECL 154, 5.6.1992, p. 1–29Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Commission of the European Communities. 1994. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man and to the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93. OJECL 161.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Commission of the European Communities. 1996. Technical Guidance document in support of commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and commission regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances. Part 1. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    International Programme on Chemical Safety. Principles for the Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Exposure to Chemicals. IPCS, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Environmental Health Criteria210. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc210.htm# SubSectionNumber:5.5.3.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vermeire TG, van der Poel P, van de Laar RTH, Roelfzema H. 1993. Estimation of consumer exposure to chemicals: application of simple models. Sci Total Environ136:155-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Van Veen MP. 1996. Een datamodel voor een blootstellingsanalyse van consumentenproducten [A Data Model for an Exposure Assessment Database for Consumer Products]. RIVM. Report 612810004. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kovacs DC, Small MJ, Davidson CI, Fischoff B. 1997. Behavioral factors affecting exposure potential for household cleaning products. J Exp Anal Environ Epidemiol 7:505-520.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Baker S, Driver J, McCallum D, eds. 2001. Residential exposure assessment. A sourcebook. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York, NY. ISBN 0-306-46517- 5.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Riley DM, Small MJ, Fischhoff B. 2000. Modeling methylene chloride exposure-reduction options for home paint stripper users. J Exp Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:240-250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Riley DM, Fischhoff B, Small M, Fischbeck P. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of risk-reduction strategies for consumer chemical products. Risk Anal 21:357-369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Weegels MF, van Veen MP. 2001. Variation of consumer contact with household products: a preliminary investigation. Risk Anal21:499-511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zaleski R, Gephart L. 2000. Exposure factors sourcebook for European populations, with focus on UK data. ECETOC Technical Report No. 79. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    www.rivm.nl/consexpoGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    www.ktl.fi/expofactsGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    www.tera.org/peer/VCCEP/VCCEPIntroduction.htmlGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    www.heraproject.comGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    www.chemicalawareness.org/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    www.jrc.cec.eu.int/eis-chemrisksGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Delmaar JE, Park MVDZ, van Engelen JGM. 2005. ConsExpo - Consumer exposure and uptake models - Program manual. RIVM report 32010 4004. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/mccem.htmGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/wpem.htmGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    www.americansolventscouncil.org/resources/promise. aspGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    http://www.thelifelinegroup.org/lifelineGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bruinen de Bruin Y, Hakkinen P, del Pozo C, Reina V, Papameletiou D. 2006. Risk Management Measures for Chemicals in Consumer Products. EUR number 22278 EN, ISBN 92-79-01972-4. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Physical and Chemical Exposure Unit, Ispra, Italy, in preparation.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Petersen DW. 1989. Profile of accidental ingestion calls received via a toll-free line on detergent product labels. Vet Hum Toxicol31:125-127.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Petersen DW. 1989. Lemon aesthetics in hand dishwashing detergents do not influence reported accidental ingestion frequency and volume. Vet Hum Toxicol 31:257-258.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Yamashita M, Tanaka J, Yamashita M, Hirai H, Suzuki M, Kajigaya H. 1997. Mist particle diameters are related to the toxicity of waterproofing sprays: comparison between toxic and non-toxic products. Vet Hum Toxicol 39 (2):71-74.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yamashita M, Yamashita M, Tanaka J, Hirai H, Suzuki M, Kajigaya H. 1997. Toxicity of waterproofing spray is influenced by the mist particle size. Vet Hum Toxicol39 (6):332-334.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Soap and Detergent Association. 2005. Risk assessment guidance for enzyme-containing products. www.cleaning101.com/files/SDA_Enzyme_Risk_ Guidance_October_2005.pdf.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Yamashita M and Tanaka J. 1995. Pulmonary collapse and pneumonia due to inhalation of a waterproofing. aerosol in female CD-1 Mice J Toxicol Clin Toxicol33 (6):631-637.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Agricola G. 1556. De Re Metallica.Translated by Hoover HC and Hoover LH. 1912. Mining Magazine, London, UK.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Rammazzini B. 1713. De Morbis Artificum.Translated by Wright WC. 1964. Printed in the New York Academy of Medicine, History of Medicine Series No. 23, Hafner.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Thackrah CTH. 1832. The effects of arts, trades and professions and of civic states on health and longevity with suggestions for the removal of many of the agents which produce disease and shorten the duration of life. Longman, Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hutchins BL, Harrison A. 1903. A history of factory legislation. Frank Cass, London, UK.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Gaskill E. 1848. Mary Barton: a tale of Manchester life. Thomas Nelson, UK.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Dickens C. 1860 The uncommercial traveller. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zola E. 1885. Germinal. Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bartrip P. 2002. The Home Office and the dangerous trades: regulating occupational disease in Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Clio Medica68. Wellcome Series in the History of Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Commission of the European Communities. 1980. Council Directive 80/1107/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work, OJ L 327, 3rd December 1980.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Haldane JS. 1912. Methods of air analysis. Charles Griffin, London, UK.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Drinker P, Hatch T. 1936. Industrial dust: hygiene significance, measurement and control. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Piney M. 2001. OELs and the effective control of substances hazardous to health in the UK. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), London, UK.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Meldrum M. 2001. Setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants: the approach in the European Union. Am Industr Hyg Assoc J62:730-732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ziegler-Skylakakis K. 2004. Approaches for the development of occupational exposure limits for manmade mineral fibres (MMMFs). Mutat Res 553:37-41.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Bolt HM, Thier R. 2006. Biological monitoring and Biological Limit Values (BLV): the strategy of the European Union. Toxicol Lett 162:119-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Commission of the European Communities. 1998. Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work. OJ, L131, 5th May 1998.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Russell RM, Maidment SC, Brooke I, Topping MD. 1998. An introduction to a UK scheme to help small firms control health risk from chemicals. Ann Occup Hyg 42:367-376.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Health and Safety Executive. 1999. COSHH Essentials. HSE, London, UK.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Money C, de Rooij C, Floch F, Jacobi S, Koundakjian P, Lanz S, Penman M, Rodriguez C, Veenstra G. 2003. A structured approach to the evaluation of workplace health risks. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 2:44-65.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals. 2004. Targeted Risk Assessment. Technical Report No. 93. ECETOC, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Commission of the European Communities. 1993. Council Regulation 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances. OJL084, 5th April 1993.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Northage C, Marquart H. 2001. Occupational exposure information needs for regulatory risk assessment of existing chemicals. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 16:315- 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Commission of the European Communities. 1992. Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. OJL 348, 28th November 1992.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Schneider T, Vermeulen R, Brouwer DH, Cherrie JW, Kromhout H, Fogh CL. 1999. Conceptual model for assessment of dermal exposure. Occup Environ Med 56:765-773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Cherrie JW, Schneider T. 1999. Validation of a new method for structured subjective assessment of past concentrations. Ann Occup Hyg 43:235-245.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Tickner J, Friar J, Creely K S, Cherrie JW, Pryde DE, Kingston J. 2005. The development of the EASE model. Ann Occup Hyg 49:103-110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Money C, Margary SA. 2002. Improved use of workplace exposure data in the regulatory risk assessment of chemicals within Europe. Ann Occup Hyg 46:279-285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Tielemans E, Marquart H, De Cock J, Groenewold M, van Hemmen J. 2002. A proposal for evaluation of exposure data. Ann Occup Hyg 46:287-297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Van-Wendel-de-Joode B, Brouwer DH, Vermeulen R, Van Hemmen JJ, Heederik D, Kromhout H. 2003. DREAM: a method for semi-quantitative dermal exposure assessment. Ann Occup Hyg 47:71-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Van Hemmen JJ, Auffarth J, Evans PG, Rajan- Sithamparanadarajah B, Marquart H, Oppl R. 2003. RISKOFDERM: risk assessment of occupational dermal exposure to chemicals. Ann Occup Hyg 47:595-598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Oppl R, Kalberlah F, Evans PG, van Hemmen JJ. 2003. A toolkit for dermal risk assessment and management: an overview. Ann Occup Hyg 47:629-640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Leidel NA, Busch KA, Lynch JR. 1977. Occupational exposure sampling strategy manual. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication 77-173. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, USA.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Guest IG, Cherrie JW, Gardner RJ, Money CD. 1993. Sampling strategies for airborne contaminants in the workplace. British Occupational Hygiene Society Technical Guide No. 11, H and H Scientific Consultants, Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Mulhausen JR, Damiano J. 1998. A strategy for assessing and managing occupational exposures (2nd edition). American Industrial Hygiene Association Press, Fairfax, USA.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wiseman J, Gilbert F. 2002. COSHH Essentials: survey of firms purchasing this guidance. Health & Safety Executive Contract Research Report 434. HMSO, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Groenewold M. 2004. Reducing the risk of chemical exposure for workers in industry. TNO Leads in Life Sciences 25 p.9 (see http://www.stoffenmanager.nl/).Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Hudspith B, Hay AWM. 1998. Information needs of workers. Ann Occup Hyg 42:401-406.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 2004. Industrial ventilation: a manual for control (25th edition). ACGIH , Cincinatti, USA.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Lipton S, Lynch J. 1994. Handbook of health hazard control in the chemical process industry. Wiley Interscience, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Commission of the European Communities. 1998. Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work. OJ L131, 5th May 1998.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Briggs D, Crumbie N. 2000. Characteristics of people working with chemical products in small firms. Health & Safety Executive Contract Research Report 278. HMSO, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Walters D, Grodzki K. 2006. Beyond limits. Elsevier, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Money C. 1992. A structured approach to occupational hygiene in the design and operation of fine chemical plant. Ann Occup Hyg 36:601-607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Chemical Industries Association. 1993. Safe handling of colourants 2. CIA, London, UK.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Shackleton S, Piney MD. 1984. A comparison of two methods of measuring personal noise exposure. Ann Occup Hyg 28:373-390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Brouwer DH, Marquart H, van Hemmen JJ. 2001. Proposal for an approach with default values for the protection offered by PPE, under European new or existing substance regulations. Ann Occup Hyg 45:543- 553.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Commission of the European Communities. 2004. Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work. OJ L 158 , 30th April 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.G.M. Van Engelen
  • P. J. Hakkinen
  • C. Money
  • M.G.J. Rikken
  • T.G. Vermeire

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations