Testing REACH draft technical guidance notes for conducting chemical safety assessments-the experience of a downstream user of a preparation.

The goal of REACH is the safe use of chemicals. This study examines the efficiency and usefulness of two draft technical guidance notes in the REACH Interim Project 3.2-2 for the development of the chemical safety report and exposure scenarios. A case study was carried out for a paint system for protection of structural steel. The focuses of the study were risk assessment of preparations based on Derived No Effect Level (DNEL) and Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNEC) and on effective and accurate communication in the supply chain. Exposure scenarios and generic descriptions of uses, risk management measures, and exposure determinants were developed. The study showed that communication formats, software tools, and guidelines for chemical risk assessment need further adjustment to preparations and real-life situations. Web platforms may simplify such communication. The downstream formulator needs basic substance data from the substance manufacturer during the pre-registration phase to develop exposure scenarios for preparations. Default values need to be communicated in the supply chain because these were critical for the derivation of applicable risk management demands. The current guidelines which rely on the available toxicological knowledge are insufficient to advise downstream users on how to develop exposure scenarios for preparations.

[1]  A. Zuckerman,et al.  IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans , 1995, IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans.

[2]  J. Groten,et al.  Toxicological evaluation and risk assessment of chemical mixtures. , 1998, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[3]  P. Kolp,et al.  Comprehensibility of material safety data sheets. , 1993, American journal of industrial medicine.

[4]  John D Hamilton,et al.  The role of professional judgment in chemical hazard assessment and communication. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[5]  K Krishnan,et al.  Toxic interactions among environmental pollutants: corroborating laboratory observations with human experience. , 1994, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  Shoji Nakayama,et al.  Use of Material Safety Data Sheets at Workplaces Handling Harmful Substances in Okayama, Japan , 2001 .

[7]  J. Seed,et al.  Chemical mixtures: current risk assessment methodologies and future directions. , 1995, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[8]  Nicholas A. Ashford,et al.  Rethinking the Role of Information in Chemicals Policy: Implications for TSCA and REACH , 2006 .

[9]  L S McCarty,et al.  Review of the toxicity of chemical mixtures: Theory, policy, and regulatory practice. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[10]  S. Hansson,et al.  Ten challenges for improved ecotoxicological testing in environmental risk assessment. , 2006, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[11]  Veen Mp van.  CONSEXPO 3.0, consumer exposure and uptake models , 2001 .

[12]  C T De Rosa,et al.  Public health challenges posed by chemical mixtures. , 1998, Environmental health perspectives.

[13]  Charles B. Hamilton,et al.  The Efficacy of Material Safety Data Sheets and Worker Acceptability , 1999 .

[14]  A G Renwick,et al.  An analysis of the possibility for health implications of joint actions and interactions between food additives. , 2000, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[15]  J Tickner,et al.  Evaluation and further development of EASE model 2.0. , 2005, The Annals of occupational hygiene.