Between-User Reliability of Tier 1 Exposure Assessment Tools Used Under REACH

When applying simple screening (Tier 1) tools to estimate exposure to chemicals in a given exposure situation under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals Regulation 2006 (REACH), users must select from several possible input parameters. Previous studies have suggested that results from exposure assessments using expert judgement and from the use of modelling tools can vary considerably between assessors. This study aimed to investigate the between-user reliability of Tier 1 tools. A remote-completion exercise and in person workshop were used to identify and evaluate tool parameters and factors such as user demographics that may be potentially associated with between-user variability. Participants (N = 146) generated dermal and inhalation exposure estimates (N = 4066) from specified workplace descriptions ('exposure situations') and Tier 1 tool combinations (N = 20). Interactions between users, tools, and situations were investigated and described. Systematic variation associated with individual users was minor compared with random between-user variation. Although variation was observed between choices made for the majority of input parameters, differing choices of Process Category ('PROC') code/activity descriptor and dustiness level impacted most on the resultant exposure estimates. Exposure estimates ranging over several orders of magnitude were generated for the same exposure situation by different tool users. Such unpredictable between-user variation will reduce consistency within REACH processes and could result in under-estimation or overestimation of exposure, risking worker ill-health or the implementation of unnecessary risk controls, respectively. Implementation of additional support and quality control systems for all tool users is needed to reduce between-assessor variation and so ensure both the protection of worker health and avoidance of unnecessary business risk management expenditure.

[1]  N. Austin,et al.  Inter- and intra-rater reliability for classification of medication related events in paediatric inpatients , 2006, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[2]  Wei Lu,et al.  Validity and reliability of exposure assessors' ratings of exposure intensity by type of occupational questionnaire and type of rater. , 2011, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[3]  Lennart Andersson,et al.  Comparison and Evaluation of Multiple Users' Usage of the Exposure and Risk Tool: Stoffenmanager 5.1. , 2015, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[4]  P A Stewart,et al.  Comparison of industrial hygienists' exposure evaluations for an epidemiologic study. , 2000, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[5]  Annemarie Money,et al.  Agreement of experts and non-experts in a desktop exercise evaluating exposure to asthmagens in the cotton and textile, and other industries. , 2015, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[6]  J. John,et al.  Cyclic and Computer Generated Designs , 1995 .

[7]  H. Kromhout,et al.  Experts' subjective assessment of pesticide exposure in fruit growing. , 1996, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[8]  S. Semple,et al.  A training exercise in subjectively estimating inhalation exposures. , 2001, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[9]  H. Kromhout,et al.  Cross-validation and refinement of the Stoffenmanager as a first tier exposure assessment tool for REACH , 2009, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[10]  Hans Kromhout,et al.  Reliability of the Advanced REACH Tool (ART). , 2014, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[11]  Juha Laitinen,et al.  Task-based dermal exposure models for regulatory risk assessment. , 2006, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[12]  R A Riedmann,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis, Dominant Factors, and Robustness of the ECETOC TRA v3, Stoffenmanager 4.5, and ART 1.5 Occupational Exposure Models , 2015, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.