Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36789550›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2023

ECETOC TRAv3: An In-depth Comparison of Publicly Available Measurement Data Sets With Modelled Estimates of Occupational Inhalation Exposure to Chemicals.

Nenad Savic, Jan Urbanus, Oliver Henschel, Qiang Li, Dave Marsh, Chris Money, Dook Noij, Paul van de Sandt, Joost van Rooij, Matthias Wormuth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nenad SavicCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Route de la Corniche 2, 1066 Epalinges, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jan UrbanusShell Product Stewardship, Belgian Shell N.V., Brussels, B-1000, Belgium.
Oliver HenschelCorporate Health Management, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, 67056, Germany.
Qiang LiClariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Sulzbach am Taunus, 65843, Germany.
Dave MarshExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc, ExxonMobil, Leatherhead KT22 8UX, UK.
Chris MoneyCynara Consulting, Brockenhurst SO42 7RX, UK.
Dook NoijIn Personal Capacity, Formerly Dow Global Industrial Hygiene Expertise Centre, 4531 EB Terneuzen, The Netherlands.
Paul van de SandtIn Personal Capacity; Formerly Shell Health Risk Science Team, Shell International B.V., The Hague, 2596HR, The Netherlands.
Joost van RooijCaesar Consult, 6503 CB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Matthias WormuthSyngenta Crop Protection AG, 4058 Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, 129 exposure situations (ESs) with six or more measured inhalation exposures to dust from solids or vapour from liquids in occupational settings were compared with modelled European Centre of Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) targeted risk assessment tool, version 3 (TRAv3) estimates. The measurement data were extracted from previously published studies examining TRAv3 performance and pooled into a curated database. The comparison exercise focussed on the vapour exposure scenarios, as there were too few dust scenarios for a meaningful analysis of any required model corrections. A group of experts in the exposure modelling field retrieved and reviewed the input parameters used in these ESs. Where considered appropriate, modifications were applied to better match the input parameter definitions and the scope of applicability of the TRAv3. Differences and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated between the log-transformed modelled exposure value and the 75th percentile of each measured data set and regression analysis was performed. The results indicated that the TRAv3 overestimated 80% of the measured data sets. Both over- and underestimations were mostly by factors 1-5. The calculated MAE for liquids was 0.7, indicating that on average the difference between the 75th percentile and the TRAv3 estimate was less than one order of magnitude. A multiple linear regression showed that some input parameters such as medium volatility, certain process categories (PROC), industrial setting, and the presence of local exhaust ventilation are associated with underestimations. The results of the regression analysis can be used by TRAv3 users to review the degree of over- or underestimation in their current exposure assessments, compared to the curated database. Although multiple linear regression is an appropriate methodology to characterize the TRAv3's performance, more data sets are still needed in view of some remaining data gaps. Nevertheless, the results of the current analysis are being used by ECETOC to further develop the tool as a suitably conservative screening tool for use in REACH chemical safety assessment of occupational exposure to chemicals.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureDustEcotoxicologyHumansInhalation ExposureRegression AnalysisRisk AssessmentDustEU chemical regulationexposure modelregulatory risk assessmenttiered exposure assessment

Identifiers

PMID36789550
PMCPMC10119696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.