Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41527575›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2025

How credible is REACH regulation without transparency, quality criteria, assurance, and control?

Antti Joonas Koivisto, Michael Jayjock

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Antti Joonas KoivistoARCHE Consulting, Wondelgem, B-9032, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6769-1999
Michael JayjockJayjock Associates, Langhorne, Pennsylvania, 19047, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has been established to act as an independent body in the context of the implementation of the Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) (Regulation (EC) 1907/2006). Quantitative exposure estimates are required for all exposure scenarios where hazardous emissions occur using exposure measurements or exposure models. REACH regulation specifies that exposure models need to be Methods: The evaluation was performed by asking ECHA the criteria for exposure models. Results: ECHA does not specify any quality criteria for regulatory exposure models or have transparency requirements. Without quality criteria and transparency, there cannot be quality assurance or control. Thus, an Conclusions: As a result of these shortcomings, ECHA R.14 Guidance for occupational exposure assessment allows the use of non-physical models containing qualitative parameters based on non-accessible calibration databases and statistical evaluations. Because of the lack of transparency, non-physical model construct, and subjective input parameters, model results cannot be associated with real-world operational conditions, and quantitative uncertainty assessment is not feasible. This makes the models qualitative by definition and is not applicable to regulatory exposure modelling. This raises questions about whether ECHA has followed its regulatory mandates in implementing the REACH legislation.

Indexed as

ECHAExposure model criteriaExposure modellingMandateQualitative exposureQuantitative exposureREACHRegulatory chemical safety decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41527575
PMCPMC12790599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.