Comparison of methods for calculating the health costs of endocrine disrupters: a case study on triclosan.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic analysis is currently used in the Europe Union as part of the regulatory process in Regulation Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH), with the aim of assessing and managing risks from dangerous chemicals. The political impact of the socio-economic analysis is potentially high in the authorisation and restriction procedures, however, current socio-economic analysis dossiers submitted under REACH are very heterogeneous in terms of methodology used and quality. Furthermore, the economic literature is not very helpful for regulatory purposes, as most published calculations of health costs associated with chemical exposures use epidemiological studies as input data, but such studies are rarely available for most substances. The quasi-totality of the data used in the REACH dossiers comes from toxicological studies. METHODS: This paper assesses the use of the integrated probabilistic risk assessment, based on toxicological data, for the calculation of health costs associated with endocrine disrupting effects of triclosan. The results are compared with those obtained using the population attributable fraction, based on epidemiological data. RESULTS: The results based on the integrated probabilistic risk assessment indicated that 4894 men could have reproductive deficits based on the decreased vas deferens weights observed in rats, 0 cases of changed T3 levels, and 0 cases of girls with early pubertal development. The results obtained with the Population Attributable Fraction method showed 7,199,228 cases of obesity per year, 281,923 girls per year with early pubertal development and 88,957 to 303,759 cases per year with increased total T3 hormone levels. The economic costs associated with increased BMI due to TCS exposure could be calculated. Direct health costs were estimated at €5.8 billion per year. CONCLUSIONS: The two methods give very different results for the same effects. The choice of a toxicological-based or an epidemiological-based method in the socio-economic analysis will therefore significantly impact the estimated health costs and consequently the political risk management decision. Additional work should be done for understanding the reasons of these significant differences.

Characterization of Ultrafine Particles and VOCs Emitted from a 3D Printer.

Currently, widely available three-dimensional (3D) printers are very popular with the public. Previous research has shown that these printers can emit ultrafine particles (UFPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Several studies have examined the emissivity of filaments from 3D printing, except glycol modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) and styrene free co-polyester (NGEN) filaments. The aim of this study was to evaluate UFP and VOC emissions when printing using a commonly available 3D printer (ORIGINAL PRUSA i3 MK2 printer) using PETG and NGEN. The concentrations of UFPs were determined via measurements of particle number concentration and size distribution. A thermal analysis was carried out to ascertain whether signs of fiber decomposition would occur at printing temperatures. The total amount of VOCs was determined using a photoionization detector, and qualitatively analyzed via gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The total particle concentrations were 3.88 × 1010 particles for PETG and 6.01 × 109 particles for NGEN. VOCs at very low concentrations were detected in both filaments, namely ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. In addition, styrene was identified in PETG. On the basis of our results, we recommend conducting additional measurements, to more accurately quantify personal exposure to both UFPs and VOCs, focusing on longer exposure as it can be a source of potential cancer risk.

Occupational exposure to nanoparticles originating from welding - case studies from the Czech Republic.

BACKGROUND: Nanomaterials are virtually ubiquitous as they are created by both natural processes and human activities. The amount of occupational exposure to unintentionally released nanoparticles can, therefore, be substantial. The aim of the study was to determine the concentrations of incidental nanoparticles that workers can be exposed to during welding operations and to assess related health risks. The specific focus on welding operations was determined based on the fact that other case studies on the manufacturing industry confirm significant exposure to incidental nanoparticles during welding. In the Czech Republic, 92% of all industrial workers are employed in the manufacturing industry, where welding operations are amply represented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The particle number concentrations of particles in the size range of 20-1000 nm and particle mass concentrations of inhalable and PM1 fractions were determined via measurements carried out at 15-minute intervals for each welding operation by static sampling in close proximity to the worker. Measurements were obtained using the following instruments: NanoScan SMPS 3910, Optical Particle Sizer OPS 3330, P-TRAK 8525 and DustTrak DRX 8534. The assessed operations were manual arc welding and automatic welding. RESULTS: The observed average particle number concentrations for electric arc welders ranged 84×103-176×103 #/cm3, for welding machine operators 96×103-147×103 #/cm3, and for a welding locksmith the obtained average concentration was 179×103 #/cm3. The determined average mass concentration of PM1 particles ranged 0.45-1.4 mg/m3. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the conducted measurements, it was confirmed that there is a significant number of incidental nanoparticles released during welding operations in the manufacturing industry as a part of production and processing of metal products. The recommended occupational exposure limits for nanoparticle number concentrations were exceeded approximately 4-8 times for all assessed welding operations. The use of local exhaust ventilation in conjunction with personal protective equipment, including FFP2 or FFP3 particle filters, for welding is, therefore, recommended. Med Pr. 2021;72(3):219-30.