The application of the mobile application for the assessment of cleaning workers' exposure to cleaning products: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Cleaning product use has been associated with adverse respiratory health effects such as asthma in cleaning staff and healthcare workers. Research in health effects from cleaning products has largely depended upon collecting exposure information by questionnaires which has limitations such as recall bias and underestimation of exposure. The aim of this study was to develop a Cleaning and Hazardous Products Exposure Logging (CHaPEL) app with a barcode scanner and to test the feasibility of this app with university cleaners. METHODS: The CHaPEL app was developed to collect information on demographics, individual product information, and exposure information. It also included an ease-of-use survey. A pilot study with university cleaning workers was undertaken in which cleaning workers scanned each product after use and answered the survey. Respiratory hazards of cleaning substances in the scanned cleaning products were screened by safety data sheets, a Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship model and an asthmagen list established by an expert group in the US. RESULTS: Eighteen university cleaners participated in this study over a period of 5 weeks. In total, 77 survey responses and 6 cleaning products were collected and all reported that using the app was easy. The most frequently used product was a multi-surface cleaner followed by a disinfectant. Out of 14 substances in cleaning products, ethanolamine and Alkyl (C12-16) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride were found as respiratory hazardous substances. CONCLUSION: The CHaPEL app is a user-friendly immediate way to successfully collect exposure information using the barcodes of cleaning products. This tool could be useful for future epidemiological studies focused on exposure assessment with less interruption to the workers.

Impact of occupational pesticide exposure assessment method on risk estimates for prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Parkinson's disease: results of three meta-analyses.

Assessment of occupational pesticide exposure in epidemiological studies of chronic diseases is challenging. Biomonitoring of current pesticide levels might not correlate with past exposure relevant to disease aetiology, and indirect methods often rely on workers' imperfect recall of exposures, or job titles. We investigated how the applied exposure assessment method influenced risk estimates for some chronic diseases. In three meta-analyses the influence of exposure assessment method type on the summary risk ratio (sRR) of prostate cancer (PC) (25 articles), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (29 articles) and Parkinson's disease (PD) (32 articles) was investigated. Exposure assessment method types analysed were: group-level assessments (eg, job titles), self-reported exposures, expert-level assessments (eg, job-exposure matrices) and biomonitoring (eg, blood, urine). Additionally, sRRs were estimated by study design, publication year period and geographic location where the study was conducted. Exposure assessment method types were not associated with statistically significant different sRRs across any of the health outcomes. Heterogeneity in results varied from high in cancer studies to moderate and low in PD studies. Overall, case-control designs showed significantly higher sRR estimates than prospective cohort designs. Later NHL publications showed significantly higher sRR estimates than earlier. For PC, studies from North America showed significantly higher sRR estimates than studies from Europe. We conclude that exposure assessment method applied in studies of occupational exposure to pesticides appears not to have a significant effect on risk estimates for PC, NHL and PD. In systematic reviews of chronic health effects of occupational exposure to pesticides, epidemiological study design, publication year and geographic location, should primarily be considered.

Improving Exposure Assessment Methodologies for Epidemiological Studies on Pesticides: Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to certain pesticides has been associated with several chronic diseases. However, to determine the role of pesticides in the causation of such diseases, an assessment of historical exposures is required. Exposure measurement data are rarely available; therefore, assessment of historical exposures is frequently based on surrogate self-reported information, which has inherent limitations. Understanding the performance of the applied surrogate measures in the exposure assessment of pesticides is therefore important to allow proper evaluation of the risks. OBJECTIVE: The Improving Exposure Assessment Methodologies for Epidemiological Studies on Pesticides (IMPRESS) project aims to assess the reliability and external validity of the surrogate measures used to assign exposure within individuals or groups of individuals, which are frequently based on self-reported data on exposure determinants. IMPRESS will also evaluate the size of recall bias on the misclassification of exposure to pesticides; this in turn will affect epidemiological estimates of the effect of pesticides on human health. METHODS: The IMPRESS project will recruit existing cohort participants from previous and ongoing research studies primarily of epidemiological origin from Malaysia, Uganda, and the United Kingdom. Consenting participants of each cohort will be reinterviewed using an amended version of the original questionnaire addressing pesticide use characteristics administered to that cohort. The format and relevant questions will be retained but some extraneous questions from the original (eg, relating to health) will be excluded for ethical and practical reasons. The reliability of pesticide exposure recall over different time periods (<2 years, 6-12 years, and >15 years) will then be evaluated. Where the original cohort study is still ongoing, participants will also be asked if they wish to take part in a new exposure biomonitoring survey, which involves them providing urine samples for pesticide metabolite analysis and completing questionnaire information regarding their work activities at the time of sampling. The participant's level of exposure to pesticides will be determined by analyzing the collected urine samples for selected pesticide metabolites. The biomonitoring measurement results will be used to assess the performance of algorithm-based exposure assessment methods used in epidemiological studies to estimate individual exposures during application and re-entry work. RESULTS: The project was funded in September 2017. Enrollment and sample collection was completed for Malaysia in 2019 and is on-going for Uganda and the United Kingdom. Sample and data analysis will proceed in 2020 and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The study will evaluate the consistency of questionnaire data and accuracy of current algorithms in assessing pesticide exposures. It will indicate where amendments can be made to better capture exposure data for future epidemiology studies and thus improve the reliability of exposure-disease associations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/16448.

A Qualitative Study Exploring the Determinants, Coping, and Effects of Stress in United Kingdom Trainee Doctors.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests United Kingdom trainee doctors are experiencing high levels of stress; however, little is known about what determinants contribute to stress, coping mechanisms to mitigate stress, and the effects of stress are in current trainee doctors. Hence, this study aims to explore the determinants, coping mechanisms as well as the effects of stress in this group. METHODS: Focus groups were undertaken with trainee doctors in North West England to better understand the determinants, coping mechanisms, and effects of stress. Informed written consent was obtained and focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were analyzed using QSR NVivo v11. RESULTS: A total of 44 trainee doctors participated in 11 focus groups. Respondents comprised UK graduates and international medical graduates, across all stages of training in a range of different specialties. Four main themes were identified as determinants: (1) Expectations and guilt, (2) Feeling undervalued, (3) Managing uncertainty and risk, (4) Work environment. Four main themes were identified as coping mechanisms: (1) Reflection and insight, (2) Work-life balance, (3) Work and training environment, (4) Development as a doctor. Two main themes were identified as effects of stress: (1) Negative outcome on wellbeing, (2) Outcome on career. CONCLUSIONS: A range of determinants contributes to stress in trainee doctors and they utilize a range of mechanisms to cope. Stress in their working lives can also affect their wellbeing and careers. These findings could be used to improve the understanding of stress in trainee doctors and assist in the development of supportive interventions.

Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part I-Tier 1 Tools.

Tier 1 occupational exposure assessment tools recommended for use under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) were evaluated using newly collected measurement data. Evaluated tools included the ECETOC TRAv2 and TRAv3, MEASEv1.02.01, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL. Fifty-three exposure situations (ESs) based on tasks/chemicals were developed from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health field surveys. During the field surveys, high quality contextual information required for evaluating the tools was also collected. For each ES, applicable tools were then used to generate exposure estimates using a consensus approach. Among 53 ESs, only those related to an exposure category of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa had sufficient numbers of exposure measurements (42 ESs with n = 251 for TRAv2 and TRAv3 and 40 ESs with n = 243 for EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) to be considered in detail. The results for other exposure categories (aqueous solutions, liquids with VP ≤ 10 Pa, metal processing, powders, and solid objects) had insufficient measurement to allow detailed analyses (results listed in the Supplementary File). Overall, EMKG-EXPO-TOOL generated more conservative results than TRAv2 and TRAv3 for liquids with high VP. This finding is at least partly due to the fact that the EMKG-EXPO-TOOL only considers pure substances and not mixtures of chemical agents. For 34 out of 40 ESs available for chemicals with VP > 10 Pa, the liquid was a mixture rather than a pure substance. TRAv3 was less conservative than TRAv2, probably due to additional refinement of some input parameters. The percentages of exposure measurement results exceeding the corresponding tool estimates for liquids with VP > 10 Pa by process category and by input parameters were always higher for TRAv3 compared to those for TRAv2. Although the conclusions of this study are limited to liquids with VP > 10 Pa and few process categories, this study utilized the most transparent contextual information compared to previous studies, reducing uncertainty from assumptions for unknown input parameters. A further validation is recommended by collecting sufficient exposure data covering other exposure categories and all process categories under REACH.

Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part II-Higher Tier Tools.

Stoffenmanager®v4.5 and Advanced REACH Tool (ART) v1.5, two higher tier exposure assessment tools for use under REACH, were evaluated by determining accuracy and robustness. A total of 282 exposure measurements from 51 exposure situations (ESs) were collected and categorized by exposure category. In this study, only the results of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa category having a sufficient number of exposure measurements (n = 251 with 42 ESs) were utilized. In addition, the results were presented by handling/activity description and input parameters for the same exposure category. It should be noted that the performance results of Stoffenmanager and ART in this study cannot be directly compared for some ESs because ART allows a combination of up to four subtasks (and nonexposed periods) to be included, whereas the database for Stoffenmanager, separately developed under the permission of the legal owner of Stoffenmanager, permits the use of only one task to predict exposure estimates. Thus, it would be most appropriate to compare full-shift measurements against ART predictions (full shift including nonexposed periods) and task-based measurements against task-based Stoffenmanager predictions. For liquids with VP > 10 Pa category, Stoffenmanager®v4.5 appeared to be reasonably accurate and robust when predicting exposures [percentage of measurements exceeding the tool's 90th percentile estimate (%M > T) was 15%]. Areas that could potentially be improved include ESs involving the task of handling of liquids on large surfaces or large work pieces, allocation of high and medium VP inputs, and absence of local exhaust ventilation input. Although the ART's median predictions appeared to be reasonably accurate for liquids with VP > 10 Pa, the %M > T for the 90th percentile estimates was 41%, indicating that variance in exposure levels is underestimated by ART. The %M > T using the estimates of the upper value of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 90th percentile estimate (UCI90) was considerably reduced to 18% for liquids with VP > 10 Pa. On the basis of this observation, users might be to consider using the upper limit value of 90% CI of the 90th percentile estimate for predicting reasonable worst case situations. Nevertheless, for some activities and input parameters, ART still shows areas to be improved. Hence, it is suggested that ART developers review the assumptions in relation to exposure variability within the tool, toward improving the tool performance in estimating percentile exposure levels. In addition, for both tools, only some handling/activity descriptions and input parameters were considered. Thus, further validation studies are still necessary.

Occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach.

INTRODUCTION: In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (group 2B), although the epidemiological evidence for the association between occupational exposure to RF-EMF and cancer was judged to be inadequate, due in part to limitations in exposure assessment. This study examines the relation between occupational RF and intermediate frequency (IF) EMF exposure and brain tumor (glioma and meningioma) risk in the INTEROCC multinational population-based case-control study (with nearly 4000 cases and over 5000 controls), using a novel exposure assessment approach. METHODS: Individual indices of cumulative exposure to RF and IF-EMF (overall and in specific exposure time windows) were assigned to study participants using a source-exposure matrix and detailed interview data on work with or nearby EMF sources. Conditional logistic regression was used to investigate associations with glioma and meningioma risk. RESULTS: Overall, around 10% of study participants were exposed to RF while only 1% were exposed to IF-EMF. There was no clear evidence for a positive association between RF or IF-EMF and the brain tumors studied, with most results showing either no association or odds ratios (ORs) below 1.0. The largest adjusted ORs were obtained for cumulative exposure to RF magnetic fields (as A/m-years) in the highest exposed category (≥90th percentile) for the most recent exposure time window (1-4 years before the diagnosis or reference date) for both glioma, OR = 1.62 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86, 3.01) and meningioma (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.65, 3.55). CONCLUSION: Despite the improved exposure assessment approach used in this study, no clear associations were identified. However, the results obtained for recent exposure to RF electric and magnetic fields are suggestive of a potential role in brain tumor promotion/progression and should be further investigated.

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.

Assessment of Human Exposure to ENMs.

Human exposure assessment of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is hampered, among other factors, by the difficulty to differentiate ENM from other nanomaterials (incidental to processes or naturally occurring) and the lack of a single metric that can be used for health risk assessment. It is important that the exposure assessment is carried out throughout the entire life-cycle as releases can occur at the different stages of the product life-cycle, from the synthesis, manufacture of the nano-enable product (occupational exposure) to the professional and consumer use of nano-enabled product (consumer exposure) and at the end of life.Occupational exposure surveys should follow a tiered approach, increasing in complexity in terms of instruments used and sampling strategy applied with higher tiers in order tailor the exposure assessment to the specific materials used and workplace exposure scenarios and to reduce uncertainty in assessment of exposure. Assessment of consumer exposure and of releases from end-of-life processes currently relies on release testing of nano-enabled products in laboratory settings.

Frameworks and tools for risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials.

Commercialization of nanotechnologies entails a regulatory requirement for understanding their environmental, health and safety (EHS) risks. Today we face challenges to assess these risks, which emerge from uncertainties around the interactions of manufactured nanomaterials (MNs) with humans and the environment. In order to reduce these uncertainties, it is necessary to generate sound scientific data on hazard and exposure by means of relevant frameworks and tools. The development of such approaches to facilitate the risk assessment (RA) of MNs has become a dynamic area of research. The aim of this paper was to review and critically analyse these approaches against a set of relevant criteria. The analysis concluded that none of the reviewed frameworks were able to fulfill all evaluation criteria. Many of the existing modelling tools are designed to provide screening-level assessments rather than to support regulatory RA and risk management. Nevertheless, there is a tendency towards developing more quantitative, higher-tier models, capable of incorporating uncertainty into their analyses. There is also a trend towards developing validated experimental protocols for material identification and hazard testing, reproducible across laboratories. These tools could enable a shift from a costly case-by-case RA of MNs towards a targeted, flexible and efficient process, based on grouping and read-across strategies and compliant with the 3R (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) principles. In order to facilitate this process, it is important to transform the current efforts on developing databases and computational models into creating an integrated data and tools infrastructure to support the risk assessment and management of MNs.

A comparison of control banding tools for nanomaterials.

Control banding (CB) is a useful approach to evaluate and control the risk of exposure to nanomaterials (NM) due to uncertainty surrounding their toxicity and challenges associated with their measurement. Four CB tools specifically developed for NMs (NanoSafer, Stoffenmanager-Nano, NanoTool, and the Precautionary matrix) have been evaluated for their changes to differences in hazard and exposure input data. The hazard and exposure classification were also compared with experimental data. The tools provided different hazard and emission/exposure outputs when compared with each other and with experimental data. For some of the tools the information required to estimate the hazard is not always available in the Safety Data Sheet and it requires expert judgement. The tools have the potential to be valuable starting points to assess areas of high priority, although outputs should be interpreted with care. Further work should be done to improve their estimates, especially the inclusion of modifiers that account for the effectiveness of the ventilation and the effect of high temperatures during the process.

A Source-based Measurement Database for Occupational Exposure Assessment of Electromagnetic Fields in the INTEROCC Study: A Literature Review Approach.

INTRODUCTION: To date, occupational exposure assessment of electromagnetic fields (EMF) has relied on occupation-based measurements and exposure estimates. However, misclassification due to between-worker variability remains an unsolved challenge. A source-based approach, supported by detailed subject data on determinants of exposure, may allow for a more individualized exposure assessment. Detailed information on the use of occupational sources of exposure to EMF was collected as part of the INTERPHONE-INTEROCC study. To support a source-based exposure assessment effort within this study, this work aimed to construct a measurement database for the occupational sources of EMF exposure identified, assembling available measurements from the scientific literature. METHODS: First, a comprehensive literature search was performed for published and unpublished documents containing exposure measurements for the EMF sources identified, a priori as well as from answers of study subjects. Then, the measurements identified were assessed for quality and relevance to the study objectives. Finally, the measurements selected and complementary information were compiled into an Occupational Exposure Measurement Database (OEMD). RESULTS: Currently, the OEMD contains 1624 sets of measurements (>3000 entries) for 285 sources of EMF exposure, organized by frequency band (0 Hz to 300 GHz) and dosimetry type. Ninety-five documents were selected from the literature (almost 35% of them are unpublished technical reports), containing measurements which were considered informative and valid for our purpose. Measurement data and complementary information collected from these documents came from 16 different countries and cover the time period between 1974 and 2013. CONCLUSION: We have constructed a database with measurements and complementary information for the most common sources of exposure to EMF in the workplace, based on the responses to the INTERPHONE-INTEROCC study questionnaire. This database covers the entire EMF frequency range and represents the most comprehensive resource of information on occupational EMF exposure. It is available at www.crealradiation.com/index.php/en/databases.

The MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy: A Flexible Strategy for Efficient Information Collection and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials.

An engineered nanomaterial (ENM) may actually consist of a population of primary particles, aggregates and agglomerates of various sizes. Furthermore, their physico-chemical characteristics may change during the various life-cycle stages. It will probably not be feasible to test all varieties of all ENMs for possible health and environmental risks. There is therefore a need to further develop the approaches for risk assessment of ENMs. Within the EU FP7 project Managing Risks of Nanoparticles (MARINA) a two-phase risk assessment strategy has been developed. In Phase 1 (Problem framing) a base set of information is considered, relevant exposure scenarios (RESs) are identified and the scope for Phase 2 (Risk assessment) is established. The relevance of an RES is indicated by information on exposure, fate/kinetics and/or hazard; these three domains are included as separate pillars that contain specific tools. Phase 2 consists of an iterative process of risk characterization, identification of data needs and integrated collection and evaluation of data on the three domains, until sufficient information is obtained to conclude on possible risks in a RES. Only data are generated that are considered to be needed for the purpose of risk assessment. A fourth pillar, risk characterization, is defined and it contains risk assessment tools. This strategy describes a flexible and efficient approach for data collection and risk assessment which is essential to ensure safety of ENMs. Further developments are needed to provide guidance and make the MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy operational. Case studies will be needed to refine the strategy.

Grouping and Read-Across Approaches for Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials.

Physicochemical properties of chemicals affect their exposure, toxicokinetics/fate and hazard, and for nanomaterials, the variation of these properties results in a wide variety of materials with potentially different risks. To limit the amount of testing for risk assessment, the information gathering process for nanomaterials needs to be efficient. At the same time, sufficient information to assess the safety of human health and the environment should be available for each nanomaterial. Grouping and read-across approaches can be utilised to meet these goals. This article presents different possible applications of grouping and read-across for nanomaterials within the broader perspective of the MARINA Risk Assessment Strategy (RAS), as developed in the EU FP7 project MARINA. Firstly, nanomaterials can be grouped based on limited variation in physicochemical properties to subsequently design an efficient testing strategy that covers the entire group. Secondly, knowledge about exposure, toxicokinetics/fate or hazard, for example via properties such as dissolution rate, aspect ratio, chemical (non-)activity, can be used to organise similar materials in generic groups to frame issues that need further attention, or potentially to read-across. Thirdly, when data related to specific endpoints is required, read-across can be considered, using data from a source material for the target nanomaterial. Read-across could be based on a scientifically sound justification that exposure, distribution to the target (fate/toxicokinetics) and hazard of the target material are similar to, or less than, the source material. These grouping and read-across approaches pave the way for better use of available information on nanomaterials and are flexible enough to allow future adaptations related to scientific developments.

Comparison of residents' pesticide exposure with predictions obtained using the UK regulatory exposure assessment approach.

The UK regulatory methods currently used for estimating residents' potential pesticide exposure were assessed to determine whether they provide sufficiently conservative estimates. A non-random sample of 149 residents living within 100 m of fields where pesticides were sprayed provided first morning void urine samples one and/or two days after spraying. Using farmers' spray information, regulatory exposure assessment (REA) models were applied to estimate potential pesticide intake among residents, with a toxicokinetic (TK) model used to estimate urinary biomarker concentrations in the mornings of the two days following the spray. These were compared with actual measured urinary biomarker concentrations obtained following the spray applications. The study focused on five pesticides (cypermethrin, penconazole, captan, chlorpyrifos and chlormequat). All measured cypermethrin urinary biomarker levels were lower than the REA-predicted concentrations. Over 98% and 97% of the measured urinary biomarker concentrations for penconazole and captan respectively were lower than the REA-predicted exposures. Although a number of the chlorpyrifos and chlormequat spray-related urinary biomarker concentrations were greater than the predictions, investigation of the background urinary biomarker concentrations suggests these were not significantly different from the levels expected had no pesticide spraying occurred. The majority of measured concentrations being well below the REA-predicted concentrations indicate that, in these cases, the REA is sufficiently conservative.