This article was downloaded by:[UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] On: 5 May 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 768371016] Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://oeh.informaworld.com/soeh/title~content=t713657996 History and Evolution of Control Banding: A Review David M. Zalk a; Deborah Imel Nelson b a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California b Industrial Hygienist, Boulder, Colorado

First Published on: 01 May 2008 To cite this Article: Zalk, David M. and Nelson, Deborah Imel (2008) 'History and Evolution of Control Banding: A Review', Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 5:5, 330 — 346 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/15459620801997916 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459620801997916

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (http://www.acgih.org/) and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (http://www.aiha.org/) have licensed the Taylor & Francis Group to publish this article and other materials. To join the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists visit http://www.acgih.org/Members/. To join the American Industrial Hygiene Association visit http://www.aiha.org/Content/BecomeMember/becomemember-splash.htm. Full terms and conditions of use: http://oeh.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 2 1 Zalk M. David. Review A Banding: Control of Evolution and History 10.1080/15459620801997916 onlineDOI: 1545-9632 / print 1545-9624 ISSN: J 3 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 330 ainlLbrtr,PO o 0 -7,Lvroe A94551; CA Livermore, L-871, 808 [email protected]. e-mail: Box P.O. Laboratory, National K unlo cuainladEvrnetlHygiene Environmental and Occupational of ournal nutilHgeit ole,Colorado Boulder, Hygienist, California Industrial Livermore, Laboratory, National Livermore Lawrence eywords drs orsodnet:Dvd .Zl,Lwec Livermore Lawrence Zalk, M. David. to: correspondence Address ilass nisfrhrrfieetadcndnei t ongoing its in utility. confidence and refinement further its in assist will further progress, in r implementation broader world- even used an being with now wide is approach CB the be Since overall effectiveness. model’s will the of analysis comprehensive implications understanding This in more important remains. a process research importantly, prospective most future model CB and, and of existing analysis complete components of more a reliability for the need The to models. CB benefit great of be re-evaluation proper will their question, in currently classification internationally. seen W correlation high a with results promising e industry of comparisons some large-scale Alternatively, in the inappropriate reduction operations. exposure potentially together chemical to in taken lead confidence may workplace when model that this of and outcomes variability, estimating inaccuracy inherent an in better is there works that it vapors, with that than errors, dusts under-control exposure that with of safety, rate of that high margins a shown adequate Substances is there provide of has always Control not Essentials, do the bands Health model, CB to available Hazardous most the of however, countries; c within strategies these developing incorporated also and have enterprises industrially large applied being and is countries developed It within enterprises analysis. medium-sized and and small- hygiene in tested sampling industrial air traditional of the model being of complement tools dissemination to assessment the developed risk for semiquantitative models and these qualitative utilizes bulk approach for CB information potential exposure c and was hazard non-experts model input for to the developed CB however, models involves original industry; movement en- pharmaceutical modern The the often workplace. within constituents developed the to in exposures countered worker controlling for sac oadudrtnigissrntsadweaknesses and strengths its understanding toward esearch psr aat hsC oe’ ucmshv niae more indicated have outcomes model’s CB this to data xposure eia aeyporm.Eitn eerho h components the of research Existing programs. safety hemical The result. a as advice control receiving processes, hemical t h cuayo h oiooia aig n aadband hazard and ratings toxicological the of accuracy the ith oto adn C)srtge fe ipie solutions simplified offer strategies (CB) banding Control aaeet toolbox management, risk assessment, risk banding, control hazards, chemical 1 n eoa mlNelson Imel Deborah and ,5 : 330–346 2 A INTRODUCTION 0 fteU okforce) work UK about the employ which of (SMEs, 90% small- enterprises Executive to assistance medium-sized Safety and guidance and and provide Health to need the The (HSE). by (UK) Kingdom United h n rdc steslcino oto guidance common control for a advice of specific and selection general tasks. the both is with sheet product end The into entered are aw parameters of these When volatility chemical compound. or source the dustiness the of the by likelihood estimated and airborne, used becoming chemical of volume the foundation the to important potential an exposure the the chemical. is of without This consideration eventual utilized expert. the for on-site is an expertise for manager toxicological the need by SME, selected an is chemical hazard of a a with When associated toxicologists. group experienced and by chemicals designated of variety are a for derived are groups for hazard These groups. potential information hazard develop uses to chemicals and scheme hazardous The with associated solids. chemical, of dustiness a or liquids of of hazard the e were rank phrases to risk (EU) used Union European approach. level recommended control a of determine to exposure combined was potential hazard the the with which in model a creating of strategy Essentials. (COSHH) Health Substances of to Control Hazardous the as known program HSE a the of to development led exposures chemical of assessments risk conduct oeitiaeto o h M aae,wiha nend an as which a manager, to SME leads the level for additional tool each intricate levels, stratification for many more a applicability be across can its risk there increase of theory and in Although complexity model non-experts. the its in factors reduce of number to the limiting of importance the psr a siae yteqatt nueadtevolatility the and use in quantity the by estimated was xposure ntedvlpeto h Bmdl Maidment model, CB the of development the In h eane ftedcso-aigpoesincludes process decision-making the of remainder The CB a outlining papers of series a published HSE the 1998, In r he,tesgetdcnrlapoc sidentified. is approach control suggested the sheet, ork (2) C)srtge sdrvdfo rgasiiitdi the in initiated programs from derived is strategies (CB) onaino h oenmvmn o oto banding control for movement modern the of foundation (1) nmeigrqieet to requirements meeting in (3) stressed Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 ee frsiaoypoeto n drsigdra exposure potential. dermal assigning addressing appropriate and an directly protection respiratory as in of such level assist (PPE), equipment to protection approach personal banding strategies CB the other These utilize practical. or appropriate approaches be (CGS) not sheet may guidance control the where exposure potential chemical address as to adapted expertise been have also IH strategies professional with a industrial principles, sound (IH) on based hygiene containment engineering three of of grouping levels a are to strategies control exposure four preventing These in chemicals. assist to “bands,” suggested or Maidment categories, effectiveness, four and simplicity of this achieve balance To utility. intended overall its hamper may product ue eedvddit v aadcategories. hazard five into divided were sures control exposure of initiation basis hygiene the industrial industry an with utilizing pharmaceutical categorization credited The be radiation, agents. events, should explosive biological to and relating lasers, 1980s and 1970s the oiooia aad n ikte ietyt simplified, development. to product phases of directly production the during them strategies control link commensurate and hazards stratify to toxicological efforts to led limited data toxicological with and products pharmacological handling workers protect to approaches w CTItrainlCeia oto oli (new Toolkit Control Chemical International Base (UK) Data Executive Substances Safety Hazardous and Health Evaluation Hazard Health (Germany) Cooperation Technical for Society ICCT Classification of HSDB System Harmonized Globally Union European HSE HHE Practices Substances GTZ Control Existing Exposure of Inventory European Agency Chemical GHS European EU EINECS and Ecotoxicology for Centre ECP Substances European of Assessment and Estimation ECHA Health to Packaging Hazardous and Substances Information of Hazardous Control Chemical Association ECETOC Industries Chemical Sheets Guidance Control EASE COSHH System Management Exposure Council CEFIC Banding Industry Control CHIP Chemical European CIA Society Hygiene Occupational CGS British CEMAS Industry CEFIC Pharmaceutical British the of Association CB BOHS B ABPI AC r ntelt 90 n al 90.Drn hsperiod, this During 1990s. early and 1980s late the in ork orhctgr.Wti hsmdl hs eei control generic these model, this Within category. fourth u eea nttt fOcptoa aeyand Safety Occupational of Institute Federal AuA hs oto prahsfrpamclgclaetexpo- agent pharmacological for approaches control These in began risk of banding the context, historical a In R ONYMS (1) aeo h L Toolkit) ILO the of name Chemicals of Labeling and T Exposure elh(Germany) Health xclg fChemicals of oxicology (6 , 7) ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 08331 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal (5) hsefr to effort This (4 , 5) ihits with rognsswti h orctgre fteBiosafety the of categories mi- four approach. toxic biomedical Level the increasingly and within to microbiological croorganisms exposures the controlling of industries path compounds the developed newly followed of potency growing the address h rts hraetclIdsr (ABPI) of Industry Association Pharmaceutical the British by the (OEBs) bands exposure occupational hmcl oigatra owre health. worker of to number threat increasing a the losing to posing quickly magnitude chemicals was of controlled, orders are by compared exposures ground be that could ensure chemicals to of concentrations airborne measurements of occu- which establishing against (OELs), of expansion limits exposure process the and pational was traditional significant adaptation the most model’s that the recognition Perhaps CB arena. the chemical the to into led also that ae dpe oteCSHEsnil oadeschemical manner address to a Essentials in COSHH e regulations the to COSHH adapted the later with compliance method a for achieve to industry the of phase development product ocp sapatclapoc oaheeepsr control exposure data. this achieve of to absence the approach in practical a as addresses concept that model CB A similar e data. facing are toxicological they in that limitations in industries The microbiological day. and pharmaceutical this to to akin itself continue seeing is model industry CB nanotechnology the of evolution the drive xposures. psr onnpriuaercnl a enpeetdin presented been has recently nanoparticulate to xposure H ol elhOrganization States Health World United Kingdom United WHO Average Time-Weighted US Value Limit Threshold UK Assessment TWA Risk Enterprises Semiquantitative Medium-Sized and Small- TLV SQRA SME R and million Authorization, per Evaluation, Parts Registration, Equipment Protective Personal REACH PPM Limits Control Exposure Performance-Based PPE Management Risk Occupational PB-ECL Limit Exposure Occupational PA Band Exposure Occupational ORM OEL Level Effect Adverse Observed No OEB and Safety Occupational NOAEL for Exposure Institute of National Margins (Germany) Concentrations Allowable NIOSH Maximum MoE Level Effect Ventilation Adverse Exhaust Observed Local Lowest Enterprises MAK Large LOAEL Association Hygiene Occupational LEV Organization International Labor International Hygiene Industrial LE IOHA ILO IH ESRgsr fTxcEfcso hmclSubstances Chemical of Effects Toxic of Registry TECS hr eesvrlfre eodtergltr realm regulatory the beyond forces several were There EPeeto n oto Exchange Control and Prevention CE etito fChemicals of restriction (U.S.) Health (8) F ral,teetbiheto in-house of establishment the ormally, (10) (9) (1) sitdthe assisted F re that orces Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 Money oiooia aawr ikddrcl oa prpit level appropriate Money an control. to of directly linked were data toxicological Control to Toxicology Linking Development Model T LITERATURE CB OF REVIEW 3 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 332 ospottemdl,adtemdl’vldto.C a its has CB qualitative validation. of number models’ a in the roots and models, databases of the use support the to models, the of development the to cording htperiod. during that industries pharmaceutical and biological, chemical, in the scientists and and information practitioners of health occupational exchange on among much ideas was relying there by that steps is evident the is What trace literature. reviewed peer to the possible in appearance always chronological efforts, not previous is during it on built and and from borrowed were that ucm eaigt acngncptnil olpe from collapsed potential, carcinogenic a to relating outcome n kncnat hudb plcbet iia approaches similar chemicals. to of hazards applicable relative be inhalation ranking should both contact, covered skin which and approach, Money data. this toxicological that the suggested of veracity determinant the only was the exposure it where of both that scenario in from exposure simple basic chemicals truly a was these utilized It from operations. risks abnormal and control routine to place would in measures appropriate a be that was ensuring This for system. carcinogenic approach ranking broad with carcinogenic a agents on based equivalent potential and compounds, amines, aromatic nitro handles that plant chemical a of operation and nraet uoae uktasesadpoescontrol. process potential, and exposure transfers low bulk automated with to carcinogens increase proven for (4) exposure and moderate moderate of with animal e carcinogens human suspected isolation suspected for for (3) to (2) potential; IH; increase basic for good carcinogens, (1) use these as: chemicals, together, summarized all then them of are Putting levels levels stringency. toxicology-to-control and and four artificial complexity different progressing these controls, in is of of levels with four separation were potency potencies matched carcinogenic a the Linearly such distinguish impractical. reality, while to in that argued important substances, Money is evidence. of it weight and potency eeiyo neet .. nepoino ees ftoxic of As release enterprise. chemical or large explosion a Money by an use for e.g., probable developed event, and material likelihood an the describing of matrix severity risk a is this of sesetapoce htbgnt peri h 90 and f 1970s the in appear ev to began that approaches assessment iuepoaiiisa ag hmclfacilities. chemical large at probabilities ailure psr oeta,ices ocnanetadrglraudits; regular and containment to increase potential, xposure ligi h 90 eaigteassmn fcatastrophic of assessment the relating 1980s the in olving ytmuiiigsix utilizing system hstxclg-ocnrlapoc ecie by described approach toxicology-to-control This na al,prastefis,pbihdrpr nwhich in report published first, the perhaps early, an In eaiet OH setas a esmaie ac- summarized be (mostly can approaches Essentials) CB COSHH on to relative literature reviewed peer he (14) (13) rsne,teeaeanme frlvn strategies relevant of number a are there presented, ea yuigfu aeoiso toxicological of categories four using by began (1 , 5 , 14) (14) rsne tutrdapoc odesign to approach structured a presented (18) htcniesbt carcinogenic both considers that (11) n semiquantitative and (15 − 17) (13) nexample An (12) risk a ta.i 1996 in al. et man fceia gn oesbgnt eeo.Acrigto According develop. to began discussion models Guest ongoing agent an U.K., chemical the of COSHH in the each created and were for guidelines CIA regulations recommendations the both control As average category. to hazard time-weighted linked (8-hour were level [TWA]) phrase, control risk guideline associated and corrosive), toxic, (e.g., hazard (1–4), classification categorization hazard of inputs document, this In n h he oueo usacscvrdi h European the in (EINECS). Substances covered Existing substances of of Inventory volume sheer the and experts, and databases toxicological adequate of establishing lack of the OELs, complexity technical the industry to by due followed government, be not or that could OEL, chemicals official for an have standard not working did self-imposed a set to i.e., yin rcie n h aiu utcnetaini the mg/m in (10 concentration regulations dust COSHH maximum the and occupational practice” good hygiene “reflect to designed were gases/vapors) for plus magnitude, of orders a six this cover levels, to designed four was approximately control approach to of limited number usually the is As strategies in- exposure. acceptable other the of no define limit would were upper They OELs. there international when OEBs or national, only called house, developed be be to simple, would were a and categories in provide The members CIA hazards. to by classifying was use for guidelines approach integrated these broad-based, of humans. purpose in effects adverse The on data to addition in levels, guideline control and Phrases Risk (CHIP) Packaging and Information udlnsfrsf adigo ooat scn version). (second colorants of handling safe their in for agents guidelines chemical for information toxicological dressed diitaiepoeue nw ob fetv ncontrolling e in effective and be controls to engineering known the procedures administrative on and agents five these pharmacological of control properties and distinguish toxicological exposure data on to based performance-based PB-ECL), monitoring able limits, (or air were categories they of hazard operations, database various laboratories. large in for a used concepts by approach Level new Substantiated a Biosafety to the led on however, agents based these ingredients; of active potency for increasing the OELs establish to methods assessment risk The used had operations. traditionally industry manufacturing pharmaceutical and laboratory in ingredients h xouePeito Step Prediction Exposure The noteeuto,mc okwsbigcnutdduring conducted incorporated being been was yet work not much had equation, it the Although model. into CB a of e udlns(1997) guidelines e h I odvlpceia aeoiaingieie for organizations. guidelines categorization member chemical their develop to CIA the led w xposure psr levels. xposure pca aeoy h pe iis(E o ut,OBD OEB dusts, for C (OEB limits upper The category. special r fGrnradOdrhw(1991), Oldershaw and Gardner of ork h oiooyt-oto oe a loapidb Nau- by applied also was model toxicology-to-control The h hmclIdsre soito CA ute ad- further (CIA) Association Industries Chemical The tti ucue ooehdytfcoe the factored yet had one no juncture, this At uligo h ale I udne(1993) guidance CIA earlier the on Building (20) h dieo h OH prvdCd fPractice, of Code Approved COSHH the of advice the noters sesetadrs aaeetaspects management risk and assessment risk the into (22) (5) noprtdteCeia Hazardous Chemical the incorporated oepsrst hraetclactive pharmaceutical to exposures to 3 ). (16) (21) h ae CIA later the rbblt of probability hs factors These (19) n the and (19) Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 hl h oko h S a ae nlrepr nta fthe of that on part CIA, large in UK based was HSE the of work the While Burstyn example, For exposures. Teschke’s predicting and on 1990s the Note: nw,bid nerirapproaches. earlier on builds known, approaches. i.e., control management, leads risk which on assessment, recommendations risk straightforward to generic a conduct to exposure predictors of simple and (R-phrases) phrases risk European using av wa h hleg aigteHEwst eeo udnethat guidance develop to was HSE Essentials. wa the COSHH facing of challenge development The the to contributed groups other have many that discussion preceding the from apparent fpoutue,adls otepyia hrceitc of date. to used characteristics concepts these physical a on developing based in approach the role regulatory pivotal a to played HSE less The use. in and chemicals used, product of swo ut iiads,adwligfms Exposure T fumes. welding and dust, silica dust, such wood hazards process-generated scope as also the and outside regulations, e.g., those are excluding, of which thereby pharmaceuticals, to and CHIP, limited pesticides is under Essentials classified COSHH substances perspective, British a from sbsdo hri n Schneider and In Cherrie on controls. based is existing equipment and tasks, ev conditions, work environmental included used, exposure of determinants n Teschke, and and models control exposure other toolkits. developing future excellent in used an be as to serves This fibers). e mineral man-made dust, and respirable and mixed jobs toluene, (asbestos, 63 agents across different significant four measurements showed exposure with assessment correlation exposure this subjective Using environment. model, and activities workplace descriptive e n oto prahs aadbnigi ecie more described is below. banding Hazard fully potential, exposure approaches. banding, control hazard and the components include key model The the advice. of control includes it and developed SMEs specifically for is it advances: significant other two fers aadPtnilRs sesetApproach Assessment Risk Potential a to allocated Substances Hazard Health apeo o iscigeitn oescnla ocriteria to lead can models existing dissecting how of xample on based approach structured a using assessment xposure BEI atr sdi S’ oeModel Core HSE’s in Used Factors I. ABLE R-phrases using band hazard laigters,addctdepsr oe a sdthat used was model exposure dedicated a risk, the aluating ial nomto TbeI.Teegascnb elzdby realized be can goals These I). (Table information ailable s s h OH setasapoc,a tltrcm obe to came later it as approach, Essentials COSHH The nsuiso eemnnso xouervee yBurstyn by reviewed exposure of determinants of studies In ayt s n nesad n hc eido readily on relied which and understand, and use to easy rcia o Ms sdaalbehzr information, hazard available used SMEs, for practical orei e.25. Ref. is Source (20 , 22) (26) (23) (23) hc aeoie usacsit Es tis it OEBs, into substances categorized which ti motn opitot oee,that however, out, point to important is It hr a iteatnindvtdt volume to devoted attention little was there eiwo h ehd fsuyn the studying of methods the on review ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 08333 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal usacsalctdt a to allocated Substances (24) n adfrtesaeof scale use the for band a and band volatility or dustiness (5 ypoiigsubjective providing by , 14 , 16 + , 22 Exposure , 27 , 28) tas of- also It (25 , 26) obnto fhat hazard health of Combination rdsieso ois n h uniyi use). in quantity liquids the of and (volatility solids, airborne of become dustiness to or material the likeliness for to leading properties physical of function a is banding oia n ons hsie a enpooe previously proposed Oldershaw been and had Gardner idea by This points. EU health end the logical throughout of to degree agreed are to f that according R-phrases The vary make hazard. recommend (2) that (3) transparent, strategies and information, and control hazard simple available of (1) use approach: best UK the of r.Wihn hs atr,i a eeal gedi the in agreed the responsible. be generally most would approach was conservative a it that development model factors, these Weighing work- protect ers. implementation, not would and approach underprotective efforts an whereas promotion deter and credibility oesr dqayadsiaiiyo otos iial,it Similarly, controls. of suitability wa and exposure the adequacy monitor as to ensure need such the to assessments, and surveillance risk still health their for should need in Employers factors IH. other traditional and consider for guidance as replacement considered a be not risk therefore workplace must sufficient and it suitable assessment; a constitute itself in not h prxmtl 0 CGS 300 approximately SMEs. The advising for format best the provide would (CGS) sheets and restaurants). for treatments, and services, beauty clubs, topics pubs, tasks, woodworking, Advice foundries, specific (e.g., Direct by processes newer guidance hazard the COSHH the accessing is and of website feature respirators, Another and Essentials risks. gloves dermal addressing PPE for for include advice COSHH offering of Essentials, versions Later approaches. control oto,ada mlyecekitfrpoe tlzto of utilization al. proper et for Russell checklist controls. employee an and control, and examination a maintenance, supervision, training, PPE, equipment, housekeeping, and cleaning testing, and sections contains design format This on format. standard a to according iia strategies. similar iki h oeneouino h Bmdlt h work the to model CB the stronger of a evolution Burstyn perhaps of modern is the there in control Therefore, link appropriate II). the (Table determine approach to combined are elements ee fcontrol of level f potential exposure and clttdteeciei,a hyadesalrlvn toxico- relevant all address they as criteria, these acilitated cosdtriedesired determine actors hr ito eeecs apeshmtco nengineering an of schematic sample a references, of list short s Brooke h eeoesfl htoeainbsdcnrlguidance control operation-based that felt developers The one u hta vrrtcieapoc ol lack would approach overprotective an that out pointed → (26) (23) Generic ulndtreciei o h oiooia basis toxicological the for criteria three outlined n Cherrie and (9 , 22 , 27) (25) (24) roentddfeecsbetween differences noted Brooke ttsta s fteshm will scheme the of use that states (16) (29) hnt h ale toxicology-to- earlier the to than T n a omdtebssof basis the formed had and p fapoc eddto needed approach of ype o vial r structured are available now civ dqaecontrol adequate achieve → Control (3) These Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 oto Approac Control oto prah3—Containment Approach Control oto prah2Egneigcontrol 2—Engineering Approach Control sraoal practicable.” the low reasonably “as as whereas maintained be range, should target exposures that the recommends CIA in anywhere exposure levels exposure target achievement on of based Essentials vapor is and values COSHH and cutoff level dose HSE. and dust ranges the between of alignment that include and approaches these Note: ventilation 1—General Approach Control Essentials T 3 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 334 Note: lg h xouebnsa eni al I eo.Deto Due below. III Table mg/m in to “in seen and alignment, as this approach bands pragmatic exposure a the adopt align of to development decided oversaw in approach that group discussed this working not the though article), pressure, this and temperature also (and ya re fmgiuei ocnrto ag.A the and As vapor a range. of concentration concentration mg/m in the ppm magnitude the divided between of each relationship order are an considerations, these toxicological by on compared based it are second, which bands, hazard and, The OELs. health-based Essentials; with assignments COSHH utilized the A–E Bands Hazard in the to R-phrases of assignment the T A B adRneR-Phrases Range Concentration Band Hazard :si n rvnino euto fsi n/reye and/or skin of reduction or Prevention and skin S: E C D BEI.CnrlApoce sdi COSHH in Used Approaches Control II. ABLE BEII loaigRPrsst aadBands Hazard to R-Phrases Allocating III. ABLE ekepr advice expert Seek otimn recoue loigfrlimited, for allowing enclosure, or Containment agn rmlclehutvniaint etltdpartial ventilated to ventilation exhaust local from Ranging odsadr fgnrlvniainadgo working good and ventilation general of standard Good ey Brooke’s e orei e.25. Ref. is Source orei e 26. Ref is Source ml-cl rahso containments of breaches small-scale enclosure practices contact 3 ocnrto safnto fismlclrweight molecular its of function a is concentration (26) ril civdtogas rt texplained it first, goals: two achieved article h4— > > ekseils dieR0Mt.Ct ,R2 4,R6 R49 R46, R45, R42, 3, Cat. Muta. R40 advice specialist Seek > < –0mg/m 1–10 .– mg/m 0.1–1 .101mg/m 0.01–0.1 .1mg/m 0.01 e xposure Special 3 (9 em,tecnetainrnefor range concentration the terms, , 20 , 22) 3 3 Ta 3 dust; dust; dust; r 3 e Airborne get dust; < > > . p ao 4/32/5 2/72,R92/72,R0Cr.Ct 3, Cat. Carc. R40 R39/26/27/28, R26/27/28, R48/23/24/25, vapor ppm 0.5 050pmvprR6 3,aldssadvpr o loae oaohrband another to allocated not vapors and dusts all R38, R36, vapor ppm 50–500 –0pmvprR02/2 R40/20/21/22 R20/21/22, vapor ppm 5–50 > .– p ao 4/02/2 2/42,R4 3,R7 R39/23/24/25, R37, R35, R34, R23/24/25, R48/20/21/22, vapor ppm 0.5–5 hrceitco prtoa atr,tesaeo h operation subsequent the of a wa scale As the factors, volatility. operational high of characteristic and medium, three low, into separated regions: temperature, operating vs. point boiling of the the liquids, v For maintain high. and and medium, low, dusts model: the of of simplicity properties the describe would bands adequately dustiness three volatility that the indicated study and The handling, solids liquids. of of substance dustiness the to on related focused Maidment those and properties of physical characteristics Since II). collapsed (Table e categories were main strategies four control into end, control exposure this adequate and Toward an strategy. hazard predict This the to applicability. necessary with parameters and balanced potential be complexity in to its factors was control of simplicity number to the model limiting the of importance the stressed toxicological same the for for band.” form, hazard that particulate than in higher substance substantially the is form vapor in substances OH setasmdli ujc oanme flimitations of number a to the subject however, is attributes, model its Essentials COSHH Despite issues. safety and involvement health force work in of value the recommended stress to continue They HSE that companies. com- within protection: worker barriers to munications obstacle additional an out pointed cesbevateitre.I et l i fMoney’s of six all meets It internet. the via accessible has it approaches, and a models leans historical of strategy work this the on While heavily approach. Essentials basics COSHH the the to introduced of thus was community health and safety rvd udnei h omo G,Hdpt n Hay and Hudspith to CGS, HSE of by form move the in the guidance welcoming provide transparent, While and users; output). of consistent part the user on confidence practicality; friendliness; availability; (understandability; principles psr oeta a esmaie stoerltdto related those as summarized be can potential xposure ltlt falqi ol ecpue ycnutn graph a consulting by captured be would liquid a of olatility 3,R5 3,R8 4,R3 Sk R43, R41, R38, R36, R35, R34, ubro nqefaue,icuiga lcrncversion electronic an including features, unique of number s W nwiigaottedvlpeto h oe,Maidment model, the of development the about writing In 6,R1 6,R63 R62, R61, R60, 4,R43 R41, lsie ssalsae eimsae n large-scale. and medium-scale, small-scale, as classified t hs he articles three these ith (3 , 25 , 26) h ie occupational wider the (13) core (30) (3) Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 IH) h L oli sbsdo h S COSHH HSE the on worldwide. based use for is adapted is Toolkit and Essentials ILO The Association Hygiene (IOHA). Occupational International the and HSE Control T Chemical (ILO) is Organization attention Labor receiving International Also the efforts. validation all almost sub- of the been ject has it that been point the has to Essentials implemented and COSHH developed of only variety proposed, a strategies validate CB to the useful whereas be would model, it given While effectiveness. a of soundness v the of establishment of V development verification. and model, validation its the and model, of the of use development databases, the to relative tl ayqetost easee naltrecategories. three all in answered be Kromhout to questions many still its to respective group. outcomes target model’s the IH of professional implementation understanding and the to of analysis corresponding operational and data, predictions monitoring model the validation (performance) of external structure, model’s and the assumptions of validation (conceptual) internal include: model eerht hwta h otoshv vnbe u into put been even have of controls lack the the that addressing show without to stringent research too recommended the being about complaints controls no been had there experts, that (BOHS) and Society Hygiene Occupational reviewed British peer the been had by “err strategy the to that exist. caution,” designed of not were side the does Essentials on COSHH so the do that to allowed be conducting capacity He would of the Kromhout that cost and by help the “astronomical” suggested needed that monitoring out provides extensive pointed the it intended Topping rather, not SMEs. but is the to monitoring, model on Essentials replace relied COSHH to he the that concern; premise variability Kromhout’s address assessing directly not for did Topping measures.” valuable control extremely of effectiveness the is data use of the exposure number that “quality concurred the of he and however, workplace, chemicals; handling the firms in competencies of range oe ntesottr,i h ogrni ol e“penny be would it run long foolish.” the pound in but term, wise short controls the exposure in save money providing would concentrations while exposure measured having that without the argued delineating He between and and groups. workers, 4000-fold between spatial, and as variability of threefold sources between be Kromhout to ” . . . various levels. the b exposure account known into in are . take variability . not “. of do they components they as and ” inaccurate . be . . to (EASE) Exposure Substances Assessment of and Estimation the Es- like systems COSHH expert like and sentials tools assessment risk “generic in monitoring upss he set fmdleauto eeapidby applied were evaluation model T of aspects three purposes, itasrn ae siaigtevraiiyi n8hu shift 8-hour an in variability the estimating case, strong a uilt rfiainrqie h vdnencsayt ofimits confirm to necessary evidence the requires erification okt(L oli) rdcdi olbrto ihthe with collaboration in produced Toolkit), (ILO oolkit ischer ldto n Verification and alidation Fo oee,bfr rsnigteemdlapcs hr are there aspects, model these presenting before However, T opping r (32) upsso hsatce aiainfcsso the on focuses validation article, this of purposes (33) oCSHEsnil.Teeapcst aiaethe validate to aspects These Essentials. COSHH to (34) oksrn xeto otelc fexposure of lack the to exception strong took epne htteeagmnsinrdthe ignored arguments these that responded ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 08335 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal (31) Fo rv alidation lc,ltaoeta hyhv envrfidt civ the achieve to verified been Kromhout have control. they exposure that intended alone let place, nenlvldto o h OH setas h okof work The Nicas Essentials. and COSHH Jones the on category for first validation the internal address to began Allowable health-based MAK) Maximum German relevant Concentrations, and (UK the lists national to on OELs concentrations airborne target oe n h xenlvldto fteCSHEssentials. al. COSHH et Tischer the of of work validation The external the and model v htoemgtfidi h cetfi ieauewe nenland internal when literature e scientific the in find might one weaknesses that potential the are addressed review not peer Therefore, process. unpublished this of concerns Kromhout’s address fteBOHS. the experts of and Money) Toxic and Brooke, on Guest, Committee (including Substances Advisory HSE the involved specifically and validation and development model’s the during on review placed peer was reliance heavy manuscript; his in described were comparisons Limited indicate use. in to were strategies seemed control several that often strategies infor- control the that describing further, mation and comparisons, for difficult data extremely quality was find it to that logic their noted the He of experts. and review by peer content extensive and ranges, by and exposure controls data, measured engineering with vapor of hierarchy and three-tiered corresponding dust predicted by n AEb sdi h nta cenn process. screening initial the COSHH in that used recommended be was EASE It and literature. results of scientific of evaluation the review in peer rigorous and the validity, reproducibility, replace for testing not could experts BOHS been not had Essentials ev COSHH and strongest EASE Kromhout’s that expertise.” was criticism for demand of Britain in lack professionals through hygiene full of occupational “collapse of the training in Essentials time COSHH like tools of role the the of editor the h loaino h -hae otehzr ad,sc htthe that such bands, hazard the to R-phrases the of of evaluation allocation “continued the require would practice assessment the in that used risk noted model explicitly no Brooke mind with in this user With background. the end against SME balanced was non-expert regard intended of this Much in dusts. weakness for model’s used the vapors when for reassurance” greater reassurance” concluded “even “considerable and Brooke offer control,” margins “adequate the that for model CB provision this its of based and nature toxicity generic the exposure Emphasizing repeated R-phrases. for especially vapors, safety of margin from than higher a Resulting have dusts designated III). bands, the (Table of bands alignment magnitude this equivalent of orders to by vapors elegantly and dusts assigning operational the models. regarding CB in present given the is weakness of time analysis glaring this A at research validation. the performance to relating e tra aiaino h oe sperformed. is model the of validation xternal tra aiainadbgnt nwrsm ftequestions the of some answer to began and validation xternal ldto fteIOTokta oprdwt h KHSE UK the with compared as Toolkit ILO the of alidation lae rprypirt ees,adta errve by review peer that and release, to prior properly aluated Brooke’s codn oMaidment, to According roewstefis oietf h neetdfclyin difficulty inherent the identify to first the was Brooke (26) (3 w , 36) naso cuainlHygiene Occupational of Annals (31) r ncmaigteRprssadresulting and R-phrases the comparing in ork hntkna hl,Tpigddnot did Topping whole, a as taken When eotdblwloe tbt internal both at looked below reported (32) (3) n Maidment and h oemdlwsvalidated was model core the (35) ele hth and he that replied (3) oue nthe on focused questioned Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 o10 to practical of light the in improved e and revised be may scheme 3 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 336 18husprwe)o l ebr ftepplto ihno with population the period, of members recovery all of week) per exposure hours involuntary (168 continuous, on based are which settings, cuainlSft n elh(AA odce h first the conducted (BAuA) Health and Safety Occupational consfrwre eoeypros ob nterneo 10 of that range (see the week in work be to OELs 40-hour periods, a recovery worker on as for accounts based are magnitude which OELs, of of levels order same T the in generally 10. provide of would factor this extra and an characteristics, toxicity their category hazard on higher based a to assigned arbitrarily were materials h iia agn as es fhat rtcini the with in line protection in health of are sense exposures false w whether a margin, evaluate minimal to these the offering user Without users. the end the to to exposure in available target made bands suggested be exposure also levels they the evaluated, cause and being that animals toolkits doses in between margins effect safety significant small the on Based v T nSntto si aad htwsnto h R-phrases. the on not was that Nicas included Toolkit hazard) and ILO (skin Jones the cases, notation five S In Essentials, an solvents. COSHH 16 the of in 12 seen for than lower were the Toolkit by assigned ILO ratings group hazard the that commonly-used indicated solvents to Centre assigned Emergency http://www.the-ncec/cselite]) Chemical at [National List” Supply proved by caused errors any bands. avoid hazard of on basis to assignments based incorrect the criteria, calculations COSHH as these generic utilized made the study was That LOAEL calculation. or of NOAEL the exposure) (inhalation) whether prolonged by health to R48/20 for 10,000 to 1000 of range D values in resulted of band) hazard the of concentration by air high divided the (LOAEL), updates Level the Effect periodic Adverse or safety (NOAEL), Observed of Level Lowest same Effect calculation Adverse the the Observed but No that to margins strategy concluded subject They Essentials revisions. been COSHH and have the not on may based was above, ev ifrnilad hrfr,agetrudrtnigo risk of understanding settings. greater occupational risk in a this acceptability behind therefore, reasons and, require the differential will of issue communication compared this improved as an Solving settings acceptance settings. overall occupational environmental of for with lack levels the higher-risk in more of parameters, lies risk then underlying problem these the of basis the understanding xperience.” rain mn Bsrtge euetuto h ato users. of part the on trust reduce strategies CB among ariations beII n lota ti o nomnfracpal risk acceptable for uncommon not is it that also and III) able oktsol eosdrtehzr lsicto ln sthe as plan, classification hazard the reconsider should oolkit rpaei permitted. is orkplace laino h L oli.TeIOTokt sdiscussed as Toolkit, ILO The Toolkit. ILO the of aluation o aos hyntdta hs aussol ei the in be should values these that noted They vapors. for < T tms epitdotta h aadBn ausare values Band Hazard the that out pointed be must It A oe n Nicas and Jones ischer 0 o aadGop n ,and C, and B Groups Hazard for 100 − oprsno h -hae tknfo h S “Ap- HSE the from (taken R-phrases the of comparison 3 .I n (32 otat cetbers ausi environmental in values risk acceptable contrast, (26) , 39) roeas eotdta oectgre of categories some that reported also Brooke (37) (31 n olausa h eea nttt of Institute Federal the at colleagues and , (31 38) r nterneo 10 of range the in are , 38) ugse htteatoso h ILO the of authors the that suggested (38) eotdls oiierslsi their in results positive less reported Dne fsrosdamage serious of (Danger − 6 < o10 to 5 o Hazard for 250 , eedn on depending − 5 .W ithout − 4 ftedt onsfl ihntepeitdranges. predicted the within Most fell predicted. points incorrectly data or the correctly of were that cases percentage the the calculating of by and with values predicted overlaid actual of polygons range and the frequency using predicted conducted the were of data four Comparisons the of strategies. determined one be control matching generally could reports, strategy historical to the control analyses from the their which limited in researchers scenarios these in quantity available, limited little the data very of of Because with ranges.) use, tonne of or milliliter scale the medium use the of to Scale corresponded attention. additional requiring considered wa problem was a Dustiness be complicated considered. to quite were but low mixtures be when to judged was substances) pure of scale strategy. dustiness, control / and use, volatility a Sources were to samples. considered corresponded personal uncertainty they were of 95% i.e., Over based, scenario. task specific were and hours, usually per 1-4 were as durations Sampling conducted Rules. Technical were German measurements the workplace all and ries, points data 958 apparently were av There study. sets this data in complete used more were with those only professions, some for or in measurements, uncertainties in the errors f variability, to as due such useful data not empirical are believed tests they statistical observed, represented that and was predicted model between the agreement of by accuracy the that the stating address While to out set e also several team Tischer’s during industry. decade chemical preceding the measurement B was within The analysis collected data. their measurement data for independent basis on empirical based primary Essen- date, COSHH the to of tials validation external complete most and prtoswt 9priuae.Rprssfrteeliquids these for R-phrases particulates. 19 filling with bag 22 operations and solvents different 7 de- with vapor operations 34 greasing for (HHEs) Evaluations Hazard Health Health and (NIOSH) Safety Occupational for Institute National the taken from systems, ventilation of use related and data monitoring air reported compared They concentrations. exposure of reduction achieved controls these whether and approach control propriate ev adigo odr usacsi iormqatte under ventilation. quantities exhaust kilogram local in substances powdery the of in handling occurred small- also reflecting chemical Exceedances area operations. surface the dispersive large scale, a where work- over applications spread carpentry are adhesives in products as with exposures such and solvent range, shops for predicted points the data above limited were the scenarios of were some Exceptions model. where Essentials COSHH predicted the ranges the by within fit operations different from data of leo nopeeifrain u oalc faalbedata available of lack a to Due information. incomplete or alse tra aiaino h OH setasepsr model. exposure Essentials COSHH the of validation xternal u edsuis oedt eeas rvddb the by provided also were data Some studies. field AuA laigteaiiyo h OH setast eeta ap- an select to Essentials COSHH the of ability the aluating ial o vlain 3 o iud,ad26frsolids. for 226 and liquids, for 732 evaluation: for ailable s e aste al. et Balsat Per Fo laborato- own their from obtained all were data BAuA The oe n Nicas and Jones ugdt esrihfrad Ms fteaalbedata available the of (Most straightforward. be to judged re ape h netit soitdwt oaiiy(of volatility with associated uncertainty the xample, (12) (41) T ischer lopromdetra aiainby validation external performed also (40) on htte9t percentile 95th the that found Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 eraigoeain,adi 8 fte19csswhere cases vapor 159 operations. in filling the present bag in of was present were 48% LEV technologies in where control cases and 179 operations, proportions the degreasing error of under-control 78% found of They (over- exposure technologies errors). control sufficient of control absence which the in in occurred situations control and (under- errors), (LEV) ventilation control exhaust local control as of such in- presence technologies, which the in in occurred situations control errors: comparison exposure control sufficient This of types band. two exposure in resulted recommended the of band h prpit oto prah n oprdteactual the the compared to and exposures determined approach, measured Nicas control and NIOSH appropriate Jones the the information, from this obtained Using were HHEs. scale-of-use and dustiness U)Ntoa irr fMdcn 6sbtne) n the and substances), (6 substances). Medicine (9 of Internet Library National States United (US) the of (HSDB) Base the Data and Substances (2002) Hazardous Substances Chemical Hazardous Approved National Classifying Australian for HSE the Criteria substances), the (8 from website obtained Emergency were dusts and oalwrctgr ae nadtoa nomto.I swhen is It information. additional on downgraded based category be category lower a cannot a it into to data, placed toxicological is specific substance on a based once that indicate rules “harmful.” be should 77 as high. and “toxic,” classified be too be should (79) should 49 toxic,” 26 8% “very underclassified, and or (152) low, class, too evaluation,15% danger those Of a this low undergo too to assigned were data substances enough substances 992 the had many of that that with found toxicity They data. immediate long-term lacking of it gauge profile, Substances toxicological a complete offers Chemical the for although of importance because, used minor Effects is of rats Toxic in toxicity oral of Acute (RTECS). Registry the available data toxicity toxic,” in oral acute (“very by the to categorization substances “harmful”) and toxicity “toxic,” 992 acute for their toxicity comparing oral acute for classifications h osiunso itr,rgrls fterpercentage of their of concentrations mixture. regardless the airborne mixture, in composition a the of of constituents may the measurements which practice, in regulatory U.S. result with compatible not are ocnrto ctf”vle eg,tehzr classification hazard the w (e.g., values Guidance include “cutoff” which Task concentration procedures, on R-phrase the included for Additionally, be assistance Sheets. should professional contacting controls on engineering guidance that and information, hazard cases inappropriate or in insufficient provided is be there where must process guidance model’s specific that the indicates complicates and of dusts assignment to limited ratings The “dustiness” techniques. monitoring the air evaluate and/or to efficiency rate capture using need systems high LEV the installed the of effectiveness highlighted and errors safety under-control provide of of not margins do adequate, bands or exposure consistent, the that found They clusions. udntb o itr with mixture a for be not ould V hi nig e oe n Nicas and Jones led findings Their codn oRdnadHnsn h Uclassifications EU the Hansson, and Ruden to According ue n Hansson and Ruden ltlt nomto a bandfo h SB and HSDB, the from obtained was information olatility (42) netgtdteacrc fteEU the of accuracy the investigated aiu value maximum ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 08337 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal < %o h substance), the of x% (31 , 41) omlil con- multiple to fteexposure the of (41) rs hycnb drse n rectified. issues and addressed similar be when can be so they transparency, arise basis this scientific afford the to in published recommended transparency” authors of the of “lack classifications substances future a a For is classifications. pinpoint Commission’s there accurately the as to RTECS relationship, difficult the is causal with it problems Regardless, or database. searches, possibilities data Other toxicity one. ficient lower a not a e and to categorization class substance hazard classifications, a higher default higher should support policy data the these data then to and access RTECS, has in Commission not EU the If from policy. informal data EU the toxicity to relating in arise issues more variations however, laboratories; different adverse including most noted, the were underclassification on this issue classification for possibilities final of its number A base outcome. to EU policy” “informal the an this is in In there clear. that indicate less authors are the rules lead instance, the would that quality categorizations different scientific to appropriate of studies different lct sitne einprmtr o h o-xetend non-expert the for sim- parameters user. and design ease-of-use intended had as model plicity CB Essentials’ COSHH the ucaeswohv sdteodr ae eso fCOSHH of chemical version paper Essentials. 500 older, consid- the with used be performed have who also was purchasers should survey telephone Essentials A COSHH ered. the of utility the approach ni,Kra n aa.Itrs nC taeiso the Directive Agents on was Chemical 1998. the in community strategies of hygiene introduction CB the occupational by in spurred European in Interest the development of Japan. in part and are Korea, and Netherlands, corporations, India, The by includ- Norway, and nations, Belgium, Singapore, several Germany, by France, developed ing been have practice in w V checking and e pro- (48%), workers (36%), to training used or measure information viding control the changing proce- model (25%), work dures Essentials changing (18%), COSHH of substitution the chemical 75% included: utilizing addition, when taken In exposures. Actions chemical companies. control to action other taken willing had 95% to surveyed those and it use to recommend difficult it to finding 5% only with 80%, iiyt nutyt aaeterssfo hmcl n to and chemicals from substances. risks the on the information responsi- safety manage provide greater to industry shifts to law bility Agency This Chemicals operations. European began the time, entered (ECHA) same Chemicals), the at of force; Evalu- Restriction into (Registration, new and REACH a Authorisation 2007, chemicals, ation, June on In law procedures. European handling type the and on substance based of guidance provide to references suggests appropriate It level. company the at workers protecting in agement itsc stefeunyo paigcasfiain,insuf- classifications, updating of frequency the as such xist itn oto esrst nuete r okn (67%). working are they ensure to measures control xisting rain fteCeia Model Chemical the of ariations udntfi l ed.Vrain ftemdladisuse its and model the of Variations needs. all fit not ould lhuhntawy eonzda aiainparameter, validation a as recognized always not Although sr fC taeisqikyraie htoestrategy one that realized quickly strategies CB of Users (3 , 26) (13 (45) hrfr,terslso nHEsre odetermine to survey HSE an of results the Therefore, (43) , 44) ev h uvyidctdta thdbe tlzdby utilized been had it that indicated survey The eea prahshv eutd h French The resulted. have approaches Several lae h rbbeefcieeso ikman- risk of effectiveness probable the aluates (42) (46) h European The Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 ytmo lsicto n aeigo hmcl (GHS). standard- and Chemicals developed, internationally uniform, of a Harmonized is Labeling GHS The Globally and the Classification for of System provided have workshops that forum international the appropriate the is collaboration this of and partners their a and agencies international of work the nating The (2005). w Africa South and (2004), Ohio Cincinnati, (2002), hmclIdsr oni CFC xouemanagement exposure (CEMAS) (CEFIC) system Council Industry Chemical 3 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 338 health reduce to Netherlands The and hazards. States, UK, the United Denmark, from the strategies substitution chemical and ntaie nld h os oto ouin rmteUK the from solutions control noise HSE, solution-based the Early include origin. initiatives national their solutions-based approach beyond earlier developing programs This for workshops. useful proven through been and has agenda create to research effort concerted a a drive to related been has models CB hazard. by either or queried process, be production can by databank few The issues, contaminants. safety air other address and guarding, machine noise vibration, handling, and material these or of manual to most relate Solbase, Although currently solutions solutions. by existing yielded and new recommendations 535 using the of suitability and omto ftePeeto n oto xhne(PACE) Exchange Control and w Prevention the and the risk of occupational of formation interchange reduction the Organization the stimulate toward Health solutions to of 1994 World in meeting in experts (WHO) preventive culminated of knowledge This sharing on measures. workshop Conference a Scientific with IOHA 1992 first in the at began programs these n euto focptoa risks. occupational of hazards reduction workplace and for controls effective to of together database teaming a nations develop many with Solbase, European the hmcl (ECETOC) Chemicals monitoring conducted. risk exposure be and should whether risks on recommending advice deliver coupled management, be and can information that hazard data with exposure workplace collect to SME, edvlpd ihprnr rmtruhu uoe Swuste Europe, could al. throughout et CGSs from which partners from With source developed. be a as as known potential database shows a Solbase end, that Toward principles. assessment while category, hazard chemical’s compared are T the (MoE) for exposure OELs of depth generic margins greater with 1, that Tier in In investigated chemical 2. be Tier a to in of risks, uses further present identifying or may 1 humans to Tier risk environment; screening immediate the 0 an Tier presenting with not manner chemicals tiered out a in that concepts approach CB streamlined a applies is This REACH. of under numbers large chemicals of registration the in aid could that assessment e seset r odce nacrac ihE risk EU with accordance in conducted are assessments 2 ier lblipeetto taeyfrC oes nexample An models. CB for strategy implementation global rsoshv e oa nentoa gemn o coordi- for agreement international an to led have orkshops riggroup. orking nentoa Bwrsoshv enhl nLondon in held been have workshops CB International uho h ieauefrteeauto n aiainof validation and evaluation the for literature the of Much h uoenCnr o ctxclg n oiooyof Toxicology and Ecotoxicology for Centre European The (11) (49) (51) aetse obs ohfruaiiyo h software the of usability for both Solbase tested have e psr euto nmnn rmAustralia, from mining in reduction xposure A (52) oe o omncto n vlainof evaluation and communication for model (13 hspoeshseovdit fot uhas such efforts into evolved has process This , 47) (48) ned opoieagiac olfor tool guidance a provide to intends prahi irdadtree risk targeted and tiered a is approach (11) (50) usacswudne ob reclassified. be to chemical available, need became would data more substances when that clear made process. R-phrase EU safety the on and builds labels that manner on in statements sheets chem- data hazard assigning standardized for basis to toxicological icals the for protocol ized pdi igpr sitne ofcltt dnicto of identification facilitate to intended is Singapore in oped strat- assessment risk risk occupational eg countries two-stage existing A many their approaches. led within them management also use has and models adapt to CB available of utility h s fteRgtxapoc a ehlflt companies, to helpful be can approach bu Regetox the of use the that and Directive, Agents Chemical European to the prepared with not comply are companies most that are trial the lessons from drawn Further assessment. risk that semi-quantitative for felt need indicated have the authors would situation The work the situation. of examination work simple the in need reveal improvement to failed strategy for the which in companies two the case in one only was There the MSDS. inadequate or firms painting, lacking two revealed in conducted spray studies Feasibility during used. is model generated EASE aerosols e.g., process, olcigbscifrainfrters assessment. risk in the assist for to information workers basic and collecting members, staff employers, involve to nrsos oteErpa hmclAet Directive Agents Chemical European the 98/24/EC, to response in h opsto ywih ftemixture. the to of according weight the component by composition harmful the handled, the each utilizes being for evaluated which are are stage, mixtures risks second When the Essentials. to COSHH forward carried are nulqatt nue n rqec fue sdescribed as use, of R-phrase, frequency on utilizes and based strategy use, ab risk” the in potential of quantity of stage annual “ranking first French the assessment the number risk conducted, which the be for minimize costs) must To resulting (and workplace. chemicals the of in risks chemical n nld etaie rcdr o rqetudtsof updates frequent for chemicals procedure used information. centralized commonly a 1500 include than of and consistency more provide on eventually will information some it take include accomplish, may to to this time process While overall process. standardization its chemical of concept part the as adopted e Toolkit also ILO International has the The Safety of Chemical to chemicals. approach on these harmonized Program toward of a class work has mixtures and also to classifying category It elements covered. each process label chemicals for the of of statements to set hazard transparency core harmonized build a to including approach by proper a as rnprnyfrsbeun evaluations. hazard subsequent these for achieve transparency to for available readily matrix and recommended decision standardized be been and classifications basis has scientific it the efforts, that reclassification future be psr oto prahsi aallwt t fot o a for efforts its with parallel in approaches control xposure y ove. t rmtebgnigo h Kmdlsdvlpeti was it development model’s UK the of beginning the From h eiQatttv ikAssmn SR)devel- (SQRA) Assessment Risk Semi-Quantitative The Fo the emphasizing process a workshops, CB these Through eurstann f“rvninavsr”adastrategy a and advisors” “prevention of training requires Rgtx a eeoe n etdi Belgium in tested and developed was (Regetox) r (56) ae nwihcnaiat r eeae uigthe during generated are contaminants which in cases nypout eevn aigo eimo high or medium of rating a receiving products Only (44) (53) hc eurscmaist sesadmanage and assess to companies requires which (42) (12) (20) H spresented is GHS hudthere Should (56) (12 , 54 , 55) Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 ssc,i a ae t epniiiyt siti sound in assist to responsibility countries. developing its in taken chemicals of has management it such, As on based SQRA aspects. comparisons the empirical perform and of to theoretical and applications utility with their parallel evaluate to in tested was ment, develop- SQRA’s the during (ICCT) Toolkit Control design International Chemical the process as renamed or was which plant Toolkit, ILO the The stage. at exposures theoretical estimate and to empirical formulas applying are factors and/or exposure (3) there using parameters, and (2) SQRA monitoring, the exposure personal With include (1) that evaluation risks. exposure performing for identified methods three the address controls appropriate to of risk prioritization exposure, and for determination, level potential and evaluation hazards, chemical oecnevtv prahsrltn ocontrols. to relating to approaches leading conservative SQRA, more to relative risk that the overevaluates determined Toolkit majority was the the it comparison In empirical bands. the two using to cases one of most, at approach being, level control risk the and between somewhat differences are any method with SQRA consistent the and Toolkit the that indicate and comparison theoretical the cleaning, of results dry The industries. 27 electronics printing, on processing, man- chemical paint performed metalworking, ufacturing, including was processes comparison Toolkit’s SME the selected This against assess approach. to level control risk derive method’s to used SQRA the data the monitoring of air comparison personal actual empirical uses the The models with approach. compared level as risk approaches SQRA control respective their by aeas eu odvlpteronC oest address to models CB own their develop to begun also have w SSo ieadteeoete aeagetrptnilfor Toolkit. potential ILO greater the more a using have assessments have they risk conducting therefore often and enterprises developing site on larger in be MSDS enterprises and may small medium models many countries; technologies. CB for control that sophisticated of acknowledges too selection program the GTZ to The work to for utilized countries process training meet is developing participatory and to A hazards. businesses specifically chemical small addressing developed of program chemical needs unique on the GTZ project a The pilot is countries. and safety EU guide and management and Indonesia, chemical developing international Argentina, at living in in implemented the sites been people has improve It of to countries. transition perspectives aim the and with conditions development programs 2700 supporting and sustainability is projects GTZ and countries, than improved partner more In 130 standards. be countries international with can emerging line in implemented in businesses safety small chemical and how demonstrate document to method and a Safety. is Chemical Guide on Management Project Chemical Pilot The its Management of part Chemical as Guide a Program developed Technical has for (GTZ) Society Agency’s Cooperation Development arm technical German the the Safety, of Chemical on Project Convention its rdadtelretceia xotri h world. the in exporter chemical largest the and orld ietcmaio ftetoapoce a stratified was approaches two the of comparison Direct uligo h OH setasapoc,countries approach, Essentials COSHH the on Building the in producer chemical largest third the is Germany ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 08339 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal (57) (57) (59) (59) Under (58) h oli ae nteCSHEsnil n modified a and Essentials COSHH the on substances. v based hazardous is with tool prioritizing, associated The assessing, risks risk in controlling SMEs chemical assist and to interactive developed Netherlands was an The approach in model of This use approach. exposure management the an in through with factors safely model potential working web-based CB in Their a assist substances. to is chemical SMEs for Netherlands) built tool The software 3.0, (v. Stoffenmanager approaches. professional and requirements regulatory national oto esrsadcos h otefcieones. effective most various the of choose efficacy and the measures calculate control then can employer risk tool’s the the initial Using score, an completed. is Thus, risk ranking. health the risk automatically of relative assessment tool a score, The risk class. a deter- calculates exposure to chemical’s questions the seven mine to response involving to exposure assessment, an according completes employer categorized the Then R-phrases Essentials. COSHH uses inven- risk employer the the For and guidelines. tory, workplace, to according the storage for in and helping sheets assessing instruction making control substances, for plan measures, a hazardous obtaining inventory, risk a the in risks controlling of inventory the hmclhat ikbsdo xeineadpatc nthese of in practice assessment and industries. an experience on is based risk KjemiRisk health chemical industry, oil Norwegian the oe ean nogigpoesadi neddt remain to intended is and a process ongoing an remains model oeta ikadtefia ik hs r dutdfrrisk for adjusted the are include These which risk. final phases the risk two and The risk into of model. potential conceptual divided appropriateness the is the in used and assessment frequency are exposure, and place in duration for controls state, potential handling physical use, the its of and chemical, defined the are of tasks common KjemiRisk 15 the of application, part As S-phrases. and R- on based categories the 67/548/EEC). of Directive part (Council provision as substances chemicals dangerous of hazardous labeling label and for packaging, each classification, on sheet appear data to safety EU R-phrases, the and to by Similar required basis. are and its also R- S-phrases as using phrases) task work (S- the phrases of safety frequency and duration the exposure, and chemical and organizational the control technical, to established the chemical, barriers personal the of of appropriateness handling the the and chemical, the of properties ical (r model. ev expert with score initial Stoffenmanager non-expert good the relatively of found correlation has initially study validation sive oprsnwt xsigepsr data. in exposure exposures existing industry with printing) comparison and repair, body flour solvents car feed, (i.e., metal, liquid animal for and (i.e., construction) dust and textile, many processing, for utilizing surveys evaluated field recently targeted been has model Stoffenmanager rino h hri n Schneider and Cherrie the of ersion s yai rcs ihcniulupdating. continual with process dynamic lainoealfrihlbedss(r dusts inhalable for overall aluation tfemngri urnl eei olta supports that tool generic a currently is Stoffenmanager eeoe hog h oprto fcroain within corporations of cooperation the through Developed hmcl r rue nooeo v elhhazard health five of one into grouped are Chemicals = .1.Ti aiainpoesfrteStoffenmanager the for process validation This 0.81). (60) (62) h oltkstefloigit con:phys- account: into following the takes tool The (24) s (60) = naainexposure inhalation (60) .3 n liquids and 0.83) hscomprehen- This (61) The Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 euto fepsrsrltn oteipeetto of implementation the to relating exposures of for subsequent reduction and record recommendations standardized track include These excellent in an exposures have Silica e construction examples. include or as and exposures mining bulk, dust in wood purchased fume, and welding dust, not silica exposures as or such agent hazards process- task, construction-related chemical the address by are to created intended These not emissions. are and generated lead, also asbestos, (i.e., they regulations pesticides), UK other by which agents, covered chemical are cover not do models These chemicals. Evolution Model Further than approaches. assessment/management IH they traditional risk However, do robust program. more assessment much verified exposure enable be the must of they part the Also, on as principles. based be Control should of are ECPs Hierarchy exposures “feedback levels. and desired a protected the are to provide controlled workers for that ECPs tool ensure The to valuable loop” risks. a measures—are chemical control managing the (ECPs)—specific on Practices guidance Control Exposure con- measures. proper trol the verifying and worker implementing, assessing communicating, (2) hazards; communicate e and assess- classify to assessments risk hazard appropriate performing three (1) their using steps: essential operations their customize for models CB must ment/management chemicals proprietary exist.) use OELs to which models need for no chemicals CB manage is to existing there models that CB using (Note controlled etc.). Essentials, they and (COSHH therefore, assessed commodity characterized; be well Many can are chemicals many etc.). industrial pharmaceutical, with products, those (e.g., chemicals and industrial/commercial chemicals etc.) industrial proprietary care, health unique commodity petrochemical, bulk employ (e.g., that between difference important industries an is managing There and risks. assessing chemical for these tool universal substances. invaluable chemical an is hazardous CB market indus- and many process to that important tries critically is programs management usiuino aaiiisaecretybigcniee for considered web being development. currently and of are functionalities, capabilities Expansion of reporting substitution server. of when appropriate improvement application network applications, an a with or individual used integrated an when as Norwegian tool in English available expert and currently is an It hygienists. and industrial generalists by safety lungs, and to both health related considered be illness can for KjemiRisk a skin. risk and of organs, evaluation internal procedures an work on task-based of based assessment evaluation risk risk full The a of controls. provides appropriateness and/or and barriers reliability established the the of judgment a on based 4 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 340 itn nevnin n rcia ouin-ae outcomes. solutions-based practical and interventions xisting (3) and operations; specific during workplace the in xposures og ikassmn olwe sdb iemngr or managers line by used when tool assessment risk rough ohteU n L Bmdl ou nteueo bulk of use the on focus models CB ILO and UK the Both unique market and process that industries However, assessment/ risk CB implementing and Developing (62) pcfidcnrlsolutions. control specified akbsdadd o eur h diinlse finputting of step additional and the industry data. require are not that do sheets and advice task-based control to users directing ocrs urn fot aebgnfrtedvlpetof development the for begun aC have efforts environmental Current and concerns. safety, ergonomic, chemical, for approach multidisciplinary a comprehensive require that more agriculture, and a construction as include to intended model is e Management CB approach the Risk Toolbox broaden Occupational ORM to state The an the Toolbox. of at (ORM) creation projects pilot are and national- coordination, level, that of and provision workshops the guidance these include level addressed at disease, be illness, to discussed beginning work-related Topics of injury. spectrum preven- and broader practical a address of of best expansion tion the to initiate models to CB chemical-oriented served evaluating have for also agendas They element strategies. research essential uniform an establishing been in have workshops CB The industries. international major in health, well as occupational professions safety of and variety hygiene, a in application for considered and Africa America. in Latin including internationally, implementation another efforts in validation evaluated is being and currently Essentials is Silica that model The the CB of model. step Essentials prediction COSHH exposure interim the avoiding activity, opst,ptnilepsrsb rd n task. and trade by exposures potential composite, laig arrsig n an spraying. paint and dry hairdressing, as such cleaning, professions selected control initial job-specific to relating to practical sheets user advice different the some directing for a by process exposures CB require these a of developed and has HSE Phrases UK The Risk approach. have toward processes not approach these agents by do Essentials generated chemical Exposures COSHH broader advice. control the for direct of model CB expansion the and adapt to begun n oegnmc r lobigeautd nte Hto involves IH production Another chemical evaluated. relat- that being factors is also comparison exposure are ergonomic the ergonomics industry, to construction Essentials exposures, ing the generated Silica locally in simplified the address as to this like developed to strategies being are conditioned CB well While specialties adaptation. these in profession- musculoskeletal find als may address they injuries, to as occupational developed and Therefore, disorders being IH. and are in design developed models on less CB much focus and is strong concepts which Ergonomics a These redesign, have safety. both profession. occupational safety IH in exposure occupational present the of hardly in variability are developed and well exposure are occupational on and Concepts ergonomics, IH, safety. the to between approach differences of fundamental consideration brief some requires multidisciplinary broader, needed. is a exposures trade-related approach, for framework Toolbox ORM the psr oto ai o lblycmo nutis such industries, common globally for basis control xposure T h taicto frs htbgni h 90 snwbeing now is 1970s the in began that risk of stratification The pligteC oe namliicpiayfashion multidisciplinary a in model CB the Applying B kn hsase ute,teSlc setasi also is Essentials Silica the further, step a this aking (67) oe o osrcinTobx drsigthese addressing Toolbox, Construction a for model nta,teue eet h oto diedrcl by directly advice control the selects user the Instead, (63 − 65) h KHEarayhas already HSE UK The (40 , 66) (68) To achieve Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 ytm,adteefcosaeipratprmtr o risk for parameters important are prevention. factors these event. and systems, central the after have a factors, and management including before barriers, these both Therefore, active safety, are occupational In barriers occured. of has emission substance, the event, hazardous central the the after the control place to the takes however devoted exposure of exposure, is of practice prevention IH and a phrases. anticipation in risk applied to be analogous similar can an manner phrases as safety viewed where be principle” can “banding which causation, been accident has of variables It various for accidents. exist already occupational classifications that minor presented and major but both safety, of chemical to restricted a not is safety Occupational defined and programs. effective well-researched and factors of of risk group finite variety a fully has the ergonomics be expand never logarithmically may e can that products and new researched of development the owr ihi eeoigacnrlapoc.T eeo the develop To Maynard approach. control concept, a developing models in important CB with of record work An track to longer a approaches. have they that assessment is distinction risk quantitative traditional for IH basis insufficient risk an a with achieve and program to management biological in have their also limitation to They similar counterparts. a pharmaceutical manner a finding in also data toxicological are industries nanotechnology ud h yeo rcuin eddda ihteescenarios these will with situations. and deal or needed situations precautions related of type or the scenarios guide accident of hazard model of banding barrier This w barriers. identification of an as implementation much and as advice control to lead necessarily ea lentv ahrta usiuet rdtoa Hrisk IH traditional to control. substitute and a to assessment than considered rather is alternative a and affords an control that be concept exposure useful to a approach to is pragmatic similarly it that presented in is Essentials practice, COSHH in developed not model, CB although cor- nanomaterial with bands This to approaches. surface indices control these responding and dustiness linking and of area, use terms in in amount surface and availability exposure size, their shape, with activity as composition by such nanomaterial model stratified parameters This engineered as indices. combining model exposure proposes UK and the “impact” of corresponding approaches control four the with model. and Essentials pharmaceuticals, COSHH research in of intensive utility as an such in industry, exposures development controlling in CB of aeyrqieet,wt ou ntamtcinjury. traumatic on occupational focus of a incorporation with the requirements, consider safety to begun have ai fEgnmc Toolkits. the Ergonomics as of developed basis being and is that well-researched models of validated internationally example an is document Checkpoints psr otsadsucsfragvnwre.I contrast, In worker. given a for sources and routes xposure udapyteeprsst rvd nomto ntetype the on information provide to phrases these apply ould oegnrlapoc scniee,fcsn ncauses on focusing considered, is approach general more togrlto ihteqaiyo aeymanagement safety of quality the with relation strong oigbc oteroso h oenC movement, CB modern the of roots the to back Moving A ocpulC oe speetdta festesame the offers that presented is model CB conceptual (73) (74) h n on fti Bmdlwudnot would model CB this of point end The (10) a obndtepoe effectiveness proven the combined has (10) (71 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 08341 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal , 72) (69 fot nTeNetherlands The in Efforts , 70) h L Ergonomics ILO The (73) o o agrclass danger a low assigned too were that classifications EU evaluated of 15% the then U DISCUSSION usacs ie hsciia edfrC oes hr is chemical there models, of substances. CB suppliers for need by a critical this classification Given band substances. hazard and hyas xrs ato bu h edfrsseai,critical ev systematic, for need the about caution express also They as value potential its confirm a topic CB the on written have who rcso n cuayi iutosweeteeaerequired.” are lack these T will where which a situations tool, in the of accuracy of and nature lack precision generic the the as well occupational on as the arena, into focusing introduction its literature, before evaluation the proper in criticism some infiatcnen aebe asdaotteaccuracy the substances. chemical about of development. raised classifications in EU been and focus of have available central concerns models a CB Significant become different and the model for Essentials COSHH the sinetbtenteCSHEsnil oe n ILO and model Essentials T COSHH the between assignment ayvpr n oemyne ob lsie nohigher into classified be to need bands. hazard may some and vapors many ev addressed. be to issue hsne.Tewr fCereadSchneider and Cherrie of work The need. this chose UK thought, much the with a Essentials, who, experts COSHH by force. created was work model, the UK for the exposures of chemical majority address to need driven regulatory models.” generic generally by measurement confidence enjoyed of real degree low transparency. on the reflects based and instead and not data simplicity is of assumption sake this However, the have for may sacrificed (safety) accuracy been and the reliability to character, respect generic with hand, for other e potential the great On had development. consensus Essentials] further was [COSHH scheme there . the . “. that community, hygiene occupational n ytmtceauto fteutk n mato a of al. impact et and Swuste approaches.” uptake key extensive the the an of of be number evaluation to needs systematic further there and before considered, that appear are would refinements it future area, of terms the in Thus, in levels. developments other or workplace management the been the at on risk had has of have approaches undertaken CB schemes been that impact has the the assessment of systematic of no . . effectiveness . undertaken and impact actual Kromhout setashsbe eindt esihl overprotective, slightly be to designed been has Essentials psr rdciemdli a enage ht u oits to due that, argued been has it model predictive xposure oolkit. shradhscolleagues his and ischer edt eeaut h sineto -hae ochemical to R-phrases of assignment the re-evaluate to need ikassmn n ikmngmn oli h workplace. the in tool management risk and assessment risk ipie oe oaheemxmmuiiyi addressing in utility maximum achieve to model simplified laino h prahbfr iepedadoption. widespread before approach the of aluation lain h agn fsft r osbyiaeut for inadequate possibly are safety of margins The aluation. codn oMoney, to According te ofudn susfrtemdlas eur further require also model the for issues confounding Other h meu o h oenmvmn fC a the was CB of movement modern the for impetus The steiprac fa cuaetxclgclrating toxicological accurate an of importance approach the UK the is of basis toxicological the nderpinning (31 , (35) 38) (26 , (26 nadto omdlvldto fot,experts efforts, validation model to addition In 42) ttn ht TeCSHEsnil a met has Essentials COSHH “The that, stating , 31 hspoessol obyn okwith work beyond go should process This , 38) hr sas aito nhzr band hazard in variation a also is There (42) (13) hudb osdrdasubstantial a considered be should (32) n ytmtceauto fthe of evaluation systematic “no aesi hti h German the in that said have (42) (11) (24) fCOSHH If referenced evdto served (25) Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 ehduiiigproa xouemntrn aafrde- for data monitoring exposure SQRA control personal Singapore’s conservative the utilizing with more method comparisons indicate on to based shown solutions been also has and solvents of operations use handling dispersed powder small-scale, some for error control enfudt eie infiatlvlo ofiec in confidence of level ranges. significant exposure a target deliver the to found been e COSHH the of from application Results and use component. the model prime Essentials on a survey utility HSE as intended the overlooked its often achieving in is effectiveness its However, and dissection The e measurements. exposure with significant correlation provided activities workplace descriptive approach on structured a based that showing by decision this strengthen 4 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 342 bu wa oepsr oeta,i sdaporaey n a improved exposure. has of and control appropriately, used is potential, model exposure an commensurate to the controls offers ensure whether ranges, exposure to determine target delivers to more evaluation receive critical should ongoing and attention additional onre rudtewrd nldn h ntdStates. United other the many in including use world, for Fo the considered around being countries also is however, elwti ag o okwt oisadmdu scale medium and solids were with industries, work different for liquids, of range number within exposure a well personal in with data, compared monitoring outcomes model’s the of -hae ol ecnitnl vlae n improved, with and bands evaluated hazard consistently of be allocation would the R-phrases and that scheme expectations model’s with the addressed was essentially concern this however, potential; this predicted work Brooke’s bands. control to assignment affect consequently can bands exposure of cation ocnr rmotsargument Kromhout’s confirm to eraigadbgfiln operations. filling bag and degreasing eeomn h eea prahwst ecnevtv or conservative model’s be to overprotective. this was slightly In approach general over-control. is the than control) development serious of level more inadequate potentially of (recommendation control injury, unnecessary serious significant to to e lead lead could overprescription could model. while control the of of predictions Underprescription the validate to scenarios controlled expert and stoppers,” bu “project studies not are literature These the in control. presented comments chemical interpretation, and measurement, exposure substance, health replace to training, meant protection, not approach the is that personal is point key A of etc. appropriate, context as surveillance be the must approach in the seen further, countries; other adopted by be uncritically cannot approach Essentials COSHH the that tioned tra vlain h OH setasmdlhsalso has model Essentials COSHH the evaluation, xternal endeavor. ongoing an remains model CB this of xamination pne seilyfrSE.O h w ye ferr under- error, of types two the Of SMEs. for especially xpense, t t r s h L hmclTokt ae nCSHEssentials, COSHH on based Toolkit, Chemical ILO The under- shown have model UK the of evaluations Internal ncnieainfrisipeetto,Oldershaw implementation, its for consideration In h eerhhsntsonti odt.Hwvr with However, date. to this shown not has research the ahrepaietene o olcino aaunder data of collection for need the emphasize rather on nterwork their in found hsrao h OH setasmdlhsreceived has model Essentials COSHH the reason this (32 , 39) lhuhsm ne-oto ro ihliquids with error under-control some although (43) ne tlt nteU.Ti Bmodel, CB This UK. the in utility infer (25) (39) swl sBrooke’s. as well as (32) emnBu comparisons BAuA German (33) (32 htptnilmisclassifi- potential that , 39) (41) swl sfrvapor for as well as hs eut seem results These (26) (75) cau- (26) iigrs ee approaches. level risk riving oto classification, control atclrywe oiooia aaaelimited. are data toxicological when particularly oe n ia ele oti commentary this format. to understandable than or replied this accessible Nicas achieving less and of a Jones in likelihood presented higher if trials a evaluation of user indicated that intent have and the advice that control implementing risk and noting obtaining appropriate in articles, utility its Nicas is Essentials and COSHH Jones these to cnwegdpuiyo aawt hc ovldt CB validate to which with data models. of paucity acknowledged hnfrlwrotoe uha riainadmy therefore, may, and irritation margin as safety such larger outcomes lower much for a than require toxicological critical cancer as consequence the such on Higher outcomes dependent toxicity. heavily relative are effect’s conclusions in their studies validation that for appropriate be not may margins safety iutoswt hc ocmaepredictions. compare to which with situations w h OH setasmdlfo h ale toxicology-to- model. earlier CB the pharmaceutical control from separates model what Essentials is step COSHH prediction the exposure the that in justify to hi OH setasevaluation Essentials COSHH their qal vlae roeeautdters eaiet the to Toolkit relative the risk selected, the processes overevaluated 27 SQRA. or the evaluated of equally majority the for oe sntitne opeitepsr u ahrt identify approaches. to rather control but exposure adequate predict to intended not is model ac aaevrnetlmntrn utb evaluated; be surveil- must health monitoring for need data/environmental The lance exposures. actual and predicted teto sisciiu fteCSHEsnil n ILO and Essentials COSHH the of critique T its as attention yterC oe.NnHEmmesas responded also recommended members were Non-HSE place model. in CB controls their the by of none utilized, ev eetbece ncnanetssesadefcieesof effectiveness verified. previously and to if an systems even needed LEV, be containment is to in continue monitoring breaches will ongoing detect effectiveness It that the time. requirement over evaluates essential and that initially system controls a of to is bolster is monitoring risk to models personal to needed Therefore, approach CB assessment. IH the exposure traditional and of the replace use not The must complement, tests) emphasized. wipe and strongly (air be monitoring personal for need going h oeta o niaporaecndnei h workplace reduction. the exposure in confidence chemical inappropriate an for potential the hi agno aeyapiain nterassmn of assessment their findings. in under-control applications Toolkit of ILO safety rate the high of the margin in Their seen efficiency be control limi- also engineering study’s of may their variability the address that do in they tations outcomes, model’s the of COSHH necessary. of is components study its prospective of evaluation recommended Essentials, a without that okthsidctdahg rvlneo oto errors control of prevalence high a indicated has oolkit r aaees n aeil nuse in materials and parameters, ork laeteCSHEsnil s ftewrpaeexposures workplace the of as, Essentials COSHH the aluate hr a lobe ifiut nacrann reported ascertaining in difficulty been also has There h oko oe n Nicas and Jones of work The twsas niae httearticle the that indicated also was It hl ofimn hi prahadrmiigskepticism remaining and approach their confirming While (57) (3 , 11 W , 13 ti hs aiainefrsteehsbe an been has there efforts validation these ithin , 32 (38) , 33 , 41) lorqie vlain hi eineon reliance Their evaluation. requires also (3) hr sas iie ag fexposure of range limited a also is There rprcaatrzto fspecific of characterization proper (37) (76) (57) (5) S ebr epne to responded members HSE hsi ifiutstatement difficult a is This oprsn niaethat, indicate Comparisons (41) (37 , 41) lrfigta hi CB their that clarifying (41) (41) a eevdmuch received has o oprsnof comparison for i o actually not did (32) (78) (20) indicating h on- The (41) and (77) (25) Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 xoueadMdln dataBASE), Modeling and web-based Exposure dynamic (SToffenmanager STEAMBASE a called module of exchange The data development in the standard a and become to Netherlands, expected branch- into is model that CB versions outcomes. this specific of control expansion model an its is of the progress in effectiveness of Also the validation of further verification and and use in international use wider for model CB v appropriate SME an for be tool T Stoffenmanager assessment may of exposure and an version managers as generic utility its current indicates in the used that be shows information preliminary to but process, ongoing criteria an remains validationstudy to initial Its lead models. control dis- exposure can other how developing of models example existing excellent secting an as serves Stoffenmanager exposure practicable.” should the reasonably as exposures in low that “as anywhere recommends maintained CIA be levels the exposure whereas Essentials COSHH band, achieve the of to objective current is the that is model more with finding under-control outcomes. toxicological an adverse of probability the affect lhuhcnitn ihBrooke’s with applications, consistent solvent although small-scale in error under-control sures, hc a endrvdfo h nentoa validation workshops. CB international international the the from includes derived that process been has which utilizing Stoffenmanager Toolkit. to led Control e have of Chemical date critique to ILO findings ongoing and Critique the Essentials from COSHH benefited the has approach Their model. CB Stoffenmanager Netherlands’ The of evaluation the components. the liquid to various due for of fraction volatility risk molar in by potential difference be of should estimation composition for the as appropriate skew liquids may is this weight but evaluating by solids, in prepares Composition that mixtures mix. workshop a solid plasticizing in and component harmful liquid each for both risks for weight by nadto,teRgtxapproach evaluated. Regetox further the however, be addition, processes; must In vapors these with with weakness tasks model’s for the made guidance be control can the sheets quantities within acknowledgement minute or relatively adjustment spread that ove attributed tasks be part industrial in can to III, Table in as dusts with equivalency h OH setasC oe o o-xet oaddress to non-experts for model CB Essentials COSHH the a are that studies literature. prospective CB in the consensus for foundation important M aaest otesame. for difficult the do be to therefore managers may SME it and particulates, the shown evaluate of retrospectively have to dustiness researchers efforts for difficult validation is it exposures model that chemical promising, solid been to have inves- comparisons further be Although should tigated. association trade the with disconnect psr sesetpirtzto nisbnigstrategy, banding its in prioritization assessment xposure rino h eei oe htcetsopruiisfor opportunities creates that model generic the of ersion e cnro eaigt EC.Teei o nEnglish an now is There REACH. to relating scenarios 1 ier nipratdsicini h eeomn fteUK the of development the in distinction important An rmsn nomto sjs einn ob u ot in forth put be to beginning just is information Promising euaoyrqieet nteU eeadie odevelop to driver a were UK the in requirements Regulatory ra ag ufc ra nraigepsr oeta.An potential. exposure increasing area, surface large ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 08343 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal (41) (26) (12) Fo r eevtoso vapor’s on reservations (60) rsne composition presented iudceia expo- chemical liquid hc a ean be may which (19 , 20) (60 This , 61) tts rdet h eaieasneo h Hpoeso in SMEs. profession as IH well the as LEs of affecting worldwide, absence nations relative developing industrially the most to due or States, by use be av for not may version expertise This international world. the its in everywhere developed non-experts ILO the by that application is the models and the for between UK—use achieved distinction key a part the However, managers. SME most in development the its for of been intent has model UK ease-of-use the The simplicity. of less achieve a to order chose in deliberately model complex both Toolkit Control Chemical ILO h raino ohtepamcuia gn n chemical and agent pharmaceutical the e both of and creation data the toxicological maintained of and lack av The achieve implemented professionals. and are trained intricate they by more as be accuracy, therefore greater can example, agents, an pharmaceutical as to relating Models maintenance. their and controls to engineering for access funding adequate and Due expertise have professional (LE). typically Enterprises industries these Large size, in their use to movement, for intended CB are modern and the were of predecessors evolutionary models, the control The exposure judgment. agent biological professional not and to do pharmaceutical access who affordable regulation or this easy under have managers SME many the to e ai,a sepcal paetwt nanoparticulate. with apparent especially toxicological proven is a as without basis, time this at possible assessment be exposure not traditional may that in complicated is models these of Validation industries. pharmaceuti- nanotechnology the biological, now the and in cal, as such OELs, of primarily absence the related to was development approach and this research for a need within The environment. experts by used be to were to culture from country, culture. to country a from risk, varies of accuracy that acceptability of perception of one this levels variable becomes the where then and point risk areas perceived focal The out non- compromised. been pointed and has indeed experts has for models or countries, audience—whether e intended developing the as SMEs, for important utility for As achieve experts. to of is advice accuracy this the of level with a compared compromise when practice in for may tool control non-experts exposure practical a that models CB modern the h rcia aueo h iia roois n injury and ergonomics, likely are they silica, that indicates the approaches model of CB prevention reduction. growing nature exposure a practical achieving from The in benefit simplicity and of evaluations acceptability learn ongoing can developers still that in from discussion CB cumulative this by e share level also They the a judgment. a expert in achieving to only access is with remain those may of common hands otherwise in what to have approachability models of CB these all psr oto models. control xposure due design by simplified was model The chemicals. to xposure prsaiei h bec fOL—aiaino these of OELs—validation of absence the in alike xperts itn oesbyn ukceia s a enassisted been has use chemical bulk beyond models xisting eti cetneo ikadiacrc.Aatto fthe of Adaptation inaccuracy. and risk of acceptance certain ial u olmtdfns uha nteE rteUnited the or EU the in as such funds, limited to due ailable iaiiyo salse Esaetecmo ae for bases common the are OELs established of ailability h eeoeso h OH setasadterelated the and Essentials COSHH the of developers The h itrclbssfrtemdr Bmdl a htthey that was models CB modern the for basis historical The (79) twsudrto ntedvlpetof development the in understood was It (10) What Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 F CONCLUSION by or regulation circumstance. by minimum required defining whether in that standards, helpful performance apparent is become stakeholders has of involvement it strategies CB multidisciplinary and validation of rigor same ev the with not although succeed, to 4 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 344 h aoiyo h ol’ okforce. work for world’s achieved the of be majority not the as will disorders models work-related the of make prevention exist. to expertise not technical does good finest it the where seek it to develop reach to the expand and W to expertise impetus this an models as of control serve unvalidated to apply rather to but excuse many blindly, an in as used nonexistent be should is fact not IH This many. and so Expert to inaccessible expensive multitudes. it rendering the is countries, to practice accessible information in is scientific advice that of format best a the into simplify to essence, in opportunity therefore, are an models CB in non-experts. place of a have hands does the that model better a stop build learned to lessons process not the the use from must must expert It it models. to of performed dissection access the at is have short research not further do who When workers advice. of billions the are IH traditional and input expert monitoring. include screening level assessment some risk at initial that as tools or exist this not of do used OELs absence best when are the available currently In as models. models CB the the information, of each strengths of the of weaknesses understanding and practical in our which improve for to data, will necessary verification turn are and order they as validation research essential in this providing to Statements, vital also field are Hazard further studies addition, In GHS questions. these re-evaluation address and scientifically continual include R-phrases must of which models, process CB improvement an be for into to folded have needs results question the research they and This to performed worker. and, that the accuracy many in of of protection expense models led therefore, the at CB has simplicity chosen of information knowingly effectiveness this overall of the reduction. exposure lack intended the The will achieving are This they and maintained whether group. and control implemented how target being to as are its questions recommendations remaining for the addressing correlates effectiveness in this assist overall how and its applied as to model the the of of understanding implications an achieve to essential process remains research therefore prospective A implemented outcomes. as intended model achieve the to of analysis operational for need especially the and interventions, expert predic- with compared model when the tions of validation external broader components, lainta hudb ie oalC oes ndeveloping In models. CB all to given be should that aluation t hsi id h oenC oeetsol continue should movement CB modern the mind, in this ith tsesta oti hs cetfi aiaindiscussions validation scientific these in lost that seems It hsicue ute nenlvldto fC model CB of validation internal further models. CB includes all for This requirement a remains research urther spsil.Seigpreto ilol nueta the that ensure only will perfection Seeking possible. as A 13. 15. 14. 12. 11. 10. T REFERENCES Livermore UCRL- Lawrence JRNL-223247. W-7405-Eng-48, the contract under by Laboratory Energy National of Department U.S. the Stoffenmanager the on update v also timely his Thanks for research manuscript. Heussen this Henri CB to of and development insight the the keen in his driving for direction Swuste Paul and to thanks developing Special agenda. in efforts assisted whose Workshops, have Banding Control International the 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 8. 7. 9. ldto process. alidation CKNOWLEDGMENTS hswr a efre npr ne h upcsof auspices the under part in performed was work This o h ucsflcnrlo oklc elhrisks. health workplace of 47(7) control successful the for C.D.: Money, 47(7) Hyg. Occup. enterprises. Ann. medium-sized and small for suitable risks, chemical assessing n t eainhpt nse rdc aeln,idsra yin,and hygiene, industrial labelling, programs. product medical finished to relationship its and A Schaper: K.L. and B.J., Henry, plant. chemical (1992). fine of operation and C.D.: Money, F (1996). G.T. ingredients. Fraser, active W.J. pharmaceutical Starkman, Kirk: B.S. G.D. and Sargent, Becker, E.V. B.D., Naumann, (1998). industry. pharmaceutical the in limits Kirk: G.D. and E.V., Sargent, strategies. control chemical 42(6) select Hyg. to Occup. approach structured a of ment S.C.: Maidment, chemicals. J and equipment aid. Rajan-Sithamparananadarajah: protective first personal exposure, R. dermal essentials; and COSHH A., Garrod, etr o ies oto n rvnin(CDC): Prevention Laboratories and Biomedical and Control Microbiological Disease for Ohio.Centers Control Cincinnati, of 2004, 1–2, Effectiveness March and Banding, Validation Control (1ICBW): International 2nd Workshop the at Banding Presented Pfizer. at risks safety and health T 24 Today Chemistry ev ast . .d ree n .Mairiaux: P. and Graeve, de J. A., Balsat, risks. and hazards occupational Pantry: S. and Hale, A. P., Swuste, nothing? A.: Maynard, Thera- Intermediates Airborne Their and for Substances Limits peutic Exposure Occupational In-House Setting on (ABPI): Industry Pharmaceutical 138–145. British 6–43, the pp. of Association 1993. Office Printing Government U.S. D.C.: Washington, (eds.). McKinney R.W. and Richmond J.Y. 93-8395). [CDC] csn H.: ackson, i,K.: ait, ri,JP,AW dr n ..Ku: R.H. and Ader, A.W. J.P., arris, n h raiain hthv upre l set of aspects all supported have that assisted organizations have who the those and all thank to like would authors he lto ftepamcuia aadctgrzto n oto system. control and categorization hazard pharmaceutical the of olution 0ya paeo ni-ln aadu aeil dnicto system identification materials hazardous in-plant an of update 10-year 5350(2003). :533–540 n.Ocp y.47(7) Hyg. Occup. Ann. oto adn:a mrvdmaso sesn n managing and assessing of means improved an banding: Control n.Ocp y.51(1) Hyg. Occup. Ann. sa-aicNwlte 9 Newsletter Asian-Pacific oto adn–rcia ol o otoln xoueto exposure controlling for tools banding–Practical Control A uoeneprecsi h eeomn fapproaches of development the in experiences European aoehooy h etbgtigo uhaoabout ado much or thing big next the Nanotechnology; tutrdapoc oocptoa yin ntedesign the in hygiene occupational to approach structured 3140(1998). :391–400 cuainlhgeecnieain ntedevelop- the in considerations hygiene Occupational m n.Hg so.J 51 J. Assoc. Hyg. Ind. Am. 51 (2006). :5–10 595 (2003). :549–56 efrac-ae xouecnrllmt for limits control exposure Performance-based n.Ocp y.47(7) Hyg. Occup. Ann. 5758(2003). :577–588 salsigaron xouecontrol exposure airborne Establishing 11 (2007). :1–12 P’ aeyadhat ne system: index health and safety PPG’s m n.Hg so.J 57 J. Assoc. Hyg. Ind. Am. obs:Adtbn fsltosfor solutions of databank A Solbase: m n.Hg so.J 49 J. Assoc. Hyg. Ind. Am. 6–3(2002). :62–63 n.Ocp y.36(6) Hyg. Occup. Ann. . itr,ipeetto,and implementation, History, odn BI 1995. ABPI, London: 4544(1990). :475–484 , A r e.(H u.no. Pub. (HHS rev. 3rd tutrdsrtg for strategy structured n.Ocp Hyg. Occup. Ann. 5157(2003). :541–547 isft in Biosafety Developing Guidance :601–607 :309–313 :33–42 Ann. Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 39. 38. 37. 36. 35. 34. 33. 32. 31. 30. 29. 28. 27. 26. 25. 24. 23. 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. 17. 16. noeinSE.Peetda h is nentoa oto Banding Control International First from the W and at areas Presented industrial SMEs. various Indonesian from results Recent strategies: control Toolkit. T Control Chemical ILO 50(2) the and Essentials J (2000). Association h nutilHygienists Industrial the J London. 2002, (1ICBW), 4–5, Workshop November Banding Control International First the at Presented T rmot H.: Kromhout, Editor. the to Letter T sures. H.: Kromhout, data. exposure substances 47(7) existing and BAuA of studies basis the field on model predictive exposure Essentials COSHH HSE Ohio. Cincinnati, 2004, T 1–2, March and Banding, Validation Control (2ICBW): of Workshop Effectiveness Banding Control the at International Presented effectiveness. 2nd control and classification hazard to regards J 42(6) Hyg. Hay: A.W. and B., Hudspith, 2007. Essentials, Evans: P. and A., Garrod, Nitro-Compounds. 1992. and Amines Aromatic Carcinogenic Association Industries Chemical 1996. RSC, (RSC): London: Chemistry of Society Royal (1998). 390 considerations. Toxicological chemicals: roe I.M.: from Brooke, risks Topping: health control M.D. firms small and help chemicals. to Brooke, scheme UK I. a to Maidment, introduction S.C. R.M., Russell, concentrations. past 43(4) of assessment subjective Schneider: tured T. and J., Cherrie, methods. of review Teschke: K. and I., Burstyn, 7). (Regulation Occupational Bands Allocating Exposure on Guidance Regulations: Health to (CIA): Hazardous Association 1987. Industries EEC, I–VIII Communities, Chemical Vols. European the (EINECS): of Substances Commission Brussels: Chemical Commercial Existing of EEC: Communities, European the of Commission Bands. Exposure Occupational I.: Guest, 1993. CIA, London: H (CIA): Association Industries Chemical compounds. Smith: C.P. McKenzie, involved. I.G. and Witham, B.H. issues Thomas, M.C. Hart, the D. H.C., Crabtree, of some of 12 examination an and chemicals carcinogenic 13 of study comparative potency—A carcinogenic W Oldershaw: phrases. P.J. and e R.J., Gardner, psr-oto ocnrtosbsdo akgn euainrisk regulation packaging on based concentrations xposure-control ns .. n ia M.: Nicas and R.M., ones, yok .. ..Lnh n ..Nelson: D.I. and Lynch, J.R. M.A., ayjock, ns .. n .Nicas: M. and R.M., ones, pig M.: opping, pig M.: opping, shr M.: ischer, shr . .Beede-apr n .Poppek: U. and Bredendiek-Kamper, S. M., ischer, zr lsicto n eeto fOcptoa yin Strategies. Hygiene Occupational of Selection and Classification azard rso (1ICBW) orkshop owr,KN,A coad n .Joshi: S. and McDonald, A. K.N., oodward, 16–06(1991). :1061–1066 1916(2006). :149–156 5759(2003). :557–569 2525(1999). :235–245 cu.Evrn e.59 Med. Environ. Occup. n.Ocp y.35(1) Hyg. Occup. Ann. h hmclIdsre soito udneo Allocating on Guidance Association Industries Chemical The 4146(1998). :401–406 n.Ocp y.42(6) Hyg. Occup. Ann. ua.Res Mutat. urn AAGZrsac nocptoa xoueand exposure occupational on research BAuA/GTZ Current eino esrmn taeisfrwrpaeexposures: workplace for strategies measurement of Design AU OH setasfo ocp ooeso system. stop one to concept from Essentials COSHH uhrsreply. Author’s eino esrmn taeisfrwrpaeexpo- workplace for strategies measurement of Design K acngncrnigo rmtcaieadnitro and amine aromatic of ranking Carcinogenic m n.Hg so.J 60 J. Assoc. Hyg. Ind. Am. cu.Evrn e.59 Med. Environ. Occup. , ceet epsalfim oto elhrssfrom risks health control firms small help to scheme oebr45 02 London. 2002, 4–5, November . 264(4) .F esnlcmuiainrgrigCOSHH regarding communication Personal ifx a:Aeia nutilHygiene Industrial American Va.: airfax, nomto ed fworkers. of needs Information tdigtedtriat fepsr:A exposure: of determinants the Studying cu.Evrn e.59 Med. Environ. Occup. agn fsft rvddb COSHH by provided safety of Margins n.Ocp y.42(6) Hyg. Occup. Ann. 3934(2002). :349–354 1512(1991). :155–162 odn I,1997. CIA, London: 5–9(1991). :51–59 V vlaino h L oli with Toolkit ILO the of Evaluation ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 08345 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal ldto fanwmto o struc- for method new a of alidation 3736(1998). :367–376 ( CIA): OH nLaboratories in COSHH aeHnln fCluat 2 Colourants of Handling Safe n.Ocp y.42(6) Hyg. Occup. Ann. eeomn fpragmatic of Development aeHnln fPotentially of Handling Safe h oto fSubstances of Control The 78(2002). :788 5–2(1999). :57–72 akn fceiasfor chemicals of Ranking ikPicpe for Principles Risk uoenInventory European n.Ocp Hyg. Occup. Ann. n.Ocp Hyg. Occup. Ann. n.Ocp Hyg. Occup. Ann. 4741(1998). :407–411 7879(2002). :788–789 vlaino the of Evaluation Carcinogenesis odn CIA, London: n.Occup. Ann. , n ed. 2nd :377– An : . 6 “REACH 46. 45. 44. 43. 42. 41. 40. 50. 49. 48. 47. 61. 59. 58. 57. 56. 55. 54. 53. 52. 51. 60. icals/reach/reach Products Chemical with chemical (UIC): Union to Industry Chemical related risks from work. workers at of agents safety and health the of tection (EC): Commission European W P.: Evans, (2003). lsictoso hmclsubstances. chemical of classifications Hansson: S.O. and C., Ruden, (2006). operations. filling bag and degreasing J Food and Nutrition TNO (2001). Zeist: Research Netherlands. The Amsterdam, 2001, 27, w T oto Solutions Control Else: D. and T., Mitchel, Methods Reduction (HSE): Executive Safety and Health Chemicals of ment. Toxicology and Ecotoxicology (ECETOC): for Centre European Council. 16 Industry Hyg. Environ. Chemical European The intentions. and C.D. Money, olfrsaladmdu nepie owr aeywt hazardous with safely work to enterprises medium and small for tool Scotland. Glasgow, T 2007, 17–19, April Conference, Hygiene pational enterprises. safety chemical medium-sized on and 47(7) project small pilot Indonesian GTZ in the from Experiences strategies: T T K.: Ohio. Adelmann, Cincinnati, 2004, 1–2, March Banding, Validation Control of (2ICBW): Effectiveness Workshop and Banding Control International 2nd the at Y safety] tional travail du securite ” potential. “risk of sation V Cincinnati, Ef- 2004, 1–2, and March Validation Ohio. (2ICBW), Workshop: Banding at Control Banding of Presented Graeve: Control fectiveness experience. International de companies 2nd J. Belgian the risks and Control chemical Mairiaux, assessing International P. First A., the Balsat, at Advantages, (1ICBW) Presented Workshop workplace: Banding perspectives. the at and Graeve: risks De limits chemical J. managing and and assessing Mairiaux, P. A., Balsat, 1–2, Ohio. March Cincinnati, Banding, Workshop2004, Control Banding of Effectiveness Control control and International Validation international 2nd (2ICBW): for the at phrases Presented Harmonized banding. Chemicals: of Labeling J.: Silk, 1 Environment Work Goelzer: the B. in and Corn, M. P., Swuste, (1994). e Hale: A. and P., 1993. Swuste, College, University Ballarat Health, and Safety T psr otxcsubstances. toxic to xposure ns .. n ia M.: Nicas and R.M., ones, 2–1(1995). :20–21 cnclCoeain(T) 01 p –0 i German] [in 1–10. pp. 2001. (GTZ), Cooperation echnical p S.M.: ap, shr M.: ischer, jsn . .l ee,H ese,J et n .Noy: D. and West, J. Heussen, H. Feber, le M. S., ijssen, Scholaen: S. and M., ischer, eeas E.: ielemans, net . n .Bonthoux: F. and R., incent, rpae rceig rma nentoa okhp oebr26– November workshop, international an from Proceedings orkplace. rso,Mrh91,20,Wsigo,D.C. Washington, 2005, 9–10, March orkshop, 5155(2003). :571–575 rses CTC 2002. ECETOC, Brussels: h lblyHroie ytm(H)o lsicto and Classification of (GHS) System Harmonized Globally The .” OH setas rsne tteNtoa oto Banding Control National the at Presented Essentials. COSHH sesn h tlt fteIOTokti igpr.Presented Singapore. in Toolkit ILO the of utility the Assessing Oln]Aalbea tp/e.uoae/niomn/chem- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ at Available [Online] 179 uln ocp faPamtcApoc oRs Assess- Risk to Approach Pragmatic a of Concept Outline : epn Mst aaerssfo hmcl nthe in chemicals from risks manage to SMEs Helping vlaino h tfemngr rsne tteOccu- the at Presented Stoffenmanager. the of Evaluation f.J u.Commun. Eur. J. Off. aasltosfrte2s etr:CFCsvision CEFIC’s century: 21st the for solutions Data 3930(2001). :329–330 hmclSft n Development. and Safety Chemical .V 2–4(00.[nFrench] [in (2000). :29–34 nr.t Acse ue1,2007). 15, June (Accessed intro.htm . Dcmnayboso oe–yin n occupa- and notes–Hygiene of books [Documentary coi,Asrla itra nttt fOccupational of Institute Victorian Australia: ictoria, odn S,HS,1993. HMSO, HSE, London: D 3.Prs I,19.[nFrench] [in 1999. UIC, Paris: 63). (DT . aaae nmaue opeetoccupational prevent to measures on Databases eoto H meeting. WHO a of Report I os oto nMnn:SvnyFv Noise Seventy-Five Mining: in Control Noise air entsdcmnarsHgeeet documentaires–Hygiene notes de Cahiers , vlaino OH setasfrvapor for Essentials COSHH of Evaluation oebr45 02 London. 2002, 4–5, November oni ietv 82/Co h pro- the on 98/24/EC Directive Council o cuaeaeteErpa Union’s European the are accurate How vlaino hmclrs:Hierarchi- risk: chemical of Evaluation pl cu.Evrn y.9 Hyg. Environ. Occup. Appl. T hmclmngmn n control and management Chemical o o vlaino ik Associated Risks of Evaluation for ool 11(1998). L131 0 rcia plctoso Noise of Applications Practical 100 n.Ocp y.50(2) Hyg. Occup. Ann. aadPeeto n Control and Prevention Hazard T xcl et 144(2) Lett. oxicol. A oto adn for banding Control lblapoc for approach global fia Newsletter African n.Ocp Hyg. Occup. Ann. on oit for Society Bonn: pl Occup. Appl. :159–172 :137–147 :57–61 Anew Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 23:02 5 May 2008 72. 71. 70. 69. 68. 67. 66. 63. 4 ora fOcptoa n niomna yin a 2008 May Hygiene Environmental and Occupational of Journal 346 62. 65. 64. iodr;teegnmc oli.In toolkit. ergonomics the disorders; Hygiene D.M.: Industrial 2006.Zalk, Illinois, American Chicago, at 13–18, May presented Conference, 221 Roundtable strategies. D.M.: Zalk, (2001). techniques. participatory utilising D.M.: Zalk, Africa 2005, South 21, Zalk: Pilanesberg, September Conference, D.M. Scientific Hygiene and Occupational tional Johnson, countries. developing P. industrially Kiefer, in ergonomics M. K., Stewart, Pilanesberg, International Africa. 2005, Third South 21, the September (3ICBW), at Workshop Presented Banding industry. Control construction Dutch the in T.: Spee, Africa. South 2005, 21, Pilanesberg, September (3ICBW), Workshop Banding Control International P.: Evans, Africa. South Pilanesberg, September 2005, (3ICBW), 21, Workshop Banding Control International Third the P.: Evans, 47(2) regulations. and ments, D.F.: Goldsmith, 1–2, Ohio. March Cincinnati, Banding, 2004, Control of Effectiveness and Validation (2ICBW): rlbnig rsne tte2 the at Presented banding. trol H.T.: Smedbold, 1–2, Ohio. March Cincinnati, Banding, 2004, Control of Effectiveness and Validation Workshop Banding (2ICBW): Control International 2nd the at Presented substances. appr,SM,M odeg .Ss,adRF Herrick: R.F. and Susi, e P. Goldberg, M. review. S.M., Rappaport, A — industry 18 Hyg. construction Environ. the in exposures dust Susi: P. and M.R., Flynn, (1997). psr oslc nteU osrcinindustry. construction US the in silica to xposure 1112(2003). :111–122 ikassmn rmtxcsbtne n oto measures control and substances toxic from assessment Risk iiaEsnil n h hmclCnrlTokt rsne at Presented Toolkit. Control Chemical the and Essentials Silica OH setasRdcn iioi.Peetda h Third the at Presented silicosis. Essentials—Reducing COSHH rsrosegnmc:Iiitn negnmc program ergonomics an Initiating ergonomics: Grassroots oto adn’ ua elhbsdrs management risk health-based human banding’s Control oto adn rnilst euemusculoskeletal reduce to principles banding Control 2827(2003). :268–277 jmRs–h owga fsoeapoc ocon- to approach offshore Norwegian KjemiRisk–The h ikbtenslc utlvl,rs assess- risk levels, dust silica between link The J. . xo nl nio.Eieil 7 Epidemiol. Environ. Anal. Expo. niern otosfrslce iiaand silica selected for controls Engineering nd nentoa oto adn Workshop Banding Control International n.Ocp y.45(4) Hyg. Occup. Ann. rceig fteInternational the of Proceedings rceig fInterna- of Proceedings n.Ocp Hyg. Occup. Ann. pl Occup. Appl. Establishing Excessive :283–289 :385–395


74. 73. 79. 78. 77. 76. 75. PROCEEDINGS esdOtbr1,2007). 14, October cessed (3ICBW) (Ac- Workshop http://www.saioh.org/ioha2005/Proceedings/SSI.htm Banding Control International Third 2007). 14, ber Octo- (Accessed http://www.acgih.org/events/ControlBand (2ICBW) Workshop Banding Control International Second 2007). 14, October (Accessed (1ICBW) Workshop Banding http://www.bohs.org/eventDetails.aspx?event Control International First rooisAscainXt rena oges eu,SuhKorea, South Seoul, Congress, A Triennial XVth Association Ergonomics Conference In banding. barrier D.M.: Zalk, Africa. South 21, Pilanesberg, September 2005, (3ICBW), Workshop Banding Control International Third P.: Swuste, nCnrlBnigClaoain,Spebr2,20,Pilanesberg, 2005, 21, September Africa. Collaborations, South Banding Control Trends Global in (3ICBW): Workshop Banding Control International the Third at Presented banding). (control toolbox management risk occupational Fedetov: I. and G., Eijkemans, (2006). 644 J the to Letter essentials. al.: COSHH Editor. of et Tolley, reliability D. and Hudspith, utility B. the Hay, of A. Evaluation Smith, M. Bailey, S. C., Money, Editor. the to 50(6) Letter Hyg. operations. bag-filling and degreasing Garrod: A. and P., Evans, London. P.J.: Oldershaw, ns .. n ia M.: Nicas and R.M., ones, gs 42,2003 24–29, ugust n.Ocp y.50(6) Hyg. Occup. Ann. n.Ocp y.47(7) Hyg. Occup. Ann. 61(2006). :641 , oto adn,epnino ag;sft.Peetda the at Presented safety. range; of expansion banding, Control etme 5 06 ehf h Netherlands, The Eemhof, 2006, 15, September rcia rvnini aey rmcnrlbnigto banding control from safety; in prevention Practical rceig fteItrainlWrigo Safety on Working International the of Proceedings oto adn okhp – oebr2002, November 4–5 workshop, banding Control , V5(327). vlaino OH setasfrvapour for Essentials COSHH of Evaluation uhrsreply. Author’s 6263(2006). :642–643 5152(2003). :531–532 lblipeetto taeyo the of strategy implementation Global n.Ocp y.50(6) Hyg. Occup. Ann. = 42 n.Occup. Ann. 17(5). :643–