4.1 Article

Understanding the limitations and application of occupational exposure models in a REACH context

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2023.2208188

Keywords

Chemical risk assessment; chemical safety assessment; exposure science; regulatory assessment; regulatory exposure modeling; occupational exposure assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exposure modeling is crucial for regulatory organizations, companies, and professionals in managing occupational health risks. This commentary focuses on occupational inhalation exposure assessment models within the REACH framework, discussing their theoretical background, applications, limitations, and the need for improvement. Despite its unquestionable relevance in the context of REACH, occupational exposure modeling requires consensus on key issues, monitoring of model performance, and alignment of practices and policies.
Exposure modeling plays a significant role for regulatory organizations, companies, and professionals involved in assessing and managing occupational health risks in workplaces. One context in which occupational exposure models are particularly relevant is the REACH Regulation in the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006). This commentary describes the models for the occupational inhalation exposure assessment of chemicals within the REACH framework, their theoretical background, applications, and limitations, as well as the latest developments and priorities for model improvement. Summing up the debate, despite its relevance and importance in the context of REACH not being in question, occupational exposure modeling needs to be improved in many respects. There is a need to reach a wide consensus on several key issues (e.g., the theoretical background and the reliability of modeling tools), to consolidate and monitor model performance and regulatory acceptance, and to align practices and policies regarding exposure modeling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available