This work aimed at improving the empirical database of time (i.e., exposure duration), interspecies and intraspecies extrapolation when deriving occupational exposure limits (OELs). For each extrapolation step, a distribution was derived, which can be used to model the associated uncertainties. For time and interspecies extrapolation, distributions of ratios of dose descriptors were derived from studies of different length or species. National Toxicology Program (NTP) study data were manually assessed, and data from REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) registration dossiers were evaluated semi‐automatically. Intraspecies extrapolation was investigated by compiling published studies on human toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic variability. A new database was established for toxicokinetic differences in interindividual susceptibility, including many inhalation studies. Using NTP data produced more reliable results than using REACH data. The geometric mean (GM) for time extrapolation subacute/chronic agreed with previous evaluations (GM = 4.11), whereas the GM for subchronic/chronic extrapolation was slightly higher (GM = 2.93) than the GMs found by others. No significant differences were observed between systemically and locally acting substances. Observed interspecies differences confirmed the suitability of allometric scaling, with the derived distribution describing remaining uncertainty. Distributions of intraspecies variability at the 1% and 5% incidence level had medians of 7.25 and 3.56, respectively. When compared with assessment factors (AFs) currently used in the EU, probabilities that these AFs are protective enough span a wide range from 10% to 95%, depending on the extrapolation step. These results help to select AFs in a transparent and informed way and, by allowing to compare protection levels achieved, to harmonise methods for deriving OELs.

Frameworks for deriving occupational exposure limits (OELs) and OEL‐analogue values (such as derived‐no‐effect levels [DNELs]) in various regulatory areas in the EU and at national level in Germany were analysed. Reasons for differences between frameworks and possible means of improving transparency and harmonisation were identified. Differences between assessment factors used for deriving exposure limits proved to be one important reason for diverging numerical values. Distributions for exposure time, interspecies and intraspecies extrapolation were combined by probabilistic methods and compared with default values of assessment factors used in the various OEL frameworks in order to investigate protection levels. In a subchronic inhalation study showing local effects in the respiratory tract, the probability that assessment factors were sufficiently high to protect 99% and 95% of the target population (workers) from adverse effects varied considerably from 9% to 71% and 17% to 87%, respectively, between the frameworks. All steps of the derivation process, including the uncertainty associated with the point of departure (POD), were further analysed with two examples of full probabilistic assessments. It is proposed that benchmark modelling should be the method of choice for deriving PODs and that all OEL frameworks should provide detailed guidance documents and clearly define their protection goals by stating the proportion of the exposed population the OEL aims to cover and the probability with which they intend to provide protection from adverse effects. Harmonisation can be achieved by agreeing on the way to perform the methodological steps for deriving OELs and on common protection goals.

Many older MAC values were either too high or not scientifically supported and therefore not health-based.

Aim of the study was to investigate the potential toxic effects of di-n-butylamine (DBA), a known skin and eye irritating compound, on the respiratory tract after inhalation exposure for up to 91 days in male and female rats [Crl:(WI)WU BR]. To check whether and to what degree the no-observed-(adverse)-effect level (NO(A)EL) decreases with increasing study duration, serial sacrifices were performed after 3 and 28 days, respectively. Based on two dose range-finding studies, the concentrations for this study were determined with 0 (clean air), 50, 150, and 450 mg/m(3). Animals were exposed for 3 days (6 h/day) 28, and 91 days (5 days/wk, 6 h/day), respectively, and immediately sacrificed thereafter. The results show clear irritating effects only in the upper part of the respiratory tract, that is, the nasal cavities. While after 3 and 28 days effects were found only in the high-dose group, slight adaptive effects, expressed as mucous (goblet) cell hyperplasia, could be diagnosed in the medium- and low-dose groups after 91 days of exposure. Pathological changes were most prominent after 3 days of exposure. In the lung, only marginal effects could be observed (increased relative lung weight only in females of the high concentration after 28 days, slight, not statistically significant histopathological effects in the high concentration after 3 days, no effects on parameters of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid), while no effects were found in the remaining groups.

No abstract