Hazard banding in compliance with the new Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for use in control banding tools

Arnone, Mario; Koppisch, Dorothea; Smola, T.; Gabriel, Stefan; Verbist, Koen; Visser, Remco

doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.014

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both cases, the assignment of hazard classes process was conducted over months by a group of +20 experts in the field of chemical risk prevention. The results are directly inspired by those from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2008 ( 8 ) and in the end very similar to those proposed by ( 14 ).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 72%

A control banding method for chemical risk assessment in occupational settings in France

Aachimi,

Marc,

Bonvallot

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study describes a method whose aim is to help companies assess the chemical occupational risks related to labeled products and industrial chemical emissions. The method is intended to be used by industrial hygienists at the scale of one company. Both inhalation and cutaneous exposure routes are taken into account.MethodsThe method relies on a control-banding scheme. A work situation is described by exposure parameters such as the process or the local exhaust ventilation and by the hazard of the product. Each possible value of the parameters is associated with a “band,” which is associated with an integer value. The multiplication of these values results in a score, which represents a priority for intervention. The higher the score, the more the situation warrants investigation for implementing prevention measures, such as chemical substitution and the addition of local exhaust ventilation. To simplify communication, the priority is associated with a colored priority band: red for “very high priority,” orange for “high priority,” and green for “moderate priority.” The priority bands are computed for all work situations performed in a company.ResultsAn example of the use of this method is described in a French façade insulation company.ConclusionA tool named Seirich was developed to implement this method and promote good practices for helping industrial hygienists in the prioritization of interventions for reducing chemical risk in France.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 72%

A control banding method for chemical risk assessment in occupational settings in France

Aachimi,

Marc,

Bonvallot

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors are aware that more HB-engines exist, but the three public HB-engines were used in this study because of their availability, level of documentation, and widespread use. Recently, IFA, one of the studied HB-engines, proposed an update (Arnone et al , 2015) which shows an increasing number of similarities with S-OEB and EMGK. What the impact of these modifications is on allocation and strength was not investigated in the current study, but it may be part of a broadened assessment in which aspects such as a larger data set containing more low-hazard and dust/aerosol substances, refined grouping, and other HB-engines could be considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Strength and Validity of Hazard Banding

Scheffers¹,

Doornaert

Berne

et al. 2016

ANNHYG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hazard Banding (HB) is a process of allocating chemical substances in bands of increasing health hazard based on their hazard classifications. Recent Control Banding (CB) tools use the classifications of the United Nations Global Harmonized System (UN GHS) or the European Union Classifications, Labelling and Packaging (EU CLP) which are grouped over 5 HBs. The use of CB is growing worldwide for the risk control of substances without an Occupational Exposure Limit Value (OELV). Well-known CB-tools like HSE-COSHH Essentials, BAuA-Einfaches Maßnahmenkonzept Gefahrstoffe (EMKG), and DGUV-IFA-Spaltenmodell (IFA) use however different GHS/CLP groupings which may lead to dissimilar HBs and control regimes for individual substances. And as the choice for a CB tool seems to be determined by geography and/or local status these differences may hamper a global, aligned HSE approach. Therefore, the HB-engines of the three public CBs and an in-company (Solvay) CB called ‘Occupational Exposure Banding’ (S-OEB) were compared mutually and ranked in their relation with the OELV as the ‘de facto’ standard. This was investigated graphically and using a 5 strength indicator, statistical method. A data set of 229 substances with high-quality GHS/CLP classifications and OELVs was used. HB concentration ranges, as linked to S-OEB and COSHH, were validated against the corresponding OELV distributions. The four HB-engines allocate between 23 and 64% of the 229 substances in the same bands. The remaining substances differ at least one band, with IFA placing more substances in a higher hazard band, EMKG doing the opposite and COSHH and S-OEB in between. The overall strength scores of S-OEB, IFA, and EMGK HB-engines are higher than COSHH, with S-OEB having the highest overall strength score. The lower ends of the concentration ranges defined for the 3 ‘highest’ hazard bands of S-OEB were in good agreement with the 10th percentiles of the corresponding OELV distributions obtained from the substance data set. The lower ends of the COSHH concentration ranges comply with the 10th percentiles of the COSHH OELV distributions for dust/aerosol but not for vapour/gas substances. Both the S-OEB and COSHH concentration ranges underestimate the overall width of the OELV distributions that can span 2–3 orders of magnitude. As the performance of the S-OEB HB-engine meets our criteria of being at least as good as the public engines, it will be used as a standard within Solvay’s global operations. In addition, the method described here to evaluate the strength of HB-engines and the validity of their corresponding concentration ranges is a useful tool enabling further developments and worldwide alignment of HB.

show abstract

“…The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and ACGIH also use similar designations to warn against the potential of dermal sensitization (NIOSH, 2009; ACGIH, 2016). Hazard-based systems can be included in hazard banding tools used to categorize available data into risk categories that drive control strategy selection (Arnone et al, 2015; Scheffers et al, 2016). …”

Section: Setting Exposure Limits For Chemical Allergensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical-induced asthma and the role of clinical, toxicological, exposure and epidemiological research in regulatory and hazard characterization approaches

Vincent

Bernstein

Basketter

et al. 2017

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncertainties in understanding all potential modes-of-action for asthma induction and elicitation hinders design of hazard characterization and risk assessment methods that adequately screen and protect against hazardous chemical exposures. To address this challenge and identify current research needs, the University of Cincinnati and the American Cleaning Institute hosted a webinar series to discuss the current state-of-science regarding chemical-induced asthma. The general consensus is that the available database, comprised of data collected from routine clinical and validated toxicological tests, is inadequate for predicting or determining causal relationships between exposures and asthma induction for most allergens. More research is needed to understand the mechanism of asthma induction and elicitation in the context of specific chemical exposures and exposure patterns, and the impact of population variability and patient phenotypes. Validated tools to predict respiratory sensitization and to translate irritancy assays to asthma potency are needed, in addition to diagnostic biomarkers that assess and differentiate allergy versus irritant-based asthmatic responses. Diagnostic methods that encompass the diverse etiologies of asthmatic responses and incorporate robust exposure measurements capable of capturing different temporal patterns of complex chemical mixtures are needed. In the absence of ideal tools, risk assessors apply hazard-based safety assessment methods, in conjunction with active risk management, to limit potential asthma concerns, proactively identify new concerns, and ensure deployment of approaches to mitigate asthma-related risks.

show abstract

Hazard banding in compliance with the new Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for use in control banding tools

Cited by 12 publications

References 24 publications

A control banding method for chemical risk assessment in occupational settings in France

A control banding method for chemical risk assessment in occupational settings in France

On the Strength and Validity of Hazard Banding

Chemical-induced asthma and the role of clinical, toxicological, exposure and epidemiological research in regulatory and hazard characterization approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About