Procedures for Health Risk Assessment in Europe

Seeley, Mara; Tonner-Navarro, L.E.; Beck, Barbara D.; Deskin, Ronald W.; Feron, V.J.; Johanson, Gunnar; Bolt, Hermann M.

doi:10.1006/rtph.2001.1490

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other papers from this journal issue will be helpful to occupational hygienists, (10,11) and comprehensive analyses of the processes for setting OELs have been developed elsewhere. (3,17,23,51,52,73,81,83) As the derivation of environmental exposure guidelines parallels that for OELs, occupational hygienists might also find guidelines for the derivation of these values to be useful. (80,82) …”

Section: Framework For the Selection Of Appropriate Oelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits—Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

Deveau

Chen

Johanson

et al. 2015

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) serve as health-based benchmarks against which measured or estimated workplace exposures can be compared. In the years since the introduction of OELs to public health practice, both developed and developing countries have established processes for deriving, setting, and using OELs to protect workers exposed to hazardous chemicals. These processes vary widely, however, and have thus resulted in a confusing international landscape for identifying and applying such limits in workplaces. The occupational hygienist will encounter significant overlap in coverage among organizations for many chemicals, while other important chemicals have OELs developed by few, if any, organizations. Where multiple organizations have published an OEL, the derived value often varies considerably—reflecting differences in both risk policy and risk assessment methodology as well as access to available pertinent data. This paper explores the underlying reasons for variability in OELs, and recommends the harmonization of risk-based methods used by OEL-deriving organizations. A framework is also proposed for the identification and systematic evaluation of OEL resources, which occupational hygienists can use to support risk characterization and risk management decisions in situations where multiple potentially relevant OELs exist.

show abstract

Section: Framework For the Selection Of Appropriate Oelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An overview of the steps involved in deriving an OEL can be found in Table IV and more detailed guidance has been provided elsewhere in the literature. (3,10,11,17,23,51,52,73,81,83) Any provisional OELs should be peer reviewed to strengthen the confidence in the value.…”

Section: Framework For the Selection Of Appropriate Oelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits—Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

Deveau

Chen

Johanson

et al. 2015

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The development of an exposure-response curve based on human health effects is important for promulgating occupational standards (20). However, in previous studies involving linear exposure-response relationships, the use of individual exposure data instead of exposuregroup means was associated with attenuation.…”

Section: Implications Of This Study For An Occupational Health Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of exposure to wheat flour and the shape of its relationship with specific sensitization

Peretz

Pater²,

Monchy³

et al. 2005

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The existence of thresholds in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis is a current issue of debate , 2003Bolt 2003), and is also receiving increased awareness from the regulatory standpoint Seeley et al 2001;Pratt and Barron 2003). In this context, the assessment of mechanisms of genotoxicity at a chromosomal level, leading to nondisjunction of chromosomes and aneuploidy, is of central interest (Decordier et al 2002;Kirsch-Volders et al 2003;Thier et al 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Chromosomal genotoxicity of nitrobenzene and benzonitrile

Bonacker

Stoiber

Böhm³

et al. 2004

Archives of Toxicology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to investigate the chromosomal genotoxicity of nitrobenzene and benzonitrile, we studied the induction of micronuclei (MN) by these test compounds in V79 cells, as well as effects on the formation and stability of microtubules and on motor protein functions. No cytotoxicity was seen in V79 cell cultures in terms of Neutral red uptake after 18 h treatment with up to 1 mM nitrobenzene or 1 mM benzonitrile. Subsequently, a concentration range up to 100 micro M was used in the experiments on induction of MN. Both test compounds exhibit a weak, but definitely positive test result compared to the solvent (DMSO) control. Minimal effect concentrations of nitrobenzene and benzonitrile appeared as low as 0.01 micro M, and no-effect-concentrations were between 0.001 and 0.005 micro M. Clearly enhanced MN rates were found at 0.1 micro M and higher. Both, nitrobenzene and benzonitrile, induced mostly kinetochor (CREST)-positive micronuclei, thus characterising the chromosomal effects as aneugenic. In cell-free assays, a slight effect on tubulin assembly was observed at 1 mM nitrobenzene without addition of DMSO. Higher concentrations (5 mM) led to secondary effects. In presence of 1% DMSO, nitrobenzene exerted no detectable effect on tubulin assembly up to the solubility limit in water of about 15 mM. For benzonitrile in presence of DMSO, a clear dose-response of inhibition of tubulin assembly at 37 degrees C was seen above the no-effect-concentration of 2 mM, with an IC(50) of 13 mM and protein denaturation starting above a level of about 20 mM. The nature of the effects of nitrobenzene and benzonitrile on the association of tubulin to form microtubules was confirmed by electron microscopy. Treatment by either 5 mM nitrobenzene or 13 mM benzonitrile plus 1% DMSO left the microtubular structure intact whereas 5 mM nitrobenzene, in absence of DMSO, led to irregular cluster formations. The experiments demonstrate that both nitrobenzene and benzonitrile, in millimolar concentration ranges, may lead to interference with tubulin assembly in a cell-free system. The functionality of the tubulin-kinesin motor protein system was assessed using the microtubule gliding assay. Nitrobenzene affected the gliding velocity in a concentration-dependent manner, starting at about 7.5 micro M and reaching complete inhibition of motility at 30 micro M, whereas benzonitrile up to 200 micro M did not affect the kinesin-driven gliding velocity. The micronucleus assay data demonstrate a chromosomal endpoint of genotoxicity of nitrobenzene and benzonitrile. Aneugenic effects of both compounds occur at remarkably low concentrations, with lowest-effect-concentrations being 0.1 micro M. This points to the relevance of interactions with the cellular spindle apparatus.

show abstract

Procedures for Health Risk Assessment in Europe

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits—Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

The Global Landscape of Occupational Exposure Limits—Implementation of Harmonization Principles to Guide Limit Selection

Assessment of exposure to wheat flour and the shape of its relationship with specific sensitization

Chromosomal genotoxicity of nitrobenzene and benzonitrile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About