2016
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mew042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

TREXMO: A Translation Tool to Support the Use of Regulatory Occupational Exposure Models

Abstract: Occupational exposure models vary significantly in their complexity, purpose, and the level of expertise required from the user. Different parameters in the same model may lead to different exposure estimates for the same exposure situation. This paper presents a tool developed to deal with this concern-TREXMO or TRanslation of EXposure MOdels. TREXMO integrates six commonly used occupational exposure models, namely, ART v.1.5, STOFFENMANAGER(®) v.5.1, ECETOC TRA v.3, MEASE v.1.02.01, EMKG-EXPO-TOOL, and EASE … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
26
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[5,12] In general, the ventilation multiplier Considering that Stoffenmanager and the ART are classified as higher tier exposure assessment tools, [5,17] both are recommended by ECHA for regulatory exposure assessment, [22] and that Stoffenmanager has alone over 32,000 users, [3] the errors is general ventilation multipliers should not be ignored. The studies [5,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] concerning the tools evaluation, validation, applicability, and sensitivity analysis should be revised and corrected before the tools are used in regulatory risk assessment or before implementing them to tools combining different exposure models, such as a Translation Tool to Support the Use of Regulatory Occupational Exposure Models (TREXMO; [31] see also letter to the editors, [31][32][33] ) SUN decision support system, [34] or risk governance tools developed in caLIBERAte. [35] In our opinion, the regulatory exposure modeling should rely only on mathematical models following general physical principles, such as conservation of mass, rather than conceptual models based on non-physical models or exposure determinants.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[5,12] In general, the ventilation multiplier Considering that Stoffenmanager and the ART are classified as higher tier exposure assessment tools, [5,17] both are recommended by ECHA for regulatory exposure assessment, [22] and that Stoffenmanager has alone over 32,000 users, [3] the errors is general ventilation multipliers should not be ignored. The studies [5,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] concerning the tools evaluation, validation, applicability, and sensitivity analysis should be revised and corrected before the tools are used in regulatory risk assessment or before implementing them to tools combining different exposure models, such as a Translation Tool to Support the Use of Regulatory Occupational Exposure Models (TREXMO; [31] see also letter to the editors, [31][32][33] ) SUN decision support system, [34] or risk governance tools developed in caLIBERAte. [35] In our opinion, the regulatory exposure modeling should rely only on mathematical models following general physical principles, such as conservation of mass, rather than conceptual models based on non-physical models or exposure determinants.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This limitation should remind users that the lack of information easily leads to the different tools producing different estimates for the same substance. [35][36][37] In contrast, the exposure parameters requested by the CB tools were generally classied as basic information that can be expected to be recorded, such as the amounts used, dustiness, room volume, and frequency and activity duration. These were readily available from occupational health surveys.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dose of aspirated lead exposure is the daily exposure dose (ADD -average daily dose) calculated using Equation 1. In the ADD calculation, the absorption factor value of 100% was used, because the lead is assumed to reach the alveoli and enter the circulatory system (Savic et al 2016).…”
Section: Hazard Indexmentioning
confidence: 99%