Ändra sökning
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Occupational exposure limits in Europe and Asia – Continued divergence or global harmonization?
KTH, Skolan för arkitektur och samhällsbyggnad (ABE), Filosofi och teknikhistoria, Filosofi.
KTH, Skolan för arkitektur och samhällsbyggnad (ABE), Filosofi och teknikhistoria, Filosofi.ORCID-id: 0000-0003-3799-4814
KTH, Skolan för arkitektur och samhällsbyggnad (ABE), Filosofi och teknikhistoria, Filosofi.
KTH, Skolan för arkitektur och samhällsbyggnad (ABE), Filosofi och teknikhistoria, Filosofi.ORCID-id: 0000-0003-0071-3919
2011 (Engelska)Ingår i: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, ISSN 0273-2300, E-ISSN 1096-0295, Vol. 61, nr 3, s. 296-309Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat) Published
Abstract [en]

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are used as a risk management tool aiming at protecting against negative health effects of occupational exposure to harmful substances. The systems of OEL development have not been standardized and divergent outcomes have been reported. However some harmonization processes have been initiated, primarily in Europe. This study investigates the state of harmonization in a global context. The OEL systems of eight Asian and seventeen European organizations are analyzed with respect to similarities and differences in: (1) the system for determining OELs, (2) the selection of substances, and (3) the levels of the OELs. The majority of the investigated organizations declare themselves to have been influenced by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and in many cases this can be empirically confirmed. The EU harmonization process is reflected in trends towards convergence within the EU. However, comparisons of Asian and European organizations provide no obvious evidence that OELs are becoming globally harmonized.

Ort, förlag, år, upplaga, sidor
Elsevier, 2011. Vol. 61, nr 3, s. 296-309
Nyckelord [en]
ACGIH; Asia; Chemical regulation; Harmonization; Occupational exposure limits; Risk management; The European union
Nationell ämneskategori
Arbetsmedicin och miljömedicin
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-47724DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.08.011ISI: 000297441700005Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-80855123617OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-47724DiVA, id: diva2:456069
Anmärkning

QC 20111114

Tillgänglig från: 2011-11-11 Skapad: 2011-11-11 Senast uppdaterad: 2018-01-12Bibliografiskt granskad
Ingår i avhandling
1. Regulatory tools for managing chemicals risk at the workplace
Öppna denna publikation i ny flik eller fönster >>Regulatory tools for managing chemicals risk at the workplace
2013 (Engelska)Doktorsavhandling, sammanläggning (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
Abstract [en]

This thesis focuses on exacerbating chemicals risk in workplaces under the background of rapid industrialization in developing countries. The overall aim is to investigate the development of regulatory tools which aim at minimizing the health risks from chemical substances in the workplace. The contents of the thesis are divided into three sections: the profile of occupational diseases in China (paper I), occupational exposure limits (paper II and III), and comparison between chemicals regulat ions in Europe and China (paper IV).

Paper I presents an analysis of the development of occupational diseases in China between 2000 and 2010. The number of recorded cases of occupational diseases increased rapidly in China during this period and the majority of cases were attributable to dust and other chemicals exposures. Difficulties in diagnosis and inefficient surveillance are major impediments to the proper identification and mitigation of occupational diseases. Migrant workers are extremely vulnerable to occupational hazards.

Paper II investigates the state of harmonization of OELs between twenty-five OEL systems in Europe and Asia. The majority of the investigated organizations declare themselves to have been influenced by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and in many cases this can be empirically confirmed. However, large international differences still exist in substance selection and in the level of OELs among organizations.

Paper III explores the setting of risk-based OELs on non-threshold carcinogens. Relatively few agencies set risk-based OELs. Differences exist in policy, both regarding the magnitude of risk considered as tolerable or acceptable and whether a general risk level or case-by-case substance-specific risk levels are determined. In regards to the level of the OELs both differences in science and policy contribute, and it was not possible to determine which has the larger influence.

Paper III explores the setting of risk-based OELs on non-threshold carcinogens. Relatively few agencies set risk-based OELs. Differences exist in policy, both regarding the magnitude of risk considered as tolerable or acceptable and whether a general risk level or case-by-case substance-specific risk levels are determined. In regards to the level of the OELs both differences in science and policy contribute, and it was not possible to determine which has the larger influence.

Paper IV systematically compares the regulation systems for chemicals in the EU and China in terms of substances covered, requirement on information, risk assessment and risk management. It shows that the European and Chinese chemicals legislations are remarkably similar.The differences are larger in terms of substance coverage and data requirements than in terms of risk assessment and management. Substitution of hazardous substances is driven more by updates of the EU regulatory system than of the Chinese system.

 

Ort, förlag, år, upplaga, sidor
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2013. s. x, 38
Serie
Theses in Risk and Safety from the Division of Philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1654-627X ; 10
Nyckelord
Occupational Diseases, Chemicals, Carcinogens, Risk Management, Regulatory Toxicology, Occupational Exposure Limits, Chemicals Legislations, Risk Assessment, Acceptable Risk
Nationell ämneskategori
Arbetsmedicin och miljömedicin
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-127269 (URN)978-91-7501-856-0 (ISBN)
Disputation
2013-09-30, Kapellet, Brinellvägen 6-8, KTH, Stockholm, 10:00 (Engelska)
Opponent
Handledare
Anmärkning

QC 20130830

Tillgänglig från: 2013-08-30 Skapad: 2013-08-28 Senast uppdaterad: 2018-01-11Bibliografiskt granskad

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltext saknas i DiVA

Övriga länkar

Förlagets fulltextScopus

Personposter BETA

Schenk, Linda

Sök vidare i DiVA

Av författaren/redaktören
Ding, QianSchenk, LindaMalkiewicz, KatarzynaHansson, Sven Ove
Av organisationen
Filosofi
I samma tidskrift
Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology
Arbetsmedicin och miljömedicin

Sök vidare utanför DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetricpoäng

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 206 träffar
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf