Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Setting Risk-Based Occupational Exposure Limits for Non-Threshold Carcinogens
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.ORCID-id: 0000-0003-0071-3919
2014 (engelsk)Inngår i: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, ISSN 1080-7039, E-ISSN 1549-7860, Vol. 20, nr 5, s. 1329-1344Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Several regulators have recently issued so-called risk-based occupational exposure limits for carcinogenic substances, and also reported estimates of the risk of fatality that exposure to the limit value would give rise to. This practice provides an opportunity to study how differences in the exposure limits set by different regulators are influenced by differences in the scientific judgment (what is the risk at different levels?) and in the policy judgment (how should large risks be accepted?). Based on a broad search, a list was compiled of exposure limits for carcinogens that the respective regulator associates with a numerical risk estimate. For benzene, such data was available from six regulators. The differences in estimates of the risk/exposure relationship and in risk tolerance were about equal in size for benzene, while the range for acceptability was somewhat wider. A similar pattern was observed, although less clearly, for substances with data from only two or three regulators. It is concluded that the science factor and the policy factor both contribute to differences in exposure limits for carcinogens. It was not possible to judge which of these two factors has the larger influence.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
2014. Vol. 20, nr 5, s. 1329-1344
Emneord [en]
science-policy relation, carcinogens, occupational exposure limits, acceptable risk, scientific uncertainty, chemicals regulation
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-127265DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2013.842733ISI: 000333948700013Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84897900701OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-127265DiVA, id: diva2:643765
Forskningsfinansiär
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare
Merknad

QC 20140509

Tilgjengelig fra: 2013-08-28 Laget: 2013-08-28 Sist oppdatert: 2018-01-11bibliografisk kontrollert
Inngår i avhandling
1. Regulatory tools for managing chemicals risk at the workplace
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Regulatory tools for managing chemicals risk at the workplace
2013 (engelsk)Doktoravhandling, med artikler (Annet vitenskapelig)
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.

 

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
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
Emneord
Occupational Diseases, Chemicals, Carcinogens, Risk Management, Regulatory Toxicology, Occupational Exposure Limits, Chemicals Legislations, Risk Assessment, Acceptable Risk
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-127269 (URN)978-91-7501-856-0 (ISBN)
Disputas
2013-09-30, Kapellet, Brinellvägen 6-8, KTH, Stockholm, 10:00 (engelsk)
Opponent
Veileder
Merknad

QC 20130830

Tilgjengelig fra: 2013-08-30 Laget: 2013-08-28 Sist oppdatert: 2018-01-11bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekstScopus

Personposter BETA

Schenk, Linda

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Ding, QianSchenk, LindaHansson, Sven Ove
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 203 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf