Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Regulatory tools for managing chemicals risk at the workplace
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
2013 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
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.

 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2013. , x, 38 p.
Series
Theses in Risk and Safety from the Division of Philosophy at the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1654-627X ; 10
Keyword [en]
Occupational Diseases, Chemicals, Carcinogens, Risk Management, Regulatory Toxicology, Occupational Exposure Limits, Chemicals Legislations, Risk Assessment, Acceptable Risk
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-127269ISBN: 978-91-7501-856-0 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-127269DiVA: diva2:644252
Public defence
2013-09-30, Kapellet, Brinellvägen 6-8, KTH, Stockholm, 10:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

QC 20130830

Available from: 2013-08-30 Created: 2013-08-28 Last updated: 2013-08-30Bibliographically approved
List of papers
1. Occupational diseases in the People’s Republic of China between 2000 and 2010
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Occupational diseases in the People’s Republic of China between 2000 and 2010
2013 (English)In: American Journal of Industrial Medicine, ISSN 0271-3586, E-ISSN 1097-0274, Vol. 56, no 12, 1423-1432 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: This study provides a description and analysis of the development of occupational diseases in China as recorded in the official statistics during the period 2000-2010, identifies major challenges, and explores possible solutions for prevention and control. Methods: In-depth textual analysis and data analysis of China's annual national reports of occupational diseases, as well as of corresponding policy and regulation documents. Results: The number of recorded cases of occupational diseases increased rapidly in China between 2000 and 2010. Pneumoconiosis was the most prevalent category of occupational diseases. Chemical poisonings accounted for 13% of the cases of occupational diseases. Conclusions: Difficulties in diagnosis and inefficient surveillance are major impediments to the mitigation of occupational diseases. The new definition of occupational disease has provided an opportunity to enlarge the Catalogue of Occupational Diseases. Improved coordination of the different chemical regulations meant to protect human health may also facilitate the prevention of occupational disease.

Keyword
occupational disease, pneumoconiosis, chemical poisoning, occupational hazards, policy, chemicals regulations
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-127264 (URN)10.1002/ajim.22245 (DOI)000330040200006 ()2-s2.0-84887254848 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20130830

Available from: 2013-08-28 Created: 2013-08-28 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved
2. Occupational exposure limits in Europe and Asia – Continued divergence or global harmonization?
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Occupational exposure limits in Europe and Asia – Continued divergence or global harmonization?
2011 (English)In: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, ISSN 0273-2300, E-ISSN 1096-0295, Vol. 61, no 3, 296-309 p.Article in journal (Refereed) 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2011
Keyword
ACGIH; Asia; Chemical regulation; Harmonization; Occupational exposure limits; Risk management; The European union
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-47724 (URN)10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.08.011 (DOI)000297441700005 ()2-s2.0-80855123617 (Scopus ID)
Note

QC 20111114

Available from: 2011-11-11 Created: 2011-11-11 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved
3. Setting Risk-Based Occupational Exposure Limits for Non-Threshold Carcinogens
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Setting Risk-Based Occupational Exposure Limits for Non-Threshold Carcinogens
2014 (English)In: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, ISSN 1080-7039, E-ISSN 1549-7860, Vol. 20, no 5, 1329-1344 p.Article in journal (Refereed) 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.

Keyword
science-policy relation, carcinogens, occupational exposure limits, acceptable risk, scientific uncertainty, chemicals regulation
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-127265 (URN)10.1080/10807039.2013.842733 (DOI)000333948700013 ()2-s2.0-84897900701 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare
Note

QC 20140509

Available from: 2013-08-28 Created: 2013-08-28 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved
4. Are the new Chinese chemicals regulations catching up with REACH?
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Are the new Chinese chemicals regulations catching up with REACH?
2012 (English)In: Toxicology Letters, ISSN 0378-4274, E-ISSN 1879-3169Article in journal, Meeting abstract (Other academic) Published
Keyword
Chemical regulations, REACH, CLP, China, EU, Harmonization
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-127266 (URN)10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.640 (DOI)000305173900579 ()
Conference
48th Congress of the European-Societies-of-Toxicology (EUROTOX), JUN 17-20, 2012, Stockholm, Sweden
Note

Updated from "Submitted" to "Published". QC 20140124

Available from: 2013-08-28 Created: 2013-08-28 Last updated: 2017-08-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Regulatory tools for managing chemicals risk at the workplace(870 kB)703 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 870 kBChecksum SHA-512
48cbad7bc6991fbc841545eecdd543bad6abdd33c112f7cdf4c210f46e679e3ba00a80a70d43fdc60bfbaf62516f96ecbd58dea81218a91df120dcf72ca38cc1
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ding, Qian
By organisation
Philosophy
Environmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 703 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 348 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf