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
How consistent are the Derived No-Effect Levels (DNELs) in the European REACH legislation?
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy. Karolinska Institutet.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3799-4814
Karolinska Institutet.
Karolinska Institutet.
2013 (English)Conference paper, Poster (with or without abstract) (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The new European REACH regulation places more responsibility than hitherto on manufacturers and importers of chemicals (“industry”) to provide safety information. An important part of the development of a REACH Chemical Safety Report is derivation of Derived No-Effect Levels (DNELs) which represent “the level of exposure above which humans should not be exposed”. In order to study the consistency, we compared DNELs presented by industry at the website of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) with those derived by us in our interpretation of the REACH guidance (Chapter R.8: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health, http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r8_en.pdf). There are various DNELs, e.g. representing short-term, long-term, inhalation and dermal exposure, as well as workers and the whole population. We limited our study to “worker-DNELs long-term” for inhalation route as they resemble occupational exposure limits (OELs). We found 24 substances for which (1) such DNELs were given in the ECHA chemical database (http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances) and (2) a scientific basis for OEL had been published by the Swedish Criteria Group within the last 15 years in the serial Arbete och Hälsa (https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/3194?locale=en). The results were startling, as the DNELs given by industry were 2.4 to 1,100 times higher than ours for 23 substances and 260,000 times higher for trimellitic anhydride. Some of the discrepancy is explained by different choice of key studies/points of departure (PODs). However, the choice of assessment factors (AFs) also differed markedly, as industry’s total AFs (calculated implicitly from the POD and the DNEL) were 1-230 times lower than ours. We conclude that although the REACH guidance is relatively detailed, many arbitrary choices remain that will influence the DNEL. A major problem is that little advice is given on when and how to depart from default AFs.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013.
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-136209OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-136209DiVA: diva2:675577
Conference
52nd Annual Meeting & ToxExpo (SOT 2013); San Antonio, Texas, USA, 10-14 March, 2013
Note

QC 20140619

Available from: 2013-12-04 Created: 2013-12-04 Last updated: 2014-06-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Authority records BETA

Schenk, Linda

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Schenk, Linda
By organisation
Philosophy
Environmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 432 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