Evaluation of Stoffenmanager® and ART for Estimating Occupational Inhalation Exposures to Volatile Liquids

Abstract

AbstractIn practice, workers often handle the same chemical(s) of interest under different control measures (e.g. local ventilation, enclosed system) during a full shift. Stoffenmanager® allows users to predict either task-based or full-shift exposures. However, most previous studies evaluated the tool by comparing task-based exposures with measured exposures. Also, limited evaluation studies of the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) with the Bayesian approach (ART+B) are available, requiring additional evaluation studies. The performance of Stoffenmanager® and ART with and without the Bayesian approach was evaluated with measured full-shift exposures to volatile liquids in terms of accuracy, precision, and conservatism. Forty-two exposure situation scenarios (including 251 exposures), developed based on job tasks and chemicals handled during tasks from workplaces, were used to generate full-shift estimates. The estimates were then compared with measured exposures using various comparison methods. Overall, Stoffenmanager® appeared to be the most accurate among the testing tools, while ART+B was the most precise. The percentage of measured exposures exceeding the tools’ 90th percentile estimates (%M>T) demonstrated that Stoffenmanager® (16%M>T) and ART+B (13%M>T) were more conservative than ART (41%M>T). When the 90% upper confidence limit of the 90th percentile estimate was considered, the level of conservatism changed from low (41%M>T) to medium (17%M>T) for ART and from medium (13%M>T) to high (0.8%M>T) for ART+B. The findings of this study indicate that no single tool would work for all ESs. Thus, it is recommended that users select a tool based on the performance results of three components (i.e. accuracy, precision, and conservatism), not depending on one or two components. The strength of this study is that the required tools’ input parameters were obtained during the sample collection to minimize assumptions for many input parameters. In addition, unlike other previous studies, multiple subtasks, which happen often in workplaces, were incorporated in this study. Nevertheless, the present study did not cover all activities listed in the tools and was limited to volatile liquids, suggesting further studies cover other exposure categories (e.g. solid, metal) and diverse activities.