Assessing Exposure to Dangerous Substances

Safety and health at work is everyone’s concern. It’s good for you. It’s good for business.
Developing a data-driven method for assessing exposure to dangerous
substances in EU workplaces
 Project management – Lothar Lieck, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA)

2
http://osha.europa.eu
Outline
 Background
 Aims and objectives
 Information sources
 Working strategy
• Overview
• Detail by individual sub-task
 Results
 Limitations
 Perspectives

3
Background

4
Aims
 To inform the development and content of the EU-OSHA Healthy Workplaces Campaign 2018-
19 on dangerous substances (DSs)
 To investigate the feasibility of establishing a scientific method that may be used in similar
exercises in the future

5
Objectives
 Identify the DSs and related industrial sectors that are of greatest
concern
 Develop a list of the most important industries and DSs that can be
scrutinised and prioritised for further selection and in-depth evaluations
 Develop the basis for a scientific method that may be used in similar
exercises in the future
 For a limited number of selected DSs examine quantitative trends in
exposure and use/production for a limited number of DSs

6
Information sources (1)
Project
database
European Working
Conditions Survey
(EWCS) database
EU employment
databases
Substances in
Preparations in
Nordic Countries
(SPIN) database
ECHA list of
registered
substances and
Classification,
Labelling and
Packaging (CLP)
inventory
Production Of
Manufactured Goods
(PRODCOM)
database
Experts

7
 European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS)
• Every 5 years since 1990
• 1,000-3,000 workers / EU country
• Covers a broad range of issues including:
− employment status
− working time duration and organisation
− learning and training
− work-life balance
− earnings and financial security
− work and health and self-reported exposures
• Databases using standardised coding systems for
industries/occupations (i.e. NACE and ISCO)
• Authorised access

8
 EU employment databases
• Structural business statistics (SBS)
• Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JFSQ)
• EU Labour Force Survey (LFS)
• They provide business statistics including:
− demographics (e.g. number of enterprises)
− outputs (e.g. turnover, value added)
− inputs (i.e. labour characteristics, goods and services’ characteristics and
capital input)
• Standardise coding systems for industry/occupations (i.e. NACE and
ISCO)
• Publicly available

9
 Substances in Preparations in Nordic Countries (SPIN)
database
• Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden
• Downstream substance use information including:
−number of products containing the substance
−annual tonnage of use
−industrial and use categories
−presence/absence in consumer products
−semi-quantitative exposure indicators
• Standardised coding systems for substances
−EC number
−CAS number
• Standardised coding for industries (NACE)

10
 The ECHA list of registered substances
• Information from REACH dossiers
• Includes data on substances:
−identity
−classification (CLP criteria)
−use characteristics
−labelling elements
• Standardised coding systems for substances:
−EC number
−CAS number
• Partly standardised coding systems for industries

11
 The Production of Manufactured Goods (PRODCOM)
database
• Survey performed at least annually
• >3,900 products
• Includes data on ‘manufactured goods’:
−value of production sold
−physical volume of production sold
−total production volume (manufactured + exported)
• Standardised coding systems for industries (NACE)
• No codes for substances

12
 Expert scrutiny and evaluation
• Exposure assessors
• Health and safety experts
• Occupational hygienists

13
Working strategy
 Identify the DSs and related industrial sectors that are of
greatest concern
 Develop a list of the most important industries and
substances that can be scrutinised for and selected for
further selection and in-depth evaluations
 Develop the basis for a scientific method that may be used in
similar exercises in the future
 For a limited number of selected DSs examine quantitative
trends in exposure use/production
Task 1
Task 2

14
Working strategy: overview
Sub-task
ST1
ST2
ST3
ST4
ST5
Task 2
Task 1
Task 2

15
Working strategy: ST1
Identifying industries
where exposure to
DSs is relevant
(ST1)
Selecting industries
based on size and
EU presence (ST2)
Identifying DSs
relevant for each of
the selected
industries (ST3)
Identifying DSs with
data on production
and use (ST4)
Rating identified DSs
based on their
importance (ST5)
Selecting the most
important DSs within
industries
 Use of the EWCS 2015 data
• 40,000 participants
• Self-reported work exposure to (items E-I):
− smoke, fumes (e.g. welding fumes), powder or dust (e.g. wood
or mineral dust), etc.
− vapours (e.g. solvents, thinners)
− chemical products or substances (direct contact)
− second-hand tobacco smoke
− infectious materials (e.g. waste, bodily fluids, laboratory
materials/direct contact)
• Analysis by NACE rev 2 codes
 An overall prevalence of ≥30% required to consider an
industry as relevant

16
Working strategy: ST2 Identifying industries
where exposure to
DSs is relevant
(ST1)
based on size and
EU presence (ST2)
Identifying DSs
the selected
industries (ST3)
data on production
and use (ST4)
based on their
importance (ST5)
Selecting the most
industries
 For all relevant industries identified in ST1
 Analysis using EU employment data:
• SBS: manufacturing, construction, trade, service
• LFS: health-related trades
• JSFQ: forestry
• Study period 2008-2015
 Industries selected if:
• present in ≥14 of the EU countries
• total EU workforce was ≥100,000 persons
• not in decline within EU
• not heavily regulated

17
where exposure to
DSs is relevant
(ST1)
based on size and
EU presence (ST2)
Identifying DSs
the selected
industries (ST3)
data on production
and use (ST4)
based on their
importance (ST5)
Selecting the most
industries
 For all selected industries in ST2
 Extract DSs list from ECHA list/CLP
inventory
• Search filters used:
−Properties of concern: “Mutagenic”, “Carcinogenic”,
“Toxic”, “Resp” and “Persistent”
−Sector of use (SU): if overlapping with NACE; if no
overlap then no restriction but with exceptions
 Collate data with SPIN based on CAS number
and NACE rev 2 codes

18
Working strategy: ST4 (1)
where exposure to
DSs is relevant
(ST1)
based on size and
EU presence (ST2)
Identifying DSs
the selected
industries (ST3)
data on production
and use (ST4)
based on their
importance (ST5)
Selecting the most
industries
 Only for DSs present in both ECHA and SPIN
(ST3)
 Analysis using SPIN data
• Study period: 2008-2015
• Analysis by industry (NACE rev 2 code) based on number
of DSs present
• Substances excluded if:
− not present in ≥3 countries
− total volume of use was 0 (i.e. ≤100 kg) for all countries
− When deemed necessary, criteria were relaxed

19
Working strategy: ST4 (2)
where exposure to
DSs is relevant
(ST1)
based on size and
EU presence (ST2)
Identifying DSs
the selected
industries (ST3)
data on production
and use (ST4)
based on their
importance (ST5)
Selecting the most
industries
 Assessment matrix of substances selected
across industries created
 Final list of DSs
 Overlap between final DSs list of substances and
PRODCOM mapped
Industry Dangerous substance
A B C …
A Used Absent Absent …..
B Not used Used Used …..
C Used Absent Used …..
….. ….. ….. ….. …..

20
where exposure to
DSs is relevant
(ST1)
based on size and
EU presence (ST2)
Identifying DSs
the selected
industries (ST3)
data on production
and use (ST4)
based on their
importance (ST5)
Selecting the most
industries
 DSs importance assessed by experts
 Rating by two experts using a 1-3 scale system (3
indicating highest importance)
 Criteria for rating based on:
a.Population: the number of workers potentially
exposed within the specific industry
b.Exposure: the likelihood of exposure occurring
during use/processing within industry
c.Health and socioeconomic impact: the impact of exposure on the
health, working life and social life of the worker
 Disagreements resolved by a third expert previously
unrelated to the project
 Final outputs used to estimate the overall score of importance
(OSI) for every combination of DSs/industry included

21
Working strategy: task 2
where exposure to
DSs is relevant
(ST1)
based on size and
EU presence (ST2)
Identifying DSs
the selected
industries (ST3)
data on production
and use (ST4)
based on their
importance (ST5)
Selecting the most
industries
 Overall scores of importance (OSIs)
• Sum of scores for individual criteria
• Range of values = 3-9
• Used to deliver the final list of DSs selected for analysis of
quantitative trends in exposure and to identify those DSs that are
of utmost importance
 Trend analysis
• Used the study database
• Performed for every substance achieving an OSI ≥6
• Results documented in DSs level 1 summary
 DSs of utmost importance
• Identified by experts
• Involved the level 1 info sheets for DSs with an OSI ≥8

22
Results: overview

23
Results: identifying industries of relevance (ST1)
• EWCS analysis: 33 divisions and class of industries identified
Forestry and logging Manufacture of pharmaceutical
products
Construction
Mining of coal and lignite Manufacture of rubber and
plastic
Construction of buildings
Mining of metal ores Manufacture of non-metallic
mineral products
Civil engineering
Other mining and quarrying Manufacture of basic metals Specialised construction
activities
Mining support activities Manufacture of fabricated metal
products
Trade and repair of motor
vehicles
Manufacture of tobacco
products
Manufacture of machinery and
equipment
Water transport
Manufacture of leather and
related products
Manufacture of other transport
equipment
Veterinary activities
Manufacture of wood products
except furniture
Manufacture of furniture Services to buildings and
landscape activities
Printing and reproduction media Repair and installation of
machinery and equipment
Human health activities
Manufacture of coke and refined
petroleum products
Waste collection, treatment and
disposal
Residential care activities
Manufacture of chemicals Remediation and waste
management services
Other personal service activities

24
Results: selecting industries of relevance (ST2)
 Seven industries excluded:
• Mining of coal and lignite
• Mining of metal ores
• Mining support service activities
• Manufacture of tobacco products
• Construction (unspecified/whole class of sectors)
• Remediation and waste management services
• Manufacturing of pharmaceutical products
 Final selection comprised 26 distinct industry divisions

25
Results: identifying relevant DSs for each industry (ST3/ST4)
 Common DSs between ECHA and SPIN
• 2,820 entries across 24 industries
• For the ‘waste collection and treatment’ and ‘veterinary activities’ industries only
data from experts and literature
 DSs identified by experts and the literature
• 24 entries across 10 industries
 Final list (matrix) contained:
• 319 entries across all 26 industries
−40% of entries in the manufacturing of chemicals and/or trade and
repair of motor vehicles divisions
• 142 individual DSs

26
 Expert rating results
Results: rating and selecting DSs based on importance (ST5)
Overall expert score
Number of entries
(DSs / industry
combinations) %
3 120 37
4 34 11
5 50 16
6 74 23
7 22 7
8 10 3
9 9 3
Total 319 100

27
Results: documenting quantitative developments in use and exposure
 Level 1 dangerous substance data summary sheets
• 115 entries, 68 individual DSs
• Different groups of DSs cover:

28
Results: level 1 dangerous substance data summary sheets

29
Results: identifying and selecting the DSs of utmost importance (1)
 15 unique DSs (19 entries) with an (overall score of importance) OSI ≥8
Heavy metals — i.e. cadmium,
chromium, lead, arsenic, etc.
Microbial cell wall agents, mostly
endotoxins
Pesticides and fungicides Solvents
Wood dust 3-Isocyanatomethyl-3,5,5-
trimethylcyclohexyl isocyanate, oligomers
Asbestos Stoddard solvent
Mineral dust containing crystalline
silica (or quartz)
Sulphuric acid
Lubricating oils (petroleum), C24-
50, solvent-extd, dewaxed,
hydrogenated
Allergens including animal allergens
Nickel Ammonia, aqueous solution
Fungi and fungal spores Solvent extracted

30
Results: identifying and selecting the DSs of most importance (2)
• Experts — five proposals for most important DSs
1) Asbestos (intentional and accidental exposure) in
construction
2) Crystalline silica (quartz) in construction, mining, and
manufacturing industries
3) Non-infectious biological agents, particularly microbial
cell wall and fungal agents, in the waste industry or
more widely
4) Solvents in printing both in the printing industry and
in a broader perspective
5) Wood dust in forestry, construction, and furniture
industries

31
 Two selected as the most important DSs:
• Crystalline silica (quartz) in construction, mining,
and manufacturing industries
− Cross-industry issue
− SHECAN study results
• ~5,300,000 workers exposed in 2006
• >5,000 annual deaths attributed to OE
− Construction not part of European Network for Silica

32
• Non-infectious biological agents, particularly
microbial cell wall and fungal agents, in the waste
industry or more widely
− No OEL values in place
− Agents with strong pro-inflammatory/ allergenic potential
− Large socioeconomic impact
− Exposure is difficult to control
− Recycling — a new industry in constant growth

33
Results: crystalline silica (quartz)
 Put an example snapshot
Source of data: structural business statistics (SBS)
Employment data for Europe
Use data for quartz in Nordic countries
Source of data: Substances in Preparations in Nordic countries (SPIN)

34
Some limitations of the methodology
 Analysis of quantitative developments based mainly on Nordic (SPIN)
data
 PRODCOM data not fully mapped
 Process-generated and biologically originated DSs not covered by SPIN
and PRODCOM
 Observation period was limited to 8 years
 Strict selection criteria
 Only UK-based experts involved in assessments

35
Suggested updates

36
Perspectives (1)
 Established methodology can:
• be re-used (with/without adaptations) in similar exercises in the future
• form an initial platform for further developing and establishing a more
permanent, scientifically sound and robust data-driven surveillance system on
patterns of manufacturing and use of and exposure to dangerous substances
in the EU

37
Perspectives (2)
 Such a surveillance system would:
• Allow constant monitoring of trends in use, manufacture and exposure for
known or suspected dangerous substances in EU industries. This may
enable early warnings and targeted actions for arising exposure issues.
• Enable better planning and policy concerning substitution or restrictions in
use for emerging dangerous substances. Requires harmonisation of financial
figures available.
• Provide regular updates to existing information systems and monitoring tools
such as CAREX and SHECAN. This will assist future burden of disease
analysis at national and EU level.

38
Conclusions
 A methodology providing the basis for building a surveillance system for
monitoring quantitative developments concerning the manufacturing and
use of and exposure to dangerous substances in the future was
prototyped.
 Initial implementation of the method allowed several DSs, including those
used in industries currently of concern to the health of workers in EU
workplaces, to be identified.
 Potential limitations have been identified and a path with next steps and
improvements has been put forward.

39
Thank you for listening
Acknowledgments
With thanks to:
Joannis Basinas, Richard Graveling, Ken Dixon and Peter
Ritchie — Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM)

Assessing Exposure to Dangerous Substances

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (16)

Ähnlich wie Assessing Exposure to Dangerous Substances

Ähnlich wie Assessing Exposure to Dangerous Substances (20)

Mehr von European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - EU-OSHA

Mehr von European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - EU-OSHA (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Assessing Exposure to Dangerous Substances

Hinweis der Redaktion