Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on September 19, 2005
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2006 50(2):149-156; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mei054
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2005 British Occupational Hygiene Society Published by Oxford University Press
Original Article |
Margins of Safety Provided by COSHH Essentials and the ILO Chemical Control Toolkit
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7360, USA
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: rmjones{at}berkeley.edu
COSHH Essentials, developed by the UK Health and Safety Executive, and the Chemical Control Toolkit (Toolkit) proposed by the International Labor Organization, are ‘control banding’ approaches to workplace risk management intended for use by proprietors of small and medium-sized businesses. Both systems group chemical substances into hazard bands based on toxicological endpoint and potency. COSSH Essentials uses the European Union's Risk-phrases (R-phrases), whereas the Toolkit uses R-phrases and the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. Each hazard band is associated with a range of airborne concentrations, termed exposure bands, which are to be attained by the implementation of recommended control technologies. Here we analyze the margin of safety afforded by the systems and, for each hazard band, define the minimal margin as the ratio of the minimum airborne concentration that produced the toxicological endpoint of interest in experimental animals to the maximum concentration in workplace air permitted by the exposure band. We found that the minimal margins were always <100, with some ranging to <1, and inversely related to molecular weight. The Toolkit–GHS system generally produced margins equal to or larger than COSHH Essentials, suggesting that the Toolkit–GHS system is more protective of worker health. Although, these systems predict exposures comparable with current occupational exposure limits, we argue that the minimal margins are better indicators of health protection. Further, given the small margins observed, we feel it is important that revisions of these systems provide the exposure bands to users, so as to permit evaluation of control technology capture efficiency.
Keywords: Chemical Control Toolkit, control banding • COSHH Essentials • safety margins
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. M Rappaport Assessing workplace exposures: turning to the past for guidance Occup. Environ. Med., July 1, 2009; 66(7): 429 - 430. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Lavoue, A. Milon, and P. O. Droz Comparison of Indices Proposed as Criteria for Assigning Skin Notation Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2008; 52(8): 747 - 756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Tielemans, D. Noy, J. Schinkel, H. Heussen, D. Van Der Schaaf, J. West, and W. Fransman Stoffenmanager Exposure Model: Development of a Quantitative Algorithm Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2008; 52(6): 443 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. OGDEN Annals of Occupational Hygiene at Volume 50: Many Achievements, a Few Mistakes, and an Interesting Future Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2006; 50(8): 751 - 764. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. MONEY, S. BAILEY, M. SMITH, A. HAY, B. HUDSPITH, D. TOLLEY, J. DOBBIE, and H. JACKSON Evaluation of the Utility and Reliability of COSHH Essentials Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2006; 50(6): 642 - 644. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|