IOHA

International OccupationalHygiene Association

IOHA Newsletter & Technical Updates

8th International Control Banding Workshop –Control banding and beyond
INTRODUCTION

for, the tool package; b) improvement in accuracy of estimated

There are 2.5 billion workers around the world who have noexposure by combining model estimates with measurements,

access to health and safety professionals. Control bandinge.g. using a Bayesian statistical framework as pioneered in(CB) strategies, which can help prevent work-related illness

the ART; c) working towards having ‘many tools’ but a single

and injury for those without professional support, have grown

exposure model; and d) finding ways to ‘nudge’ users towards

rapidly over the last 20 years. Originally, CB was conceived aslower exposures by suggesting how they can modify their work

an action-oriented qualitative risk assessment strategy, offering

processes by adopting a higher band.

solutions and suggested control measures to users throughWouter Fransman, from TNO in the Netherlands, spoke‘toolkits’. During the last decade, CB has gone beyond its

about the accuracy and reliability of exposure models. Ongoing

traditional qualitative approach, with some chemical CB tools,development, adjustment and recalibration of the tools withsuch as Stoffenmanager® and EMKG-Expo-Tool, providing

new measurement data are essential to ensure adequate

quantitative exposure assessments. Other quantitative chemical

characterisation and control of worker exposure to hazardous

exposure assessments tools, such as the Advanced REACH

substances. He ended with a vision of the future, where CB tools

Tool (ART), ECETOC TRA and MEASE, also became available.

could incorporate measurement data from real-time sensors,

It has also been shown that merely ‘offering’ a CB tool, without

and where information could be provided directly to workers

providing active support, does not automatically result in its use

via a cellphone app that would act as a ‘personal job coach’.

or appropriate use by small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

The final talk, by Wes Chase from the Lawrence Livermore

For successful implementation of CB-and-beyond strategies,

National Laboratory (LLNL), addressed the quantitative valida-aspects other than technical model reliability issues need totion of the CB Nanotool. This is one of the new tools that has

be covered.

been developed specifically to provide advice for organisations

The 8th International Control Banding Workshop, held inusing or producing nanomaterials. The tool was evaluated at

Washington, D.C. as part of the International Occupational

LLNL, using a variety of quantitative measurement methods.

Hygiene Association (IOHA) 2018 Conference (24-26The CB Nanotool is now a required element of the LLNL

September 2018), discussed the complete picture of success

Nanotechnology Safety Program.

and failure factors of CB-and-beyond strategies. A full report isavailable on the Occupational Health Southern Africa website(www.occhealth.co.za).

Session 2: Evaluation of REACH tier 1 and 1.5 tools– the ETEAM study: follow up by tool owners
At the 7th CB Workshop, results were presented on the ETEAM

199

WORKSHOP SESSIONS
Session 1: History, implementation and future ofcontrol banding

project (“Evaluation of tier 1 exposure assessment models

The meeting was opened by the IOHA President, Andrea

was given to tool owners for further improvement of their tools.

Hiddinga, and followed by the opening keynote lecture byIn Session 2, tool owners gave an update.

used under REACH”) on operational analysis and uncertainty
between user variability and external validation. Clear advice

John Cherrie (Institute of Occupational Medicine and Heriot-Martin Tischer (BAuA) previewed the new EMKG-EXPO-

Watt University, UK). He provided some background on theTOOL software (beta version, downloadable from https://www.

origins of CB in the 1990s as a way for the regulator in Britain

baua.de/EN/Topics/Work-design/Hazardous-substances/to provide simple advice to SMEs. This initiative resulted in

REACH-assessment-unit/EMKG-Expo-Tool.html). He also

the COSHH-Essentials tool (http://coshh-essentials.org.uk).

presented a validation study of control guidance sheets for

He highlighted the need for research to validate tools, both inintermediate bulk container filling and emptying, and drum fillingterms of accuracy and reliability, and to verify the effectivenesswith organic liquids. To raise awareness about the correct designof CB tools in real workplaces. Four areas of focus were sug-and use of these control measures, BAuA provides videos andgested for developers: a) integration of training in, and supporta manual for good working practice.

Vol 25 No 6   November/December 2019

Occupational Health Southern Africa

www.occhealth.co.zaStoffenmanager® (www.stoffenmanager.com). Underpinned

Session 4: Evaluation of quantitative exposure
modelswith ~6300 measurements (ETEAM and later external validation

Emily Lee (NIOSH) spoke about external validation of higherstudies), he concluded that Stoffenmanager® is a balanced,

tier exposure assessment tools used under the EU REACH

robust and sufficiently conservative tool. To reduce the between-Regulations. These data showed that the ART under-estimateduser variability, Cosanta provides additional support such as

exposure levels for liquids with vapour pressure > 10 Pa while,training (including train the trainer), consultancy, webinars,

in the same situations, Stoffenmanager® 7 appeared to perform

instruction movies, a manual, and peer-reviewed user sessions.

more consistently with an appropriate level of conservatism. The

Henri Heussen (Cosanta) presented the improvements in

The last speaker, Daniel Vetter (ERBC), explained how

ECETOC TRA v3 appeared to lack conservatism.

MEASE 1 can be used for exposure assessment for metals

Shao-Zu Huang, from the National Taiwan University inand inorganic substances. The tool is downloadable fromTaipei, reported on an evaluation of Stoffenmanager® 7 inhttps://www.ebrc.de/industrial-chemicals-reach/projects-and-Taiwan. Measurement data on solvents and exposure situations

references/mease.php. In the development of MEASE 2, awere collected from past exposure reports from the Taiwaneserefinement of the underlying initial exposure estimates will be

Labour Inspection. There was a tendency to over-estimate

made (external validation), additional risk management mea-in low concentration scenarios and to under-estimate in highsures (RMMs) will be incorporated, a PROC selection guide willconcentration scenarios. When using the default 90-percentile,

be added to reduce between-user variability, and a report gen-Stoffenmanager® over-estimated all situations, demonstrating

erator will be included. Furthermore, an interface with Chesar

an appropriate level of conservatism. Incorporating Bayesian(the European Chemicals Agency Chemical Safety Assessment

statistics resulted in more precise estimates.

tool) will be implemented.

International Occupational
Hygiene Association

Hanna Landberg (Lund University, Sweden) presented
a case-study evaluation of the risk assessment approach

Session 3: Hazard banding/occupational exposure
bandingof the REACH legislation, using exposure models (ART 1.5,Different terms for the same phenomenon are used in thequestion the generic exposure scenarios (ES) recommended

European Union (EU), United States and other parts of theunder the REACH legislation. She concluded that downstream

world. Likewise, different hazard banding engines are used

users may get better estimates by assessing their own ES,

to derive the bands from the H-phrases, e.g. by the National

especially for chemicals with low derived no-effect levels

Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), COSHH(DNEL) and high vapour pressure. To decrease the numberand Stoffenmanager®. In some cases, industry has developedof falsely identified safe scenarios, she suggested that asses-

its own hazard banding schemes.

sors use Stoffenmanager® as a tier 1 model instead of theTheo Scheffers (TSAC) pleaded for the alignment andECETOC TRA 3.1 and Stoffenmanager® 6.1). The data put in

ECETOC TRA.

improvement of hazard banding/occupational exposure bandto compare and align the different HB/OEB engines, although

Plenary discussion: harmonisation of models andhazard banding schemes?

the owners of the engines showed little interest in working on

A lively discussion on harmonisation of models and hazard

this issue.

banding schemes ensued. Although, from a professional stance,ing (HB/OEB). He presented a scientific strength score method

Dorothea Koppisch (IFA) presented a hazard banding

no one could reasonably be opposed to harmonisation, several

scheme as a non-occupational exposure level surrogate based

hurdles were identified. In the EU, where model development

on a globally harmonised system (GHS). This scheme has been

is driven primarily by ECHA and the REACH Regulations, tool

peer reviewed, published and implemented in Stoffenmanager®

owners participate in dialogues to describe the differences

7.0, replacing the original COSHH-Essentials hazard bands. It

between the tools. The meeting considered that this could beis based on using the safety data sheet (SDS) as the primarya first step towards harmonisation. There was also a discussion

source of information, is exposure route specific, and includes

about IOHA taking an active role in harmonisation. Most were ineye damage, inhalation, skin damage and percutaneous absorp-

favour of some kind of involvement. Discussions will continue

tion, and takes account of dilution of the product during handling.

at IOHA 2020 in Korea.

Finally, Thomas J Lentz (NIOSH) presented an overview
of the NIOSH OEB Process. The guidance and strategy are

Report by:described in a NIOSH guidance document; an online e-tool has

Henri Heussen

also been developed. The OEB provides a series of concrete

Cosanta BV, the Netherlands

steps to guide users through the evaluation of health hazard

e-mail: henri.heussen@cosanta.nl

information and identification of the appropriate occupational

John Cherrie

exposure band from among five categories, based on severity

Institute of Occupational Medicine and Heriot-Wattof health outcomes (bands A to E, where band A is the highest

University, UK

air concentrations, and band E the lowest).

Occupational Health Southern Africa

www.occhealth.co.za

e-mail: john.cherrie@iom-world.org

Vol 25 No 6   November/December 2019200