Evaluation of Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials Model by Measuring Occupational Exposure in a Chemical Production Industry
محورهای موضوعی :
Masoomeh Vahabi Shekarloo
1
(Student Research Committee, Department of Occupational Health and Safety, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
Seyed Mohammad Sadat
2
(Department of Occupational Health and Safety, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
Zahra Moradpour
3
(Department of Occupational Health and Safety, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
Rezvan Zendehdel
4
(Department of Occupational Health and Safety, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
کلید واژه: COSHH Essentials, Predicted exposure range, Small enterprises, Control banding,
چکیده مقاله :
Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials is a simple, user-friendly matrix that provides risk-control solutions. Considering a large number of small enterprises under 25 workers in Iran and the lack of a suitable control banding tool, the COSHH Essentials can be considered an appropriate option. The purpose of the present experimental semi qualitative study was to evaluate the validity of the COSHH Essentials tool. Six processes were selected from a chemical products industry, including the production of silicone glue, polishing, PVC glue, Grease, Twin glue filling, and quality control. Amorphous silica and toluene concentrations were monitored using NIOSH 0600 and NIOSH 1501 in the ambient air of operators. The predicted exposure range (PER) was obtained by combining the control strategies available at the sampling time with exposure predictor (EP) bands in the COSHH Essentials, then compared to silica and toluene concentrations in the air.All exposure data were within the PER for amorphous silica dust and lower or within the PER for toluene. Compared to the acceptable concentration range in hazard bands, the threshold limit value (TLV) for respirable dust is within the acceptable concentration range, while toluene TLV exceeded it. COSHH Essentials is a conservative and safe tool, especially in liquids. Due to its simplicity, employers and health center experts can use the COSHH tool successfully for small enterprises or as a screening tool before a comprehensive risk assessment.
Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials is a simple, user-friendly matrix that provides risk-control solutions. Considering a large number of small enterprises under 25 workers in Iran and the lack of a suitable control banding tool, the COSHH Essentials can be considered an appropriate option. The purpose of the present experimental semi qualitative study was to evaluate the validity of the COSHH Essentials tool. Six processes were selected from a chemical products industry, including the production of silicone glue, polishing, PVC glue, Grease, Twin glue filling, and quality control. Amorphous silica and toluene concentrations were monitored using NIOSH 0600 and NIOSH 1501 in the ambient air of operators. The predicted exposure range (PER) was obtained by combining the control strategies available at the sampling time with exposure predictor (EP) bands in the COSHH Essentials, then compared to silica and toluene concentrations in the air.All exposure data were within the PER for amorphous silica dust and lower or within the PER for toluene. Compared to the acceptable concentration range in hazard bands, the threshold limit value (TLV) for respirable dust is within the acceptable concentration range, while toluene TLV exceeded it. COSHH Essentials is a conservative and safe tool, especially in liquids. Due to its simplicity, employers and health center experts can use the COSHH tool successfully for small enterprises or as a screening tool before a comprehensive risk assessment.
1. Dehghan S.F., Mehrifar Y., Ardalan A., 2019. The relationship between exposure to lead-containing welding fumes and the levels of reproductive hormones. Ann of Glob Health. 85(1). doi: 10.5334/aogh.2617
2. Health and Safety Executive, Health and Safety at Work: Summary Statistics for Great Britain. https://www.hse.gov. uk/statistics/ (Accessed May 13, 2021).
3. Cao Y., Zou H., Zhang M., Xu L., Ren H., Wang P., Yuan W., Shao X., Zhou Z., Xu Q., 2022. Evaluation of strategies for the occupational health risk assessment of chemical toxicants in the workplace based on a quantitative analysis model. Front Public Health. 10, 1035065.
4. Zendehdel R., Vahabi M., 2022. Formaldehyde carcinogenicity risk assessment using benchmark doses approach based on genotoxic effects in occupational exposure. Journalof Chemical Health Risks. 12(1), 7-13.
5. Wang S.-M., Wu T.N., Juang Y.J., Dai Y.T., Tsai P.J., Chen C.Y., 2013. Developing a semi-quantitative occupational risk prediction model for chemical exposures and its application to a national chemical exposure databank. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 10(8), 3157-3171.
6. Vaughan N.P., Rajan-Sithamparanadarajah R., 2017. An assessment of the robustness of the COSHH-Essentials (CE) target airborne concentration ranges 15 years on, and their usefulness for determining control measures. Ann Work Expo Health. 61(3), 270-283.
7. Mastrantonio R., Scatigna M., D’Abramo M., Martinez V., Paoletti A., Fabiani L., 2020. Experimental application of semi-ouantitative methods for the assessment of occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in research laboratories. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 13, 1929.
8. Zeverdegani S. K., Rismanchian M., Mehrifar Y., 2020. Estimation of inhalation exposure to metals among welders of a steel company using MEASE model as a screening tool for estimates of occupational exposure. Int J Model Identif Control. 34(2), 163-170.
9. European Communities. 2005. The new SME definition: User guide and model declaration. https://www.eusmecentre.org.cn/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/SME-Definition.pdf (Accessed May 06, 2021).
10. Zalk D.M., West E., Nelson D.I., 2001. Control banding: background, evolution, and application: Patty's Industrial Hygiene, 7rd ed., Wiley & Sons: New York. pp. 1-37.
11. Fleury D., Fayet G., Vignes A., Henry F., Frejafon E., 2013. Nanomaterials risk assessment in the process industries: evaluation and application of current control banding methods. Chem Eng Trans. 31, 949-954.
12. Naumann B.D., Sargent E.V., Starkman B.S., Fraser W.J., Becker G.T., Kirk G.D., 1996. Performance-based exposure control limits for pharmaceutical active ingredients. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 57(1), 33-42.
13. Garrod A., Evans P., Davy C., 2007. Risk management measures for chemicals: the “COSHH essentials” approach. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 17(1), S48-S54.
14. Kim M.U., Shin S., Byeon S.H., 2015. Comparison of CHARM and COSHH essentials for CMR chemicals. J Occup Health. DOI:10.1539/joh.14-0253-OA
15. Tischer M., Bredendiek-Kämper S., Poppek U., 2003. Evaluation of the HSE COSHH Essentials exposure predictive model on the basis of BAuA field studies and existing substances exposure data. Ann Occup Hyg. 47(7), 557-569.
16. Lee E.G., Slaven J., Bowen R.B., Harper M., 2011. Evaluation of the COSHH Essentials model with a mixture of organic chemicals at a medium-sized paint producer. Ann Occup Hyg. 55(1), 16-29.
17. Kimbrough L.J., Oestenstad R.K., Beasley T.M., 2020. Evaluation of the exposure prediction component of Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Essentials. J Occup Environ Hyg. 17(2-3), 97-108.
18. Laranjeira P., Rebelo M., 2017. Control Banding—Qualitative risk assessment system for chemical handling tasks: A review. Occup Safety Hyg. 521-524.
19. Lee E.G., Harper M., Bowen R.B., Slaven J., 2009. Evaluation of COSHH essentials: methylene chloride, isopropanol, and acetone exposures in a small printing plant. Ann Occup Hyg. 53(5), 463-474.
20. Jones R.M., Nicas M., 2005. Evaluation of COSHH essentials for vapor degreasing and bag filling operations. Ann Occup Hyg. 50(2), 137-147.
21. Tischer M., Bredendiek-KÄmper S., Poppek U., Packroff R., 2009. How safe is control banding? Integrated evaluation by comparing OELs with measurement data and using monte carlo simulation. Ann Occup Hyg. 53(5), 449-462.
22. Zalk D.M., Nelson D.I., 2008. History and evolution of control banding: a review. J Occup Environ Hyg. 5(5), 330-346.
23. Taheri Namoghi M., 2006. Surveying the condition of occupational safety and hygiene in manufacturing and technical trade units in Sabzevar. Med Sci J Islam Azad Univ. 16(2), 113-118.
24. Jahangiri M., Azmon H., Daneshvar A., Keshmiri F., Khaleghi H., Besharati A., Daneshvar S., Hassanipour S., Malakoutikhah M., 2019. Occupational health problems and safety conditions among small and medium-sized enterprises: A cross-sectional study in Shiraz, Iran. Ann Glob Health. 85(1), 51.
25. Ribeiro M.G., Walter Filho R., 2006. Risk assessment of chemicals in foundries: the international chemical toolkit pilot-project. J Hazard Mater. 136(3), 432-437.
26. Ashley K., O'Connor P.F., 2017. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM). https:// www. cdc.gov/ niosh/nmam/ 5th_edition_web_book.html (Accessed May 13, 2021).
27. Maidment S.C., 1998. Occupational hygiene considerations in the development of a structured approach to select chemical control strategies. Ann Occup Hyg. 42(6), 391-400.
28. Russell R., Maidment S., Brooke I., Topping M., 1998. An introduction to a UK scheme to help small firms control health risks from chemicals. Ann Occup Hyg. 42(6), 367-376.
29. Hashimoto H., Goto T., Nakachi N., Suzuki H., Takebayashi T., Kajiki S., Mori K., 2007. Evaluation of the control banding method-comparison with measurement-based comprehensive risk assessment. J OccupHealth. 49(6), 482-492.
