In this article, we have responded to the key statements in the article by Koivisto et al. (2022) that were incorrect and considered to be a biased critique on a subset of the exposure models used in Europe (i.e. ART and Stoffenmanager (R)) used for regulatory exposure assessment. We welcome scientific discussions on exposure modelling (as was done during the ISES Europe workshop) and criticism based on scientific evidence to contribute to the advancement of occupational exposure estimation tools. The tiered approach to risk assessment allows various exposure assessment models from screening tools (control/hazard banding) through to higher-tiered approaches. There is a place for every type of model, but we do need to recognize the cost and data requirements of highly bespoke assessments. That is why model developers have taken pragmatic approaches to develop tools for exposure assessments based on imperfect data. We encourage Koivisto et al. to focus on further scientifically robust work to develop mass-balance models and by independent external validations studies, compare these models with alternative model tools such as ART and Stoffenmanager (R).

Response Letter to Koivisto et al. 'Evaluating the Theoretical Background of STOFFENMANAGER® and the Advanced REACH Tool'

Borghi, Francesca;Cattaneo, Andrea;Cavallo, Domenico M;Spinazzè, Andrea;
2022-01-01

Abstract

In this article, we have responded to the key statements in the article by Koivisto et al. (2022) that were incorrect and considered to be a biased critique on a subset of the exposure models used in Europe (i.e. ART and Stoffenmanager (R)) used for regulatory exposure assessment. We welcome scientific discussions on exposure modelling (as was done during the ISES Europe workshop) and criticism based on scientific evidence to contribute to the advancement of occupational exposure estimation tools. The tiered approach to risk assessment allows various exposure assessment models from screening tools (control/hazard banding) through to higher-tiered approaches. There is a place for every type of model, but we do need to recognize the cost and data requirements of highly bespoke assessments. That is why model developers have taken pragmatic approaches to develop tools for exposure assessments based on imperfect data. We encourage Koivisto et al. to focus on further scientifically robust work to develop mass-balance models and by independent external validations studies, compare these models with alternative model tools such as ART and Stoffenmanager (R).
2022
2022
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/66/4/543/6532237
SMEs; exposure assessment; exposure estimation; exposure modelling; regulation of chemicals; regulatory risk assessment
Fransman, Wouter; Arnone, Mario; Borghi, Francesca; Cattaneo, Andrea; Cavallo, Domenico M; Cherrie, John W; Franken, Remy; Galea, Karen S; van der Haar, Rudolf; Heussen, Gerardus A H; Jensen, Keld A; Koponen, Milja; Koppisch, Dorothea; Kromhout, Hans; Luo, Yu-Syuan; Mcnally, Kevin; Säämänen, Arto; Spinazzè, Andrea; van Tongeren, Martie; Vanoirbeek, Jeroen; Verpaele, Steven; Vetter, Daniel; Viegas, Susana; Warren, Nick
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Fransman-2022-Response-letter-to-koivisto-et-al.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: DRM non definito
Dimensione 249.56 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
249.56 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11383/2133564
 Attenzione

L'Ateneo sottopone a validazione solo i file PDF allegati

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact