Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part II—Higher Tier Tools

Eun Gyung Lee, Judith Lamb, Nenad Savic, Ioannis Basinas, Bojan Gasic, Christian Jung, Michael L Kashon, Jongwoon Kim, Martin Tischer, Martie Van Tongeren, David Vernez, Martin Harper

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

82 Downloads (Pure)


Stoffenmanager®v4.5 and Advanced REACH Tool (ART) v1.5, two higher tier exposure assessment tools for use under REACH, were evaluated by determining accuracy and robustness. A total of 282 exposure measurements from 51 exposure situations (ESs) were collected and categorized by exposure category. In this study, only the results of liquids with vapor pressure (VP) > 10 Pa category having a sufficient number of exposure measurements (n = 251 with 42 ESs) were utilized. In addition, the results were presented by handling/activity description and input parameters for the same exposure category. It should be noted that the performance results of Stoffenmanager and ART in this study cannot be directly compared for some ESs because ART allows a combination of up to four subtasks (and nonexposed periods) to be included, whereas the database for Stoffenmanager, separately developed under the permission of the legal owner of Stoffenmanager, permits the use of only one task to predict exposure estimates. Thus, it would be most appropriate to compare full-shift measurements against ART predictions (full shift including nonexposed periods) and task-based measurements against task-based Stoffenmanager predictions. For liquids with VP > 10 Pa category, Stoffenmanager®v4.5 appeared to be reasonably accurate and robust when predicting exposures [percentage of measurements exceeding the tool’s 90th percentile estimate (%M > T) was 15%]. Areas that could potentially be improved include ESs involving the task of handling of liquids on large surfaces or large work pieces, allocation of high and medium VP inputs, and absence of local exhaust ventilation input. Although the ART’s median predictions appeared to be reasonably accurate for liquids with VP > 10 Pa, the %M > T for the 90th percentile estimates was 41%, indicating that variance in exposure levels is underestimated by ART. The %M > T using the estimates of the upper value of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 90th percentile estimate (UCI90) was considerably reduced to 18% for liquids with VP > 10 Pa. On the basis of this observation, users might be to consider using the upper limit value of 90% CI of the 90th percentile estimate for predicting reasonable worst case situations. Nevertheless, for some activities and input parameters, ART still shows areas to be improved. Hence, it is suggested that ART developers review the assumptions in relation to exposure variability within the tool, toward improving the tool performance in estimating percentile exposure levels. In addition, for both tools, only some handling/activity descriptions and input parameters were considered. Thus, further validation studies are still necessary.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)230-241
Number of pages12
JournalAnnals of Work Exposures and health
Issue number2
Early online date9 Dec 2018
Publication statusPublished - 16 Feb 2019


  • REACH higher tools
  • exposure assessment tools
  • inhalation tools
  • tier tools
  • validation


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of Exposure Assessment Tools under REACH: Part II—Higher Tier Tools'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this