Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Developing a data driven method for assessing exposure to dangerous substances

2,442 views

Published on

Project Management

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Developing a data driven method for assessing exposure to dangerous substances

  1. 1. Safety and health at work is everyone’s concern. It’s good for you. It’s good for business. Developing a data-driven method for assessing exposure to dangerous substances in EU workplaces  Project management – Lothar Lieck, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA)
  2. 2. 2 http://osha.europa.eu Outline  Background  Aims and objectives  Information sources  Working strategy • Overview • Detail by individual sub-task  Results  Limitations  Perspectives
  3. 3. 3 http://osha.europa.eu Background
  4. 4. 4 http://osha.europa.eu Aims  To inform the development and content of the EU-OSHA Healthy Workplaces Campaign 2018- 19 on dangerous substances (DSs)  To investigate the feasibility of establishing a scientific method that may be used in similar exercises in the future
  5. 5. 5 http://osha.europa.eu Objectives  Identify the DSs and related industrial sectors that are of greatest concern  Develop a list of the most important industries and DSs that can be scrutinised and prioritised for further selection and in-depth evaluations  Develop the basis for a scientific method that may be used in similar exercises in the future  For a limited number of selected DSs examine quantitative trends in exposure and use/production for a limited number of DSs
  6. 6. 6 http://osha.europa.eu Information sources (1) Project database European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) database EU employment databases Substances in Preparations in Nordic Countries (SPIN) database ECHA list of registered substances and Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) inventory Production Of Manufactured Goods (PRODCOM) database Experts
  7. 7. 7 http://osha.europa.eu Information sources (2)  European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) • Every 5 years since 1990 • 1,000-3,000 workers / EU country • Covers a broad range of issues including: − employment status − working time duration and organisation − learning and training − work-life balance − earnings and financial security − work and health and self-reported exposures • Databases using standardised coding systems for industries/occupations (i.e. NACE and ISCO) • Authorised access
  8. 8. 8 http://osha.europa.eu Information sources (3)  EU employment databases • Structural business statistics (SBS) • Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JFSQ) • EU Labour Force Survey (LFS) • They provide business statistics including: − demographics (e.g. number of enterprises) − outputs (e.g. turnover, value added) − inputs (i.e. labour characteristics, goods and services’ characteristics and capital input) • Standardise coding systems for industry/occupations (i.e. NACE and ISCO) • Publicly available
  9. 9. 9 http://osha.europa.eu Information sources (4)  Substances in Preparations in Nordic Countries (SPIN) database • Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden • Downstream substance use information including: −number of products containing the substance −annual tonnage of use −industrial and use categories −presence/absence in consumer products −semi-quantitative exposure indicators • Standardised coding systems for substances −EC number −CAS number • Standardised coding for industries (NACE) • Publicly available
  10. 10. 10 http://osha.europa.eu Information sources (5)  The ECHA list of registered substances • Information from REACH dossiers • Includes data on substances: −identity −classification (CLP criteria) −use characteristics −labelling elements • Standardised coding systems for substances: −EC number −CAS number • Partly standardised coding systems for industries • Publicly available
  11. 11. 11 http://osha.europa.eu Information sources (6)  The Production of Manufactured Goods (PRODCOM) database • Survey performed at least annually • >3,900 products • Includes data on ‘manufactured goods’: −value of production sold −physical volume of production sold −total production volume (manufactured + exported) • Standardised coding systems for industries (NACE) • No codes for substances
  12. 12. 12 http://osha.europa.eu Information sources (7)  Expert scrutiny and evaluation • Exposure assessors • Health and safety experts • Occupational hygienists
  13. 13. 13 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy  Identify the DSs and related industrial sectors that are of greatest concern  Develop a list of the most important industries and substances that can be scrutinised for and selected for further selection and in-depth evaluations  Develop the basis for a scientific method that may be used in similar exercises in the future  For a limited number of selected DSs examine quantitative trends in exposure use/production Task 1 Task 2
  14. 14. 14 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy: overview Sub-task ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 Task 2 Task 1 Task 2
  15. 15. 15 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy: ST1 Identifying industries where exposure to DSs is relevant (ST1) Selecting industries based on size and EU presence (ST2) Identifying DSs relevant for each of the selected industries (ST3) Identifying DSs with data on production and use (ST4) Rating identified DSs based on their importance (ST5) Selecting the most important DSs within industries  Use of the EWCS 2015 data • 40,000 participants • Self-reported work exposure to (items E-I): − smoke, fumes (e.g. welding fumes), powder or dust (e.g. wood or mineral dust), etc. − vapours (e.g. solvents, thinners) − chemical products or substances (direct contact) − second-hand tobacco smoke − infectious materials (e.g. waste, bodily fluids, laboratory materials/direct contact) • Analysis by NACE rev 2 codes  An overall prevalence of ≥30% required to consider an industry as relevant
  16. 16. 16 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy: ST2 Identifying industries where exposure to DSs is relevant (ST1) Selecting industries based on size and EU presence (ST2) Identifying DSs relevant for each of the selected industries (ST3) Identifying DSs with data on production and use (ST4) Rating identified DSs based on their importance (ST5) Selecting the most important DSs within industries  For all relevant industries identified in ST1  Analysis using EU employment data: • SBS: manufacturing, construction, trade, service • LFS: health-related trades • JSFQ: forestry • Study period 2008-2015  Industries selected if: • present in ≥14 of the EU countries • total EU workforce was ≥100,000 persons • not in decline within EU • not heavily regulated
  17. 17. 17 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy: ST3 Identifying industries where exposure to DSs is relevant (ST1) Selecting industries based on size and EU presence (ST2) Identifying DSs relevant for each of the selected industries (ST3) Identifying DSs with data on production and use (ST4) Rating identified DSs based on their importance (ST5) Selecting the most important DSs within industries  For all selected industries in ST2  Extract DSs list from ECHA list/CLP inventory • Search filters used: −Properties of concern: “Mutagenic”, “Carcinogenic”, “Toxic”, “Resp” and “Persistent” −Sector of use (SU): if overlapping with NACE; if no overlap then no restriction but with exceptions  Collate data with SPIN based on CAS number and NACE rev 2 codes
  18. 18. 18 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy: ST4 (1) Identifying industries where exposure to DSs is relevant (ST1) Selecting industries based on size and EU presence (ST2) Identifying DSs relevant for each of the selected industries (ST3) Identifying DSs with data on production and use (ST4) Rating identified DSs based on their importance (ST5) Selecting the most important DSs within industries  Only for DSs present in both ECHA and SPIN (ST3)  Analysis using SPIN data • Study period: 2008-2015 • Analysis by industry (NACE rev 2 code) based on number of DSs present • Substances excluded if: − not present in ≥3 countries − total volume of use was 0 (i.e. ≤100 kg) for all countries − When deemed necessary, criteria were relaxed
  19. 19. 19 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy: ST4 (2) Identifying industries where exposure to DSs is relevant (ST1) Selecting industries based on size and EU presence (ST2) Identifying DSs relevant for each of the selected industries (ST3) Identifying DSs with data on production and use (ST4) Rating identified DSs based on their importance (ST5) Selecting the most important DSs within industries  Assessment matrix of substances selected across industries created  Final list of DSs  Overlap between final DSs list of substances and PRODCOM mapped Industry Dangerous substance A B C … A Used Absent Absent ….. B Not used Used Used ….. C Used Absent Used ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
  20. 20. 20 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy: ST5 Identifying industries where exposure to DSs is relevant (ST1) Selecting industries based on size and EU presence (ST2) Identifying DSs relevant for each of the selected industries (ST3) Identifying DSs with data on production and use (ST4) Rating identified DSs based on their importance (ST5) Selecting the most important DSs within industries  DSs importance assessed by experts  Rating by two experts using a 1-3 scale system (3 indicating highest importance)  Criteria for rating based on: a.Population: the number of workers potentially exposed within the specific industry b.Exposure: the likelihood of exposure occurring during use/processing within industry c.Health and socioeconomic impact: the impact of exposure on the health, working life and social life of the worker  Disagreements resolved by a third expert previously unrelated to the project  Final outputs used to estimate the overall score of importance (OSI) for every combination of DSs/industry included
  21. 21. 21 http://osha.europa.eu Working strategy: task 2 Identifying industries where exposure to DSs is relevant (ST1) Selecting industries based on size and EU presence (ST2) Identifying DSs relevant for each of the selected industries (ST3) Identifying DSs with data on production and use (ST4) Rating identified DSs based on their importance (ST5) Selecting the most important DSs within industries  Overall scores of importance (OSIs) • Sum of scores for individual criteria • Range of values = 3-9 • Used to deliver the final list of DSs selected for analysis of quantitative trends in exposure and to identify those DSs that are of utmost importance  Trend analysis • Used the study database • Performed for every substance achieving an OSI ≥6 • Results documented in DSs level 1 summary  DSs of utmost importance • Identified by experts • Involved the level 1 info sheets for DSs with an OSI ≥8
  22. 22. 22 http://osha.europa.eu Results: overview
  23. 23. 23 http://osha.europa.eu Results: identifying industries of relevance (ST1) • EWCS analysis: 33 divisions and class of industries identified Forestry and logging Manufacture of pharmaceutical products Construction Mining of coal and lignite Manufacture of rubber and plastic Construction of buildings Mining of metal ores Manufacture of non-metallic mineral products Civil engineering Other mining and quarrying Manufacture of basic metals Specialised construction activities Mining support activities Manufacture of fabricated metal products Trade and repair of motor vehicles Manufacture of tobacco products Manufacture of machinery and equipment Water transport Manufacture of leather and related products Manufacture of other transport equipment Veterinary activities Manufacture of wood products except furniture Manufacture of furniture Services to buildings and landscape activities Printing and reproduction media Repair and installation of machinery and equipment Human health activities Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products Waste collection, treatment and disposal Residential care activities Manufacture of chemicals Remediation and waste management services Other personal service activities
  24. 24. 24 http://osha.europa.eu Results: selecting industries of relevance (ST2)  Seven industries excluded: • Mining of coal and lignite • Mining of metal ores • Mining support service activities • Manufacture of tobacco products • Construction (unspecified/whole class of sectors) • Remediation and waste management services • Manufacturing of pharmaceutical products  Final selection comprised 26 distinct industry divisions
  25. 25. 25 http://osha.europa.eu Results: identifying relevant DSs for each industry (ST3/ST4)  Common DSs between ECHA and SPIN • 2,820 entries across 24 industries • For the ‘waste collection and treatment’ and ‘veterinary activities’ industries only data from experts and literature  DSs identified by experts and the literature • 24 entries across 10 industries  Final list (matrix) contained: • 319 entries across all 26 industries −40% of entries in the manufacturing of chemicals and/or trade and repair of motor vehicles divisions • 142 individual DSs
  26. 26. 26 http://osha.europa.eu  Expert rating results Results: rating and selecting DSs based on importance (ST5) Overall expert score Number of entries (DSs / industry combinations) % 3 120 37 4 34 11 5 50 16 6 74 23 7 22 7 8 10 3 9 9 3 Total 319 100
  27. 27. 27 http://osha.europa.eu Results: documenting quantitative developments in use and exposure  Level 1 dangerous substance data summary sheets • 115 entries, 68 individual DSs • Different groups of DSs cover:
  28. 28. 28 http://osha.europa.eu Results: level 1 dangerous substance data summary sheets
  29. 29. 29 http://osha.europa.eu Results: identifying and selecting the DSs of utmost importance (1)  15 unique DSs (19 entries) with an (overall score of importance) OSI ≥8 Heavy metals — i.e. cadmium, chromium, lead, arsenic, etc. Microbial cell wall agents, mostly endotoxins Pesticides and fungicides Solvents Wood dust 3-Isocyanatomethyl-3,5,5- trimethylcyclohexyl isocyanate, oligomers Asbestos Stoddard solvent Mineral dust containing crystalline silica (or quartz) Sulphuric acid Lubricating oils (petroleum), C24- 50, solvent-extd, dewaxed, hydrogenated Allergens including animal allergens Nickel Ammonia, aqueous solution Fungi and fungal spores Solvent extracted
  30. 30. 30 http://osha.europa.eu Results: identifying and selecting the DSs of most importance (2) • Experts — five proposals for most important DSs 1) Asbestos (intentional and accidental exposure) in construction 2) Crystalline silica (quartz) in construction, mining, and manufacturing industries 3) Non-infectious biological agents, particularly microbial cell wall and fungal agents, in the waste industry or more widely 4) Solvents in printing both in the printing industry and in a broader perspective 5) Wood dust in forestry, construction, and furniture industries
  31. 31. 31 http://osha.europa.eu  Two selected as the most important DSs: • Crystalline silica (quartz) in construction, mining, and manufacturing industries − Cross-industry issue − SHECAN study results • ~5,300,000 workers exposed in 2006 • >5,000 annual deaths attributed to OE − Construction not part of European Network for Silica Results: identifying and selecting the DSs of most importance (3)
  32. 32. 32 http://osha.europa.eu • Non-infectious biological agents, particularly microbial cell wall and fungal agents, in the waste industry or more widely − No OEL values in place − Agents with strong pro-inflammatory/ allergenic potential − Large socioeconomic impact − Exposure is difficult to control − Recycling — a new industry in constant growth Results: identifying and selecting the DSs of most importance (4)
  33. 33. 33 http://osha.europa.eu Results: crystalline silica (quartz)  Put an example snapshot Source of data: structural business statistics (SBS) Employment data for Europe Use data for quartz in Nordic countries Source of data: Substances in Preparations in Nordic countries (SPIN)
  34. 34. 34 http://osha.europa.eu Some limitations of the methodology  Analysis of quantitative developments based mainly on Nordic (SPIN) data  PRODCOM data not fully mapped  Process-generated and biologically originated DSs not covered by SPIN and PRODCOM  Observation period was limited to 8 years  Strict selection criteria  Only UK-based experts involved in assessments
  35. 35. 35 http://osha.europa.eu Suggested updates
  36. 36. 36 http://osha.europa.eu Perspectives (1)  Established methodology can: • be re-used (with/without adaptations) in similar exercises in the future • form an initial platform for further developing and establishing a more permanent, scientifically sound and robust data-driven surveillance system on patterns of manufacturing and use of and exposure to dangerous substances in the EU
  37. 37. 37 http://osha.europa.eu Perspectives (2)  Such a surveillance system would: • Allow constant monitoring of trends in use, manufacture and exposure for known or suspected dangerous substances in EU industries. This may enable early warnings and targeted actions for arising exposure issues. • Enable better planning and policy concerning substitution or restrictions in use for emerging dangerous substances. Requires harmonisation of financial figures available. • Provide regular updates to existing information systems and monitoring tools such as CAREX and SHECAN. This will assist future burden of disease analysis at national and EU level.
  38. 38. 38 http://osha.europa.eu Conclusions  A methodology providing the basis for building a surveillance system for monitoring quantitative developments concerning the manufacturing and use of and exposure to dangerous substances in the future was prototyped.  Initial implementation of the method allowed several DSs, including those used in industries currently of concern to the health of workers in EU workplaces, to be identified.  Potential limitations have been identified and a path with next steps and improvements has been put forward.
  39. 39. 39 http://osha.europa.eu Thank you for listening Acknowledgments With thanks to: Joannis Basinas, Richard Graveling, Ken Dixon and Peter Ritchie — Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM)

×