This document discusses control banding, an approach for managing chemical exposure risks. It provides: 1) An overview of the origins and development of control banding, including the COSHH Essentials model and tools like Stoffenmanager and Advanced REACH Tool. 2) Evidence that validation studies have found control banding tools can reliably predict exposures when used correctly, but training is needed for effective implementation. 3) Suggestions that control banding tools could be improved by more strongly encouraging continuous improvement through a "Kaizen" approach, providing better guidance to "nudge" protective actions, and integrating exposure measurement data.

1. Control banding and beyond
John Cherrie

2. Summary…
• The origins of control banding
• Exposure science can provide a guiding
light
• Kaizen, a new paradigm to consider in
control banding
• Does it work?
• Where next?

3. Control banding…
• Before the 1990s regulations were specific and
told you what to do…
• Generic chemical regulation (in Britain) created
confusion
• HSE, the regulator developed a strategy to help
small companies
– Grouped hazard and exposure potentials
– Output in the form of banded control strategy
– Approach supported by more specific advice
Zalk, David, and Deborah Imel Nelson. (2008). “History and Evolution of Control Banding: a Review.” Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 5 (5): 330–46.

4. COSHH-Essentials…
• The model was described in a set of four
papers published in 1998
• It has been implemented as an online tool that
is freely available
http://coshh-essentials.org.uk
• The tool guides the user through a series of
questions and then presents the conclusion and
downloadable guidance sheets
Russell, R M, S C Maidment, I Brooke, and M D Topping. (1998). “An Introduction to a UK Scheme to Help Small Firms Control
Health Risks From Chemicals.” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 42 (6): 367–76.

5. COSHH-Essentials…
• Just need
information on:
– the R-phrase
– Dustiness or
Volatility (e.g.
boiling
temperature)
– Quantity handled

6. Control bands…
Control
approach
Strategy
1 General ventilation
2 Engineering controls, e.g.
local ventilation
3 Containment, e.g. total
enclosure
4 Special, seek expert advice

7. Maidment, S C. (1998). “Occupational Hygiene Considerations in the Development of a Structured Approach
to Select Chemical Control Strategies.” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 42 (6): 391–400.

8. Money’s desirable characteristics
• Conceptually understandable
• User friendly
• Based upon information that is freely
available to the user
• Delivers practical advice to the user
• Output transparent and consistent
• Should engender confidence amongst
those who use it and are affected by it
Money, C D. 2003. “European Experiences in the Development of Approaches for the Successful Control of
Workplace Health Risks..” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 47 (7): 533–40.

9. Validation and verification…
• Models should always be validated
– i.e. the model is reliable
• Models should be verified
– i.e. shown to be effective
• Unfortunately these steps are often overlooked
in the rush to use new tools

10. Exposure models…
• Around the same time models were being
developed for risk assessment under EU regulations
• EASE developed by HSE
• Based on…
– the tendency of the substance to become
airborne
– the means of controlling exposure or of
preventing the substance from entering the
workroom atmosphere and
– the way in which the substance is used
Tickner, John, Jeff Friar, Karen S Creely, John Cherrie, D Eric Pryde, and John Kingston. (2005).
“The Development of the EASE Model..” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 49 (2): 103–10.

11. Validation of COSHH-Essentials
Tischer, et al. (2003). “Evaluation of the HSE COSHH Essentials Exposure Predictive Model on the Basis
of BAuA Field Studies and Existing Substances Exposure Data.” Annals Occup Hyg 47 (7): 557–69.

12. Validation of EASE…
Cherrie, John, and G W Hughson. (2005). “The Validity of the EASE Expert System for Inhalation Exposures.”
The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 49 (2): 125–34.

13. Stoffenmanager.nl
• Based on a simple source-receptor paradigm
outlined by Cherrie and Schneider (1999)
Where B is the exposure score (no units)
Marquart et al. 2008. “‘Stoffenmanager’, a Web-Based Control Banding Tool Using an Exposure Process
Model..” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 52 (6): 429–41. doi:10.1093/annhyg/men032.

15. Stoffenmanager…
• Tool presents hazard and exposure bands and a
risk score to prioritise action
• User can explore impact of changing control
measures

16. Validityofsimplemodels…

17. Verification…
• A 2-year intervention study with 45 SMEs with
a mix of individual and collective training
• Active training and coaching improves
chemical risk management and avoids errors
using Stoffenmanager
• Use of Stoffenmanager helps organize and
structure risk management
Terwoert, Jeroen, Koen Verbist, and Henri Heusssen. (2016). “An Intervention Study on the Implementation of
Control Banding in Controlling Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Safety
and Health at Work, February. 1–9.

18. Verification…
Upward movement on
the implementation
evolutionary ladder
depends upon
motivated OHS-
professionals,
management support,
and willingness to
invest time

20. AdvancedREACHTool.com
• An elaborate model
designed as a Tier 2
model for REACH
• Shares some heritage
with Stoffenmanager
• Can incorporate
exposure measurements
Fransman, Wouter, Martie Van Tongeren, John W Cherrie, Martin Tischer, Thomas Schneider, Jody
Schinkel, Hans Kromhout, Nick Warren, Henk Goede, and Erik Tielemans. 2011. “Advanced Reach Tool
(ART): Development of the Mechanistic Model..” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 55 (9).

21. Accuracy of the ART…
Savic, Nenad, Bojan Gasic, Jody Schinkel, and David Vernez. (2017). “Comparing the Advanced REACH Tool’s (ART)
Estimates with Switzerland’s Occupational Exposure Data.” Annals of Work Exposures and Health 61 (8): 954–64.

22. Bayesian update…

24. Near-field
Far-field

25. Exposure science…
• Models and tools
– We should subscribe to the same model
– With the same exposure determinants
• Measurements are necessary
– With all the exposure determinant meta-data
• Knowledge & skills are necessary for tool users
– We need training (and certification) for users
Tielemans et al. (2008). “Conceptual Model for Assessment of Inhalation Exposure: Defining Modifying
Factors..” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene 52 (7): 577–86.

27. Exposure decreases over time…
Creely KS et al. (2007) Trends in inhalation exposure--a review of the data in the published
scientific literature. Ann Occup Hyg.; 51(8): 665-678.
Aerosols

28. Kaizen…
Q: What are we trying to achieve with a control-
banding tool?
A: We are trying to promote change to reduce
exposure
Kaizen = “change for the better”
is the Japanese word for “continual improvement”

29. Nudges…
• Tools need to provide helpful advice to enable
employers to identify actions that may have an
impact
– Need information about key exposure
determinants
– Support users better with information and
training

31. Where next?
• Tools should be straightforward to use
• Frame advice to “nudge” employers to improve
• Provide a greater assistance and training for
users to support their risk management actions
• Exposure science community should agree the
“standard” model
• Explore ways of integrating measurements with
control banding
This way
That way