TLV Chemical Substances Committee - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 121
About This Presentation
Title:

TLV Chemical Substances Committee

Description:

Focus of this forum Current processes for developing TLVs for chemical substances. ... Subcommittee Chair will discuss and remind as new substances are taken up ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:362
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 122
Provided by: ACG9
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: TLV Chemical Substances Committee


1
TLV Chemical Substances Committee
  • The Process for
  • Decision Making
  • Presented at the AIHce
  • June 3, 2002, San Diego, CA
  • Bill Wells PhD, CIH, CSP, Moderator
  • Dennis Casserly, PhD, CIH Marilyn Hallock, CIH
    Monitors

2
Forum Overview
  • Scott Merkle ACGIH Structure
  • Lisa Brosseau TLV-CS Committee
  • Patrick Breysse Conflict of Interest
  • Philip Bigelow Notations Designations
  • Dan Caldwell Current Issues of Interest

3
ACGIH Structure
  • Scott Merkle, CIH
  • National Institute of Environmental Health
    Sciences
  • Past-Chair, ACGIH

4
Forum on ACGIH Exposure Assessment Guidelines
  • Inaugural Forum at 2002 AIHce.
  • Annual forum on ACGIH activities to develop
    occupational exposure assessment guidelines and
    criteria.
  • Focus of this forum Current processes for
    developing TLVs for chemical substances.

5
TLVs and BEIs
  • Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances
  • Threshold Limit Values for Physical Agents
  • Biological Exposure Indices for Chemical
    Substances

6
What Is ACGIH?
  • Membership Society (founded in 1938)
  • Not-for-profit, Non-governmental Association
    (501(c)(6) organization)
  • Multi-Disciplinary Membership
  • Traditionally Neutral on Public Positions

7
MembershipMarch 31, 2002
Private Industry Others
Government Academia
8
Membership by Profession, 2001
9
Revenue Sources
Membership Dues
Other
Education
Technical Publications
2001 ACGIH Statement of Activities
10
Revenue From Technical Publications (2.2M)
Other House Pubs.
TLV/BEI Book CD-Rom
Co-Op Sales
Bioaerosols
TLV/BEI Documentation
Ind. Vent. Manual CD-Rom
OEV Guide
2001 ACGIH Statement of Activities
11
Technical Committees
Committees provide the creativity, initiative,
and technical expertise that has made ACGIH what
it is today and what it will be tomorrow. .
12
ACGIH Committees
  • Committees consist of members, who volunteer time
    toward developing scientific guidelines and
    publications
  • Primary goal is to serve the scientific needs of
    occupational hygienists
  • Committee expenses (travel) are supported by
    ACGIH
  • Time is donated by the members

13
Committees
May 2002 Merkle
14
Core Mission
May 2002 Merkle
15
Topics of Debate Over the Years
  • The development and sharing of chemical toxicity
    data (pre- and post- OSHA TSCA).
  • TLVs based on analogy
  • How to assess risks for carcinogenic effects.
  • The (Mis)use of TLVs for non-occupational
    exposures.

1940s - Present
1960s - Present
1980s - Present
16
Topics of Debate Over the Years
1990s Present
  • International harmonization of values, or of
    the underlying definitions and principles.
  • Marshalling the resources needed to support the
    development of voluntary guidelines.
  • Concerns that influences from corporate and
    governmental interests can contaminate the
    process.
  • Castleman Ziem (1988) Legal challenges
    (2000-2001).

1990s - Present
1980s - Present
17
Legal Challengesof 2001
  • In December 2000, ACGIH was named as a defendant
    in 3 separate lawsuits --
  • The Staples Case -- Carlin David Staples, et.
    al. vs. DOW Chemical Company, et. al.
  • The RCFC Case -- Refractory Ceramic Fibers
    Coalition, et. al. vs. ACGIH.
  • The Trona Case -- Anchor Glass Container
    Corp., et. al. vs. ACGIH, U.S. DOL, and U.S. DHHS.

18
Lessons
  • TLVs provide vitally important benchmarks for
    occupational exposure assessment.
  • The status of TLVs as guidelines,not standards,
    is not understood by many outside our profession.
  • The 3 Cs of the TLV development process.
  • Communication,
  • Confidentiality,
  • Conflict of Interest.

19
Role of the TLV in the Overall Context of Risk
Management
Risk Management
Risk Assessment
Research
Development of regulatory options Evaluation of
social, economic political consequences Regulat
ory decisions and rulemaking
Toxicity assessment
Risk characterization
Exposure assessment
20
Risk Characterization
  • The process of organizing, evaluating, and
    communicating information about the nature,
    strength of evidence, and likelihood of adverse
    health effects from particular exposures.
  • Final Report The Presidential/Congressional
    Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk
    Management, 1997

21
ACGIH Statement of Position
  • ACGIH is not a standards setting body.
  • TLVs and BEIs
  • Are an expression of scientific opinion.
  • Are not consensus standards.
  • Are based solely on health factors it may not be
    economically or technically feasible to meet
    established TLVs or BEIs.

22
ACGIH Statement of Position
  • TLVs and BEIs
  • Should NOT be adopted as standards without an
    analysis of other factors necessary to make
    appropriate risk management decisions.
  • Can provide valuable input into the risk
    characterization process. The full written
    Documentation for the numerical TLV or BEI
    should be reviewed.

23
Chemical Substances TLV Committee
  • Lisa Brosseau, ScD, CIH
  • Associate Professor
  • University of Minnesota
  • Chair, TLV-CS Committee

24
ACGIH Committees
  • Committees consist of members, who volunteer time
    toward developing scientific guidelines and
    publications
  • Primary goal is to serve the scientific needs of
    occupational hygienists
  • Committee expenses (travel) are supported by
    ACGIH
  • Time is donated by the members

25
A Short Historical Perspective
  • 1941 TLV Committee Created
  • Committee of Technical Standards creates
    Subcommittee on Threshold Limits (becomes
    independent committee in 1944)
  • 1946 List Published
  • First published list of Maximum Allowable
    Concentrations (MACs) for 150 chemical
    substances (renamed Threshold Limit Values in
    1948)

26
History
  • 1955 Written Documentation
  • TLV Committee begins to write Documentation for
    each TLV (207 completed by 1958)
  • Published 1st edition in 1962 (257 substances)

27
History
  • Important Additions and Changes
  • 1961 - Skin Notation
  • 1962 - Carcinogens Appendix
  • 1963 - Excursion factors
  • 1964 - Notice of Intended Changes
  • 1968 - TLVs for Physical Agents Committee
  • 1972 - Cancer classifications defined
  • 1980 - Operational guidelines procedures
  • 1981 - List of Substances Issues Under Study

28
History
  • More Changes
  • 1983 - Established Biological Exposure Indices
    (BEI) Committee
  • 1993 - Deleted STELS for many substances
  • 1995 - CD-ROM
  • 1998 - Reformatted TLV Book to include
    information on TLV Basis - Critical Effects

29
Committee Structure
  • Chair
  • Recommendations from Committee Staff Board
    appoints
  • Vice-Chair, Subcommittee Chairs, Members
  • Recommended by Chair, appointed by Board
  • Three Subcommittees, each with Chair
  • Dusts Inorganics (DI)
  • Hydrogen, Oxygen Carbon Compounds (HOC)
  • Miscellaneous Compounds (MISCO)
  • Staff Support (Liaison, Clerical, Literature
    Searching)

30
Chemical Substance Subcommittees
  • Approximately 10 members on each
  • Membership from academia, government, unions,
    industry
  • Membership represents four key disciplines
  • Industrial Hygiene
  • Toxicology
  • Occupational Medicine
  • Occupational Epidemiology

31
Other Subcommittees
  • Chemical Selection
  • Recommendations to HOC, DI, MISCO
  • Membership
  • Recruitment, screening, recommendations
  • Notations
  • Definitions, new proposals
  • Communications
  • Explaining our decisions

32
Committee Structure
Board of Directors
Staff
Chair of TLV Committee
Administrative Subcommittees (Membership,
Chemical Selection)
Steering Committee
Miscellaneous Compounds Subcommittee (MISCO)
Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon Subcommittee (HOC)
Dust Inorganics Subcommittee (DI)
33
TLV Development Process
Draft Doc.
Under Study List
Committee Review Revision
External Input
Committee Review Revision
Committee Board Approval
NIC
Committee Board Approval
Adopted Value
34
TLVs Defined
  • TLV more than just
  • THE NUMBER
  • Documentation describes
  • Critical health effects
  • Quality of the data relied upon and areas of
    uncertainty
  • Possible sensitive subgroups
  • Type of TLV (TWA, STEL, C) and reason for
    selection
  • Notations

35
Core TLV Principles
  • Focus on airborne exposures in occupational
    settings
  • Utilize the threshold concept
  • Primary users are industrial hygienists
  • Goal is toward protection of nearly all workers

Technical, economic, and analytic feasibility are
NOT considered
36
The Essential Ingredients for Developing TLVs
Published / Peer Reviewed Science Dedicated
Volunteerism Professional Integrity Judgment
37
Warnings
  • NOT to be used as an index of relative toxicity
  • NOT for estimating toxic potential of continuous,
    uninterrupted exposures or other extended work
    periods
  • NOT as proof/disproof of existing disease
  • NOT to evaluate or control air pollution
  • NOT legal standards

38
Summary
  • Prefer human over animal data
  • Use uncertainty factors, if necessary (but no
    rules)
  • Look for threshold of effects
  • Consider irritation an important health endpoint
  • Not concerned with levels of risk
  • Look for the worst case health endpoint
  • Always select an exposure level
  • Explain the reasons for our recommendations

39
Policies and Processes for Limiting Conflict of
Interest
  • Patrick N. Breysse, PhD, CIH
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • Vice-Chair, ACGIH

40
Background
  • Historical Perspective
  • assumed membership limited to government and
    academics controlled conflicts of interest
  • industry involvement as consultants, and as
    providers of data both formally and informally.
  • Industry representatives could be non-voting
    members of ACGIH as of 1992
  • Voting rights granted in 2000

41
Background (cont.)
  • The OSHA proposal to re-adopt the TLVs as PELs
    resulted in increased scrutiny of the TLV
    process and the role of guidelines
  • In the late 1980s and early 1990s ACGIH was
    criticized as being industry influenced and for
    not limiting conflicts of interest

42
Background (cont.)
  • As a result of these events and other factors the
    ACGIH began, in the mid-1990s, to
  • Review of the TLV process
  • Reevaluate of the role of industry membership
  • Reevaluate conflict of interest policies and
    procedures

43
Membership
  • Regular member
  • professional whose primary employment is with a
    government agency or an educational institution
  • Associate member
  • Student member
  • Retired member
  • Organizational member

44
Associate Member
  • Not eligible for Regular membership
  • Eligible to serve as voting members of appointive
    committees
  • May hold elective office as a Director-at-Large
    on the Board of Directors, and may vote on
    committee matters and ACGIH elections.
  • May not vote on amendments to the Bylaws, serve
    as an officer on the Board of Directors, or as
    Chair of an appointive Committee or as a member
    of the Nominating Committee.

45
Conflict of Interest Policy and Procedures
Development
  • Reviewed COI policies of numerous groups
  • Use the National Academy of Sciences model as the
    starting point
  • Held extensive discussions with TLV committee
    and Board of Directors
  • Adopted COI Policy on September 17, 2000

46
BIAS (NAS definition)
  • Views stated or positions taken that are
    largely intellectually motivated or arise from
    close identification or association of an
    individual with a particular point of view or the
    positions or perspectives of a particular group.

47
BIAS
  • NAS position
  • Must create a committee with a balance of
    potentially biasing backgrounds or professional
    or organizational perspectives
  • TLV Committee approach
  • Attempt to create a balance of opinions and views
    by maintaining a diversity of professional
    affiliations, disciplines and activities among
    its membership

48
Conflict of Interest (NAS definition)
  • Any financial or other interest which conflicts
    with the service of an individual because it (1)
    could impair the individuals objectivity, or (2)
    could create an unfair competitive advantage for
    any person or organization.

49
Conflict of Interest
  • Basis for Conflicts of Interest
  • Employment
  • Financial benefit
  • Personal
  • Professional
  • Avoid perceived as well as real conflict of
    interest

50
Conflict of Interest
  • Committee members serve as individuals
  • they do not represent organizations and/or
    interest groups
  • Members are selected based on expertise,
    soundness of judgement, and ability to contribute

51
Conflict of Interest
  • NAS position
  • Significant conflict of interest will disqualify
    an individual
  • TLV Committee approach
  • Try to minimize or eliminate its effects while
    allowing member to participate as fully as
    possible in Committee activities

52
COI Process at ACGIH
53
Conflict of Interest
  • Annual discussion of conflict of interest in full
    committee
  • Definitions
  • Case studies
  • Annual declaration by each member
  • Professional employment background
  • Current professional activities
  • Consulting
  • Research funding
  • Financial holdings

54
Conflict of Interest
  • Subcommittee
  • Subcommittee Chair will discuss and remind as new
    substances are taken up
  • Subcommittee Chair will work with individual
    members to minimize conflicts
  • Authorship?
  • Co-author or external review?
  • Voting?

55
Conflict of Interest
  • It is each Members responsibility to ensure they
    have considered and addressed any conflicts
  • Failure to report conflict of interest can result
    in immediate termination of membership on the
    Committee

56
High Degree of Conflict
  • Requires direct and substantial personal,
    professional and/or financial involvement with
    the substance
  • In most cases the member should
  • not author the Documentation
  • not participate in discussions about the
    recommended TLV
  • should abstain from voting on the TLV
  • The member may discuss matters of science and
    express opinions about individual studies

57
High Degree of Conflict (cont.)
  • In some cases it may be possible for the member
    to participate in authorship of the Documentation
    as a co-author (following full discussion with
    and approval from the subcommittee and committee
    chairs)
  • they should not participate in drafting or
    discussing the TLV Recommendation or value,
    however

58
High Degree of Conflict Examples
  • A member working with a regulatory agency who
    plays a role in developing regulations for the
    substance
  • A member affiliated with an academic institution
    and their research forms the central basis for
    the TLV
  • A member who works for a company that is a major
    producer and who plays a direct role in the
    development of internal exposure levels

59
Medium Degree of Conflict
  • Based on indirect and modest personal,
    professional and/or financial involvement with
    the substance
  • The matter should be carefully discussed with the
    subcommittee chair and members and appropriate
    steps taken to mitigate the conflict
  • Typically this will mean assigning a co-author or
    a reviewer for the Documentation
  • In some cases, abstention from voting on the TLV
    is also appropriate.

60
Medium Degree of Conflict Examples
  • Member who works for a regulatory agency that
    regulates the chemical substance, does not have a
    direct role in developing regulations but may be
    concerned with enforcing regulations
  • Member who works for an academic institution and
    their research may be concerned with the chemical
    substance but is not central to the determination
    of a TLV

61
Medium Degree of Conflict Examples (cont).
  • Member employed by a company that is a major
    producer of the chemical substance but who plays
    a minor role in the internal development of
    exposure levels

62
Low Degree of Conflict
  • The member is affiliated with an organization
    that has a financial or other interest in the
    substance but has a very minor or nonexistent
    role with respect to the substance
  • In most cases, simply informing the subcommittee
    and committee members about low level conflicts
    is all that is needed

63
Continuing Evolution
  • The implementation of the COI Policy requires
    constant re-evaluation of conflicts, their
    impacts and management strategies
  • We are learning as we go
  • Developing implementation guidelines that are
    appropriate for each committee

64
TLV Notations and Designations
  • Philip Bigelow, PhD, CIH
  • Associate Professor
  • Florida AM University
  • Institute of Public Health
  • TLV-CS Committee

65
TLVs More than a number !
  • Core principles focus on protection of workers
  • Use threshold concepts to protect against
  • Chronic effects
  • Acute effects
  • Freedom from irritation, stress, other effects
  • Numerical values are important
  • TLV-TWA
  • TLV-STEL
  • TLV-Ceiling
  • Notations are also part of the TLV

66
Why Notations and Designations?
  • To aid in worker protection by
  • Identifying agents for which the cutaneous route
    is important
  • Identifying agents that have potential to produce
    sensitization
  • Identifying agents that have been studied to
    assess their carcinogenicity potential
  • Identifying agents that have a Biological
    Exposure Index
  • Note other notations may be added to reflect
    contemporary occupational health practice

67
Guidance for Interpreting Notations
  • INTRODUCTION TO THE CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES
  • Guidelines and philosophy for using TLVs
  • SKIN notation
  • SENsitizer notation
  • Biological Exposure Indices (BEI) notation
  • See also INTRODUCTION TO THE BIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE
    INDICES
  • Appendix A Carcinogenicity
  • NOTE Absence of a notation may reflect absence
    of scientific evidence not no effect

68
Guidance for Interpreting the SKIN Notation
  • Significant contributions to overall exposure by
    cutaneous route, mucous membranes or eyes by
    vapor or direct skin contact
  • Evidence that dermal absorption may be important
    in expressed toxicity
  • Biological monitoring should be considered
  • Notation not related to skin irritation,
    dermatitis or skin sensitization

69
SKIN Notation Example
  • Methyl n-butyl ketone TLV-TWA 5 ppm
    TLV-STEL 10 ppm SKIN (neuropathy)
  • No dermal LD50 reported
  • Human study showed absorption rate up to 8.0
    microgram/min/cm2
  • Significant contribution to dose and TLV based
    on systemic toxicity

70
Guidance for Interpreting the SEN Notation
  • Refers to the potential for the agent to produce
    significant sensitization, as confirmed by human
    or animal data
  • May or may not be critical effect
  • TLV values not intended to protect those workers
    already sensitized (goal is to prevent
    sensitization)
  • May reflect risk of dermal and/or inhalation
    sensitization (must consult Documentation)

71
SEN Notation Example
  • Formaldehyde TLV-Ceiling 0.3 ppm SEN A2
    (irritation, cancer)
  • Extensive human experience
  • Sensory irritation at low levels
  • Debilitating dermatitis, rhinitis,
    conjunctivitis, and asthma at low levels
  • Case and epidemiology studies provide evidence of
    skin and respiratory sensitization

72
Other Evidence Used to Assess Sensitization Risk
  • Human
  • Human Repeat Insult Patch Test
  • In vitro immunological tests
  • Animal
  • Guinea pig maximization test
  • Murine local lymph node assay
  • Mouse ear swelling test
  • No current suitable test for respiratory allergens

73
Guidance for Interpreting the BEI Notation
  • Refers to existence of a Biological Exposure
    Index (BEI) for the agent
  • Biomonitoring serves as a complement to exposure
    assessment by air sampling
  • Most BEIs based on direct correlation to TLV
    (conc. of determinant at TLV exposure)
  • BEIs used as guidelines in evaluation of
    potential hazards

74
BEI Notation Example
  • Methanol TLV 200/250 ppm SKIN BEI
    (neuropathy vision CNS)
  • BEI
  • Methanol in urine 15 mg/L
  • End of workshift
  • Notations
  • B background
  • Ns nonspecific

75
Guidance for Interpreting the Carcinogenicity
Notation
  • Appendix A Carcinogenicity
  • Goal to synthesize information to be useful to
    practicing industrial hygienist
  • 5 category system that evolves to reflect
    advances in science
  • Exposures to carcinogens should be kept to a
    minimum For A1 agents with a TLV and for A2
    and A3 agents exposure by all routes should be
    controlled
  • For agents with no designation no human or
    animal data available to assign

76
A1 Confirmed Human Carcinogen
  • The agent is carcinogenic to humans based on the
    weight of evidence from epidemiologic studies
  • Committee requires convincing epidemiologic
    evidence to support
  • Vinyl chloride VCM induced angiosarcoma
  • Benzene leukemia
  • Asbestos lung cancer

77
A2 Suspected Human Carcinogen
  • Human data are accepted as adequate in quality
    but are conflicting or insufficient to classify
    the agent as A1, OR
  • the agent is carcinogenic in experimental animals
    at dose(s), by route(s) of exposure, at site(s),
    of histologic types, or by mechanism(s)
    considered relevant to worker exposure.

78
A2 Suspected Human Carcinogen Examples
  • Ethylene oxide
  • Positive in chronic inhalation bioassays in 2
    species human epidemiology studies weak
  • Mutagenic in short term tests
  • Known alkylating properties
  • Silica
  • Presence of fibrosis in workers required for
    increase cancer risk in humans
  • Carcinogenocity observed in rat but findings weak

79
A3 Confirmed Animal Carcinogen with Unknown
Relevance to Humans
  • The agent is carcinogenic in experimental animals
    at relatively high dose, by route(s) of
    administration, at site(s), of histological
    type(s) , or by mechanism(s) that may not be
    relevant to worker exposure. Available
    epidemiologic studies do not confirm an increased
    risk of cancer in exposed humans. Available
    evidence does not suggest that the agent is
    likely to cause cancer in humans except under
    uncommon or unlikely routes or levels of exposure.

80
A3 Confirmed Animal Carcinogen with Unknown
Relevance to Humans Examples
  • N-Propanol (on NIC)
  • Tumors after intubation dosing and subcutaneous
    injection
  • No human cancer studies
  • Chloroform
  • Liver tumors with intubation doses gt300 mg/kg
  • Male rat kidney cancer alpha-2-urinary globulin
    mechanism
  • Other animal bioassays equivocal findings
  • No human cancer studies

81
A4 Not Classifiable as a Human Carcinogen
  • Agents which cause concern that they could be
    carcinogenic for humans but which cannot be
    assessed conclusively because of a lack of data.
    In vitro or animal studies do not provide
    indications of carcinogenicity which are
    sufficient to classify the agent into one of the
    other categories.

82
A4 Not Classifiable as aHuman Carcinogen Example
  • Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
  • Antioxidant no human cancer data
  • IARC no evidence in mice limited evidence in
    rats
  • BHT fed animals lived significantly longer than
    controls
  • No effect in dogs at 0.9 g/kg/day
  • Genotoxicity studies negative

83
A5 Not Suspected as a Human Carcinogen
  • The agent is not suspected to be a human
    carcinogen on the basis of properly conducted
    epidemiologic studies in humans. These studies
    have sufficiently long follow-up, reliable
    exposure histories, sufficiently high dose, and
    adequate statistical power to conclude that
    exposure to the agent does not convey a
    significant cancer risk to humans, OR,
  • the evidence suggesting a lack of carcinogenicity
    in experimental animals is supported by
    mechanistic data.

84
A5 Not Suspected as a Human Carcinogen Example
  • Nickel (elemental/metallic)
  • Extensive human epidemiologic findings are
    negative
  • Genotoxicity studies negative
  • Chronic bioassays negative
  • Trichloroethylene
  • Extensive animal bioassays negative but initial
    studies did evoke concern genotoxicity tests
    mixed
  • Human epidemiology studies negative

85
The Documentation
  • TLV more than just
  • THE NUMBER
  • Documentation describes
  • Critical health effects
  • Quality of the data relied upon and areas of
    uncertainty
  • Possible sensitive subgroups
  • Type of TLV (TWA, STEL, C) and reason for
    selection
  • Notations

86
Other Sources
  • Kennedy GL, Brock JW Jr., Banerjee AK (1993)
    Assignment of skin notation for threshold limit
    values of chemicals based on acute dermal
    toxicity. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 826-30.
  • ECETOC Special Report No. 15. Examination of a
    proposed skin notation strategy. European Centre
    for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals,
    1998.
  • Spiritas R, Fleming LE, Demers PA, Weisburger EK
    (in press) TLV Carcinogenicity categories Recent
    modifications. Appl Occup Environ Hyg

87
Other Sources
  • Dean JH, Twerdok LE, Tice RR, Sailstad DM, Hattan
    DG, Stokes WS. ICCVAM Evaluation of the Murine
    Local Lymph Node Assay. II. Conclusions and
    Recommendations of an Independent Scientific Peer
    Review Panel. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 34,
    258-273 (2001).
  • van Kampen V, Merget R, Baur X. Occupational
    Airway Sensitizers An Overview on the Respective
    Literature. Amer J Ind Med 38, 164-218 (2000).

88
Current Issues of Interest to theTLV-Chemical
Substances Committee
Daniel J. Caldwell, Ph.D., CIH, DABT ExxonMobil
Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
89
Presentation Outline
  • Mixtures
  • Sensory Irritation
  • Particulates Not Otherwise Specified
  • Toxicology Issues

90
Mixtures
  • Appendix C, TLVs for Mixtures
  • Special case atmospheric composition is similar
    to original material
  • Application to hydrocarbon solvents using
    Reciprocal Calculation Procedure
  • Global interest MAK, ACGIH, IRSST

91
Mixtures The Reciprocal Calculation Procedure
  • Hydrocarbon Solvents are Well Defined
  • Reciprocal Calculation Procedure
  • Known Health Effects
  • Group Guidance Values
  • Mineral Spirits as an Example
  • Conclusions

92
Mixtures - RCP
  • Objective
  • To develop a generic and harmonized method for
    setting exposure limits for hydrocarbon solvents.
  • Generic Include all hydrocarbon solvents
  • Maximum advantage of existing data
  • Minimize effects of minor differences
  • Harmonized Similar solvents have similar
    TLVs
  • Consistent health advice worldwide

93
Mixtures - RCP
  • Properties of Hydrocarbon Solvents
  • molecules composed only of hydrogen and carbon
  • n- / iso-paraffins, cycloparaffins and/or
    aromatics
  • may contain a single molecular type or be complex
  • boil between 35-320C, although range is normally
    less
  • highly refined with specific technical properties
  • do not contain appreciable levels of benzene or
    carcinogenic PAHs
  • olefins are not covered by method

KEY MESSAGE - Hydrocarbon solvents are a family
of materials which contain constituents with
similar chemical properties.
94
Mixtures - RCP
  • Procedure To Set TLV For Hydrocarbon Solvents
  • applicable to all hydrocarbon solvents
  • consider the contributions of all constituents
  • ensure that no component exceeds its own TLV
  • produce changes in the TLV which are
    proportional to changes in composition
  • sound and transparent underlying scientific
    assumptions
  • readily adaptable to changes in the TLV of any
    component

95
Mixtures - RCP
  • Determine Sum Of Fractional TLVs
  • 1 Fractiona Fractionb Fractionn
  • TLVmixture TlVa TLVb TLVn
  • Inputs Include
  • TLVs for single constituents e.g. cyclohexane,
    toluene
  • Guidance values for groups of hydrocarbons based
    on structural and toxicological similarity

KEY MESSAGE - RCP is based on ACGIH mixtures
formula
1 Assumes similarity of vapor and liquid
compositions.
96
Mixtures - RCP
  • Underlying Assumptions
  • Similar chemistry ? similar toxicity
  • Health effects of components are additive
  • Vapor composition is similar to liquid
    composition
  • Exposure limits should be based on toxicological
    properties

KEY MESSAGE - An RCP procedure can be used for
complex substances if they contain constituents
with similar physical and chemical properties
97
RCP Group Guidance Values
  • or
  • What do you do when you dont have a TLV?

98
Group Guidance Values
  • Assigning Guidance Values for Hydrocarbon Groups
  • Divide hydrocarbon components into groups with
    common health effects
  • Assign common guidance values to the groups
  • Calculate TLVs for complex substances from
    individual TLVs and Group Guidance Values using
    the RCP

KEY MESSAGE - If group values are developed,
TLVs can be calculated for hydrocarbon solvent
mixtures using a RCP.
99
EuropeanGroup Guidance Values
C5-C8 Aliphatics/cycloaliphatics 1500
mg/m3 C9-C15 Aliphatics/cycloaliphatics 1200
mg/m3 C7-C8 Aromatics 200
mg/m3 C9-C15 Aromatics 100
mg/m3 Others n-hexane 175
mg/m3 Naphthalene 50 mg/m3 Cyclohexane
350 mg/m3
100
RCP Example - Mineral Spirits
  • Generic Term Applied To Hydrocarbon Fractions
  • That boil between 140-215C
  • Contain n- and iso-alkanes, cycloalkanes, and
    aromatics in varying concentrations.
  • Contain lt 1 - 30 aromatics.
  • Can be described by several CAS numbers.
  • Are often marketed in Europe under brand names,
    not as mineral spirit.

KEY MESSAGE - Mineral spirits is a generic term
for a range of hydrocarbon solvents..
101
RCP - Analysis Of A Typical Mineral Spirit
  • Boiling range 150-200C
  • Flash Point 38C
  • Carbon number range 8-12
  • Average molecular weight 141
  • w/w n-/iso-cyclo-Alkanes (C5-C8) 7.4
  • w/w n-iso-cyclo-Alkanes (C9-C15) 76.5
  • w/w Aromatics 16.1
  • comprising C7/C8 aromatics 2.0
  • C9 aromatics 8.3
  • Non-listed aromatics 5.8

102
RCP Example - Mineral Spirits
  • Using the proposed guidance values for mineral
    spirits and substituting these values in the RCP
    formula
  • __1__ __Fra_ ___Frb__ ..... _Frn__
  • TLV sol TLVa TLVb TLVn
  • 0.074 0.765 0.020 0.141
    1500 1200 200 100
  • 0.000049 0.00064 0.0001 0.00141

0.00219
103
RCP Example Mineral Spirits
  • 1/TLV 0.00219
  • TLV 456 mg/m3
  • Using the rounding procedure this becomes
  • 500 mg/m3
  • Comparable to TLV for Stoddard Solvent of
  • 600 mg/m3

104
RCP - Conclusions
  • The RCP approach is
  • Application of special case of the mixtures
    formula
  • Accepted by ACGIH, and some EU member states

105
RCP Conclusions (cont.)
  • Group Guidance Values can be used to calculate
    TLVs because
  • Solvents do not contain highly toxic constituents
  • A substantial toxicology database exists
  • Acute CNS effects are the endpoint of greatest
    concern
  • Preventing acute CNS effects will prevent chronic
    effects

106
Sensory Irritation
  • What is Sensory Irritation?
  • What data are used in developing TLVs?
  • Differentiating irritation from odor
  • Conclusions

107
Sensory Irritation
  • Background Information
  • Undesirable temporary effect on the eyes and
    upper respiratory tract
  • Acute, concentration dependent effect
  • Critical effect upon which to base a TLV
  • Nearly 50 of TLVs set to prevent irritation
  • Confounding of irritation response by odor

108
Sensory Irritation
  • Sources of Data
  • Animal models (RD50)
  • Physical/Chemical properties
  • Worker experience
  • Social Expectations
  • Irritation is an adverse effect
  • Nearly all workers should be protected

109
Sensory Irritation
  • Mechanism of Sensory Irritation - Human
    Chemosensory System
  • olfactory (first cranial nerve) - smell
  • trigeminal (fifth cranial nerve) - irritation
  • Perception of Irritation Impacted By
  • psychological context
  • exposure duration
  • inter- and intra- individual variability

110
Nasal Chemesthesis
  • 2-alternative forced choice design
  • Simultaneous sniff from 2 vessels, one containing
    test substance, the other a blank
  • 14 trials per session

111
Ocular Chemesthesis
  • 3-alternative forced choice design
  • Air flow of 4 L/min to displace headspace vapor
    into eye cup
  • 5 sec exposure with 10 trials per session

112
Sensory Irritation
  • Current Research Areas
  • Sensory scaling
  • Stimulus lateralization
  • Variation in sensitivity
  • Adaptation
  • Attitude and expectations
  • Differentiation of odor from irritation

113
Sensory Irritation
114
Sensory Irritation
  • Invited presentations
  • Pam Dalton, Monell Institute
  • Bill Cain, Univ. California

115
Sensory Irritation
  • Useful Guidelines
  • Threshold for sensory irritation 32 of Cs
  • Acceptable human exposure 0.03 x RD50
  • Odor threshold lt Lateralization threshold lt
    Irritation threshold

116
Sensory Irritation
  • Conclusions
  • Remains an active research area
  • Effect with multiple causes
  • Committee seeking reliable data on irritant
    effects

117
Particulates Not Otherwise Specified
  • Appendix E Particulates (insoluble or poorly
    soluble) Not Otherwise Specified
  • Do not have an applicable TLV Insoluble or
    poorly soluble in water (preferably in aqueous
    lung fluid)
  • Have low toxicity (i.e., not cytotoxic,
    genotoxic, or otherwise chemically reactive with
    lung tissue)

118
Particulates Not Otherwise Specified
  • Airborne concentrations should be kept
  • lt 3 mg/m3, respirable particles
  • lt 10 mg/m3, inhalable particles
  • until such time as a TLV is set.

119
Toxicology Issues
  • Reproductive Toxicity
  • Separate repro notation?
  • Seminar presented by MAK Commission
  • Neurotoxicity
  • Differentiation of neurotoxicity from
    neurobehavioral effects
  • Seminar presented

120
Neurobehavioral Effects of Hydrocarbon Solvents
Research Strategy
RAT BEHAVIORAL AND PK STUDIES
HUMAN BEHAVIORAL AND PK STUDIES
ETOH
HUMAN BEHAVIORAL AND PK STUDIES
RAT BEHAVIORAL AND PK STUDIES
RAT SUBCHRONIC STUDIES
STODDARD SOLVENT/CYCLOHEXANE
Validation Complete
RAT BEHAVIORAL AND PK STUDIES
OTHER REPRESENTATIVE HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES
121
Questions?
  • Scott Merkle
  • Lisa Brosseau
  • Patrick Breysse
  • Philip Bigelow
  • Dan Caldwell
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com