EPHECT III : Health risk assessment of exposure to household consumer products

In the framework of the EU EPHECT project (Emissions, Exposure Patterns and Health Effects of Consumer Products in the EU), irritative and respiratory effects were assessed in relation to acute (30-min) and long-term (24-h) inhalation exposure to key and emerging indoor air pollutants emitted during household use of selected consumer products. A detailed Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was performed for five selected pollutants of respiratory health relevance, namely acrolein, formaldehyde, naphthalene, d-limonene and \u3b1-pinene. For each pollutant, the Critical Exposure Limit (CEL) was compared to indoor air concentrations and exposure estimates for the use of 15 selected consumer products by two population groups (housekeepers and retired people) in the four geographical regions of Europe (North, West, South, East), which were derived previously based on microenvironmental modelling. For the present HRA, health-based CELs were derived for certain compounds in case indoor air quality guidelines were not available by the World Health Organization for end-points relevant to the current study. For each pollutant, the highest indoor air concentrations in each microenvironment and exposure estimates across home microenvironments during the day were lower than the corresponding acute and long-term CELs. However, considerable contributions, especially to acute exposures, were obtained in some cases, such as formaldehyde emissions resulting from single product use of a floor cleaning agent (82% CEL), a candle (10% CEL) and an electric air freshener (17% CEL). Regarding multiple product use, the case of 30-min formaldehyde exposure reaching 34% CEL when eight product classes were used across home microenvironments, i.e. all-purpose/kitchen/floor cleaning agents, furniture/floor polish, combustible/electric air fresheners, and perfume, needs to be highlighted. Such estimated values should be evaluated with caution, as these may be attributed to the exposure scenarios specifically constructed for the present study, following a 'most-representative worst-case scenario' approach for exposure and health risk assessment

EPHECT II: Exposure assessment to household consumer products

Within the framework of the EPHECT project (Emissions, exposure patterns and health effects of consumer products in the EU), irritative and respiratory health effects were assessed in relation to acute and long-term exposure to key and emerging indoor air pollutants emitted during household use of selected consumer products. In this context, inhalation exposure assessment was carried out for six selected 'target' compounds (acrolein, formaldehyde, benzene, naphthalene, d-limonene and \u3b1-pinene). This paper presents the methodology and the outcomes from the micro-environmental modelling of the 'target' pollutants following single or multiple use of selected consumer products and the subsequent exposure assessment. The results indicate that emissions from consumer products of benzene and \u3b1-pinene were not considered to contribute significantly to the EU indoor background levels, in contrast to some cases of formaldehyde and d-limonene emissions in Eastern Europe (mainly from cleaning products). The group of housekeepers in East Europe appears to experience the highest exposures to acrolein, formaldehyde and benzene, followed by the group of the retired people in North, who experiences the highest exposures to naphthalene and \u3b1-pinene. High exposure may be attributed to the scenarios developed within this project, which follow a 'most-representative worst-case scenario' strategy for exposure and health risk assessment. Despite the above limitations, this is the first comprehensive study that provides exposure estimates for 8 population groups across Europe exposed to 6 priority pollutants, as a result of the use of 15 consumer product classes in households, while accounting for regional differences in uses, use scenarios and ventilation conditions of each region

Review of Tier 1 workplace exposure estimates for petroleum substances in REACH dossiers

For the exposure assessment in the 2010 REACH dossiers of petroleum substances, Concawe has used the Tier 1 exposure model ECETOC TRA v.2. In order to account for the heavier, less volatile and more complex petroleum substances and the corresponding exposure situations, several modifications not originally within the scope of the ECETOC TRA were developed. These modifications include an approach to estimate liquid aerosol along with some risk management measures describing the use and handling of petroleum substances commonly in use in the European oil refining industry. In this project, Chemical Safety Assessments (CSAs) on these petroleum substances were evaluated concerning relevant industry areas and included scenarios. Measured data were collated in order to evaluate the exposure estimates in general and the modifications made by Concawe. The comparison exercise showed some discrepancies depending on substance group and the specific scenarios. These discrepancies may be partly attributed to new modifiers or other changes of the ECETOC standard algorithm (e.g. concentration modifier in case of naphthas). In general, for most measures both under- and overestimations can be found; therefore, it is difficult to reach a final conclusion concerning their applicability. Other possible reasons for the observed underestimations were variations within an exposure scenario or the age of datasets. Concerning aerosol exposure, measured data for OLBOs and HFOs could be identified. No significant underestimations were found for the evaluated scenario in case of OLBOs while in the case of HFOs results were inconclusive (partly underestimations but only few data points). Overall it is recognised that available sampling methods for liquid aerosol often tend to give biased or at least variable exposure results and this has to be taken into account for future investigations concerning risk assessment of petroleum substances or validation of the existing CSAs. Measurements made for HFOs show higher overall and vapour concentrations compared to the aerosol values which may suggest that either vapour may be more relevant than previously assumed for high boiling petroleum substances or the corresponding aerosol measurements may not be suitable for a comparison with DNELs or model estimates. Comparable difficulties will probably exist for other semi- or low volatile substances which tend to form aerosols. Although some underestimations have been observed, there are also cases where clear overestimations were observed and thus, a further refinement with higher Tier tools may be possible. Two possible tools, STOFFENMANAGER© and ART were discussed and illustrated with an example scenario. Petroleum substances and the resulting exposure types (vapour and aerosols) are within the scope of both models; however, the new modifiers introduced by Concawe are only implemented to a limited extent (vapour recovery in the case of ART). A qualitative evaluation of the updates made when changing from ECETOC TRA v.2 to v.3 suggested that inhalation exposure estimates will probably be lower if the more recent version is used. This is partly due to newly introduced or changed measures or operational conditions and partly due to modified initial exposure estimates. Overall, there are a number of situations where the comparison of measurements and estimates suggests reasonable results and a controlled risk. There are other situations, however, where, due to different reasons, the contrary is observed. A particular problem seems to be the lack of high quality aerosol data

Review of Tier 1 workplace exposure estimates for petroleum substances in REACH dossiers

For the exposure assessment in the 2010 REACH dossiers of petroleum substances, Concawe has used the Tier 1 exposure model ECETOC TRA v.2. In order to account for the heavier, less volatile and more complex petroleum substances and the corresponding exposure situations, several modifications not originally within the scope of the ECETOC TRA were developed. These modifications include an approach to estimate liquid aerosol along with some risk management measures describing the use and handling of petroleum substances commonly in use in the European oil refining industry. In this project, Chemical Safety Assessments (CSAs) on these petroleum substances were evaluated concerning relevant industry areas and included scenarios. Measured data were collated in order to evaluate the exposure estimates in general and the modifications made by Concawe. The comparison exercise showed some discrepancies depending on substance group and the specific scenarios. These discrepancies may be partly attributed to new modifiers or other changes of the ECETOC standard algorithm (e.g. concentration modifier in case of naphthas). In general, for most measures both under- and overestimations can be found; therefore, it is difficult to reach a final conclusion concerning their applicability. Other possible reasons for the observed underestimations were variations within an exposure scenario or the age of datasets. Concerning aerosol exposure, measured data for OLBOs and HFOs could be identified. No significant underestimations were found for the evaluated scenario in case of OLBOs while in the case of HFOs results were inconclusive (partly underestimations but only few data points). Overall it is recognised that available sampling methods for liquid aerosol often tend to give biased or at least variable exposure results and this has to be taken into account for future investigations concerning risk assessment of petroleum substances or validation of the existing CSAs. Measurements made for HFOs show higher overall and vapour concentrations compared to the aerosol values which may suggest that either vapour may be more relevant than previously assumed for high boiling petroleum substances or the corresponding aerosol measurements may not be suitable for a comparison with DNELs or model estimates. Comparable difficulties will probably exist for other semi- or low volatile substances which tend to form aerosols. Although some underestimations have been observed, there are also cases where clear overestimations were observed and thus, a further refinement with higher Tier tools may be possible. Two possible tools, STOFFENMANAGER© and ART were discussed and illustrated with an example scenario. Petroleum substances and the resulting exposure types (vapour and aerosols) are within the scope of both models; however, the new modifiers introduced by Concawe are only implemented to a limited extent (vapour recovery in the case of ART). A qualitative evaluation of the updates made when changing from ECETOC TRA v.2 to v.3 suggested that inhalation exposure estimates will probably be lower if the more recent version is used. This is partly due to newly introduced or changed measures or operational conditions and partly due to modified initial exposure estimates. Overall, there are a number of situations where the comparison of measurements and estimates suggests reasonable results and a controlled risk. There are other situations, however, where, due to different reasons, the contrary is observed. A particular problem seems to be the lack of high quality aerosol data

Ozone-initiated terpene reaction products in five European offices: replacement of a floor cleaning agent

Cleaning agents often emit terpenes that react rapidly with ozone. These ozone-initiated reactions, which occur in the gas-phase and on surfaces, produce a host of gaseous and particulate oxygenated compounds with possible adverse health effects in the eyes and airways. Within the European Union (EU) project OFFICAIR, common ozone-initiated reaction products were measured before and after the replacement of the regular floor cleaning agent with a preselected low emitting floor cleaning agent in four offices located in four EU countries. One reference office in a fifth country did not use any floor cleaning agent. Limonene, \u3b1-pinene, 3-carene, dihydromyrcenol, geraniol, linalool, and \u3b1-terpineol were targeted for measurement together with the common terpene oxidation products formaldehyde, 4-acetyl-1-methylcyclohexene (4-AMCH), 3-isopropenyl-6-oxo-heptanal (IPOH), 6-methyl-5-heptene-2-one, (6-MHO), 4-oxopentanal (4-OPA), and dihydrocarvone (DHC). Two-hour air samples on Tenax TA and DNPH cartridges were taken in the morning, noon, and in the afternoon and analyzed by thermal desorption combined with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and HPLC/UV analysis, respectively. Ozone was measured in all sites. All the regular cleaning agents emitted terpenes, mainly limonene and linalool. After the replacement of the cleaning agent, substantially lower concentrations of limonene and formaldehyde were observed. Some of the oxidation product concentrations, in particular that of 4-OPA, were also reduced in line with limonene. Maximum two-hour averaged concentrations of formaldehyde, 4-AMCH, 6-MHO, and IPOH would not give rise to acute eye irritation-related symptoms in office workers; similarly, 6-AMCH, DHC and 4-OPA would not result in airflow limitation to the airways

Assessment of indoor air quality in office buildings across Europe - The Officair study

The European project OFFICAIR aimed to broaden the existing knowledge regarding indoor air quality (IAQ) in modern office buildings, i.e., recently built or refurbished buildings. Thirty-seven office buildings participated in the summer campaign (2012), and thirty-five participated in the winter campaign (2012−2013). Four roomswere investigated per building. The target pollutantswere twelve volatile organic compounds, seven aldehydes, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particulatematterwith aerodynamic diameter b2.5 μm(PM2.5). Compared to other studies in office buildings, the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene concentrations were lower in OFFICAIR buildings, while the α-pinene and D-limonene concentrations were higher, and the aldehyde, nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5 concentrations were of the same order of magnitude. When comparing summer and winter, significantly higher concentrations were measured in summer for formaldehyde and ozone, and in winter for benzene, α-pinene, D-limonene, and nitrogen dioxide. The terpene and 2-ethylhexanol concentrations showed heterogeneitywithin buildings regardless of the season. Considering the average of the summer andwinter concentrations, the acetaldehyde and hexanal concentrations tended to increase by 4–5% on averagewith every floor level increase, and the nitrogen dioxide concentration tended to decrease by 3% on averagewith every floor level increase. A preliminary evaluation of IAQ in terms of potential irritative and respiratory health effects was performed. The 5-day median and maximum indoor air concentrations of formaldehyde and ozone did not exceed their respective WHO air quality guidelines, and those of acrolein, α-pinene, and D-limonene were lower than their estimated thresholds for irritative and respiratory effects. PM2.5 indoor concentrations were higher than the 24-h and annual WHO ambient air quality guideline

Ozone-initiated Terpene Reaction Products in Five European Offices: Replacement of a Floor Cleaning Agent

Cleaning agents often emit terpenes that react rapidly with ozone. These ozone-initiated reactions, which occur in the gas-phase and on surfaces, produce a host of gaseous and particulate oxygenated compounds with possible adverse health effects in the eyes and airways. Within the European Union (EU) project OFFICAIR, common ozone-initiated reaction products were measured before and after the replacement of the regular floor cleaning agent with a preselected low emitting floor cleaning agent in four offices located in four EU countries. One reference office in a fifth country did not use any floor cleaning agent. Limonene, α-pinene, 3-carene, dihydromyrcenol, geraniol, linalool, and α-terpineol were targeted for measurement together with the common terpene oxidation products formaldehyde, 4-acetyl-1-methylcyclohexene (4-AMCH), 3-isopropenyl-6-oxo-heptanal (IPOH), 6-methyl-5-heptene-2-one, (6-MHO), 4-oxopentanal (4-OPA), and dihydrocarvone (DHC). Two-hour air samples on Tenax TA and DNPH cartridges were taken in the morning, noon, and in the afternoon and analyzed by thermal desorption combined with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and HPLC/UV analysis, respectively. Ozone was measured in all sites. All the regular cleaning agents emitted terpenes, mainly limonene and linalool. After the replacement of the cleaning agent, substantially lower concentrations of limonene and formaldehyde were observed. Some of the oxidation product concentrations, in particular that of 4-OPA, were also reduced in line with limonene. Maximum 2 h averaged concentrations of formaldehyde, 4-AMCH, 6-MHO, and IPOH would not give rise to acute eye irritation-related symptoms in office workers; similarly, 6-AMCH, DHC and 4-OPA would not result in airflow limitation to the airways

Inventory of Good Practices to help people to take one step up

The Volume reports the analysis of the best European practices supporting low skilled citizens in their upskillin