Adapting Load Limiter Deployment for Frontal Crash Diversity

Objective: Current European restraint systems may not realize their full protection potential in real-world frontal crashes because they are highly optimized for specific conditions. This research sought to quantify the potential benefit of adapting seat belt load limit thresholds to a wider range of occupant and crash characteristics.Methods: Numerical simulations using Hybrid III dummies were conducted to determine how varying load limiter thresholds could affect occupant kinematics and injury outcome in frontal impacts. Occupant–compartment models were developed with a restraint system consisting of a frontal airbag and a 3-point belt with retractor, buckle pretensioner, and load limiting at the shoulder. Load limiting threshold was varied in 5 frontal impact scenarios, covering as wide a range of real frontal crash conditions as possible. The simulated thoracic injury risks were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves. These values were then applied to a British real-world frontal impact sample to determine the injury reduction potential of optimized load limiting, taking into account occupant seating position, impact scenario, occupant size, and occupant age and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all cars.Results: In low-severity impacts, a low load limit provided the best chest protection, without increasing risk to other body regions, for both the 50th and 95th percentile dummies in both front seating positions. In high-severity impacts, the low limit was not recommended because it allowed the driver dummy to move into close proximity with the vehicle interior, although there appeared to be some benefit of lower load limiting for the 50th percentile front passenger dummy, due to the increased ride down space in that seating position. Adapting the load limit showed no injury reduction potential for 5th percentile drivers. Utilizing the best load limit threshold in real-world crashes could reduce the number of occupants with AIS 2+ chest injuries from belt loading from 377 to 251 (a 33% reduction), correspondingly reducing the number of occupants with AIS 2+ chest injuries (from all sources) in the whole frontal impact population from 496 to 370. This is a reduction in injury rate from 6.4% to 4.8%.Conclusions: The concept of an adaptive load limiter shows most promise in low-speed frontal crashes where it could lower the AIS 2+ chest injury risk for most front seat occupants, except the smallest of drivers. Generally, adaptive limiters show less potential effectiveness with increased crash severities. Overall, an intelligent adjustment of load limiting threshold could result in a reduction of at least a third of front seat occupants with AIS 2+ chest injuries associated with restraining loads and an overall reduction in AIS 2+ chest injury rate in frontal crashes from 6.4% to 4.8%</div

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF); Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 12, Revision 2 (FGE.12Rev2): Primary saturated or unsaturated alicyclic alcohol, aldehyde, acid, and esters from chemical group 7

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate 10 flavouring substances in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 12 (FGE.12), including an additional substance in revision 3, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. This revision is made due to inclusion of one additional flavouring substance, 2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-ene-1-carboxaldehyde [FL-no: 05.182]. None of the substances were considered to have genotoxic potential. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach (the Procedure) that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that all 10 substances [FL-no: 02.134, 02.186, 05.157, 05.182, 05.183, 05.198, 08.135, 09.342, 09.670 and 09.829] do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered. Specifications including complete purity criteria and identity for the materials of commerce have been provided for all 10 candidate substances