Dutch Model

UK-POEM UK PREDICTIVE OPERATOR EXPOSURE MODEL General Description 183 Formulations and Use Scenarios 183 Use in Risk Assessment 184 Exposure Reduction Measures 186 Model Updates 186 Comments on the Model 186 DUTCH MODEL 187 General Description 187 Formulations and Use Scenarios 187 Use in Risk Assessment 188 Exposure Reduction Measures 189 Model Updates 189 Comments on the Model 189 EUROPOEM DATABASE 189 General Description 189 Formulations and Use Scenarios 190 Use in Risk Assessment 192 Exposure Reduction Measures 194 Model Updates 194 Comments on the Model 194... 

Furthermore, evidence from available Dutch field studies indicated that in repeated measurements some persons frequently had high exposures, and others frequently had low exposures, indicating that exposure is not homogeneous. The chosen parameter of exposure was largely determined by the data presented in the published literature. The parameter of choice (amount of exposure per amount handled) could not be used, because for most exposure data it could not be calculated from the published information. Therefore, since the amount of pesticide handled was not available, it was decided to use the amount of exposure per unit of time. The default values in the Dutch model for the various formulations and type of exposure are presented in Table 5.8. 

In recent years, a lot of work has been carried out in The Netherlands to generate exposnre data, which has led to the extension of the Dutch model (van Golstein Bronwers et al., 1996 Snippe et al., 2002), also including re-entry exposnre assessment and incorporation of the other European models, specifically EUROPOEM. 

For mixing and loading application (Table 5.15), the highest values for inhalation exposure were calculated by using the Dutch model. The latter also derived the... 

UK-POEM, 75 percentile German model, geometric mean PHED, geometric mean Dutch model, 90th per-centile EUROPOEM, 75th percentile. 

For groundboom application (Table 5.15), the highest values for inhalation exposure were calculated with the Dutch model. Higher values for dermal exposure were calculated with the European models than with the PHED model where application exposure was lower by approximately a factor of 10. Differences in local practices, farm sizes and statistics used could contribute to the range of valnes bnt cannot be confirmed because a study design of the PHED studies has not been pnblished. 

There is a basic distinction in most models as to whether intonation is an inherently tone or pitch-level based system (as in AM models), or whether it is based on pitch shapes or pitch dynamics (as in the Dutch model, Fujisaki model or Tilt). In theoretical linguistics this debate is seen as particularly important as researchers are attempting to find the true nature of intonation, with conclusive evidence occasionally being produced for one view over the other. The issue is hard to resolve, and it may be case where intonation is actually a mixture of both. 

Articles on all the models and techniques described here are readily available, but there are few which consider all models together and offer comparisons. The best account of the AM model is given by Ladd [269]. Ladd not only describes the model and its developmenL but also serves as a solid introduction to the whole field of intonational phonology and the practical phonetics associated with it. Accounts of the INTSINT model are given in Hirst [212], the Tilt model in Taylor [436], the Fujisaki model in Fujisaki [166], the SFC model in Bailly and Holm [31], the Dutch model in [447], the British school in O Connor and Arnold [333]. 

---