Exposure, safe levels

Toxicity Data on Af- Vinyl-2-Pyrrolidinone. Results of a chronic inhalation study in rats warrant a review of industrial hygiene practices to assure that VP vapor concentrations are maintained at a safe level. One of the manufacturers, ISP, recommends that an appropriate workplace exposure limit be set at 0.1 ppm (vapor) (9). Additionally, normal hygienic practices and precautions are recommended, such as prompt removal from skin and avoidance of ingestion. In case of accidental eye contact, immediately flush with water for at least 15 minutes and seek medical attention. Refer to the manufacturers Material Safety Data Sheets for more detailed information. Table 3 provides some toxicity data. 

BEIs apply to 8 hr exposures, five days a week. However, BEIs for altered working sehedules ean be extrapolated on pharmaeokinetie and pharmaeodynamie bases. BEIs should not be applied, either direetly or tlirough a eonversion faetor, to tlie deterirtination of safe levels for non-oeeupational exposure to air and water pollutants, or food eontaminants. The BEIs are not intended for use as a measure of adverse effeets or for diagnosis of oeeupational illness. 

Proper training and instruction for anyone requued to use air-fed breatliing apparatus. Restriction of exposures to compressed air to safe levels. 

Threshold Limit Values or Occupational Exposure Limits (preferably with reference to their interpretation, i.e. not as safe levels). 

Air samples are collected over an 8 hour work shift for MEK. Measurements showed 3 ppm after 2 hours, 24 ppm after 4.5 hours, 12 ppm after 6 hours, and 2 ppm after 8 hours. Caleulate the TWA concentration and compare this value against the OSHA safe level of exposure. 

Dilution of fumes in these areas is generally required for one of two reasons either to reduce the level of harmful (toxic or irritant) fumes to a safe level, normally below the OES (Occupational Exposure Standard) or to dilute offensive odors. Care must be taken with the latter to ensure that the problem is not merely passed on to neighbors. If it is, then a local extract with air-cleaning equipment will be preferred if it is practical. Indeed, a local extract system is always preferable, since it removes the problem at source, resulting in a cleaner environment within the building. 

PBPK models improve the pharmacokinetic extrapolations used in risk assessments that identify the maximal (i.e., the safe) levels for human exposure to chemical substances (Andersen and Krishnan 1994). PBPK models provide a scientifically sound means to predict the target tissue dose of chemicals in humans who are exposed to environmental levels (for example, levels that might occur at hazardous waste sites) based on the results of studies where doses were higher or were administered in different species. Figure 3-4 shows a conceptualized representation of a PBPK model. 

The worst hazard scenarios (excessive temperature and pressure rise accompanied by emission of toxic substances) must be worked out based upon calorimetric measurements (e.g. means to reduce hazards by using the inherent safety concept or Differential Scanning Calorimetry, DSC) and protection measures must be considered. If handling hazardous materials is considered too risky, procedures for generation of the hazardous reactants in situ in the reactor might be developed. Micro-reactor technology could also be an option. Completeness of the data on flammability, explosivity, (auto)ignition, static electricity, safe levels of exposure, environmental protection, transportation, etc. must be checked. Incompatibility of materials to be treated in a plant must be determined. 

A report entitled Chemical Trespass was issued in May 2004 by the Pesticide Action Network (Schafer et al., 2006). It contained detailed analysis of 2000/01 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) OP urinary metabolite data and used published methods to estimate exposure levels to parent compounds from creatinine corrected urinary metabolite levels. They focused on chlorpyrifos and its metabolite 3,4,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), and found that chlorpyrifos exposures for children ages 6-11 and 12-19 exceeded EPA s chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD) by surprisingly wide margins. Geometric mean TCP levels were 3 to 4.6 times higher than the EPA-estimated safe dose, as shown in Fig. 14.2. The more heavily exposed children received daily doses more than ten times the safe level. 

A new area of research concerns exposure assessment for beryllium in the production of nuclear weapons at nuclear defense industries. A safe level of exposure to beryllium is still unknown. Potential explanations include (1) the current exposure standard may not be protective enough to prevent sensitization, or (2) past exposure surveillance may have underestimated the actual exposure level because of a lack of understanding of the complexity of beryllium exposures. Task-based exposure assessment provides information not directly available through conventional sampling. It directly links exposure to specific activity associated with contaminant generation and provides in-depth evaluation of the worker s role in a specific task. In-depth task analysis is being used to examine physical, postural, and cognitive demands of various tasks. 

This is confusing. Why don t risk assessors simply decide what level of exposure is safe for each chemical, and risk managers simply put into effect mechanisms to ensure that industry reaches the safe level Why should different sources of risk be treated differently Why apply a no risk standard to certain substances (e.g., those intentionally introduced into food, such as aspartame) and an apparently more lenient risk-henefit standard to unwanted contaminants of food such as PCBs, methylmercury, and aflatoxins (which the FDA applies under another section of food law) Why allow technological limitations to influence any decision about health What is this risk-henefit balancing nonsense Aren t some of these statutes simply sophisticated mechanisms to allow polluters to expose people to risk ... 

At the time (early in the 1970s) the prevailing wisdom was captured in the convenient but somewhat misleading phrase There are no safe levels of exposure to carcinogens. This phrase had been used by many experts on carcinogens in testimony offered to Congress on the occasion of its consideration of amendments to the basic food law, and in connection with other bills as well. Just what did this phrase mean ... 

Well, it was nothing more than a crude expression of the nothreshold hypothesis, as described in earlier chapters. Under this hypothesis, any exposure to a carcinogen increases the probability that cancer will occur. As we have emphasized several times, it does not mean that any exposure to a carcinogen will cause cancer. If the exponents of the no safe level view meant that an absolutely safe level of exposure could not be identified, then they were correct, assuming the no-threshold hypothesis is correct. (Even assuming the threshold hypothesis is correct, as we have noted earlier, does not establish that we can ever be certain we have identified the completely safe threshold dose for any agent.)... 

Hrudey, S. and Krewski, D. (1995) Is there a safe level of exposure to a carcinogen Environmental Science and Technology. 29, 370A. 

Wade et al. (2002) studied effects (systemic, immune, and reproductive) of a 70-day exposure to a complex mixture of persistent contaminants in sexually mamre rats. Each chemical was included in the mixture at the MRL, RfD, or TDI as determined by ATSDR or US-EPA, and the rats were exposed to the mixture at 1, 10, 100, and 1000 times the estimated safe levels daily for 70 days (see Table 10.7). 

The decline in acceptable childhood blood levels was a function of research and improved control of lead contamination, such as the removal of lead from gasoline. A blood lead level of 10 lg/dl does not represent a safe level, only one where it is prudent to take action to reduce exposure. But it must be noted that a level of 10 (Xg/dl is considered an action level and does not provide any margin of safety for a child s developing nervous system. Currently, there appears to be no safe level of lead exposure for the developing child. 

---