TY - JOUR
PY - 2019//
TI - How to obtain a reliable estimate of occupational exposure? Review and discussion of models' reliability
JO - International journal of environmental research and public health
A1 - Spinazzè, Andrea
A1 - Borghi, Francesca
A1 - Campagnolo, Davide
A1 - Rovelli, Sabrina
A1 - Keller, Marta
A1 - Fanti, Giacomo
A1 - Cattaneo, Andrea
A1 - Cavallo, Domenico Maria
SP - e16152764
EP - e16152764
VL - 16
IS - 15
N2 - Evaluation and validation studies of quantitative exposure models for occupational exposure assessment are still scarce and generally only consider a limited number of exposure scenarios. The aim of this review was to report the current state of knowledge of models' reliability in terms of precision, accuracy, and robustness. A systematic review was performed through searches of major scientific databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed), concerning reliability of Tier1 ("ECETOC TRA"-European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Targeted Risk Assessment, MEASE, and EMKG-Expo-Tool) and Tier2 models (STOFFENMANAGER® and "ART"-Advanced Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Tool). Forty-five studies were identified, and we report the complete information concerning model performance in different exposure scenarios, as well as between-user reliability. Different studies describe the ECETOC TRA model as insufficient conservative to be a Tier1 model, in different exposure scenarios. Contrariwise, MEASE and EMKG-Expo-Tool seem to be conservative enough, even if these models have not been deeply evaluated. STOFFENMANAGER® resulted the most balanced and robust model. Finally, ART was generally found to be the most accurate and precise model, with a medium level of conservatism. Overall, the results showed that no complete evaluation of the models has been conducted, suggesting the need for correct and harmonized validation of these tools. Language: en
LA - en
SN - 1661-7827
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152764
ID - ref1
ER -