Advanced

Comparison and Evaluation of Multiple Users' Usage of the Exposure and Risk Tool: Stoffenmanager 5.1.

Landberg, Hanna LU ; Berg, Peter; Andersson, Lennart; Bergendorf, Ulf LU ; Karlsson, Jan-Eric LU ; Westberg, Håkan and Tinnerberg, Håkan LU (2015) In Annals of Occupational Hygiene 59(7). p.821-835
Abstract
Stoffenmanager is an exposure and risk assessment tool that has a control banding part, with risk bands as outcome and a quantitative exposure assessment part, with the 90th percentile of the predicted exposure as a default outcome. The main aim of the study was to investigate whether multiple users of Stoffenmanager came to the same result when modelling the same scenarios. Other aims were to investigate the differences between outcomes of the control banding part with the measured risk quota and to evaluate the conservatism of the tool by testing whether the 90th percentiles are above the measured median exposures. We investigated airborne exposures at companies in four different types of industry: wood, printing, metal foundry, and... (More)
Stoffenmanager is an exposure and risk assessment tool that has a control banding part, with risk bands as outcome and a quantitative exposure assessment part, with the 90th percentile of the predicted exposure as a default outcome. The main aim of the study was to investigate whether multiple users of Stoffenmanager came to the same result when modelling the same scenarios. Other aims were to investigate the differences between outcomes of the control banding part with the measured risk quota and to evaluate the conservatism of the tool by testing whether the 90th percentiles are above the measured median exposures. We investigated airborne exposures at companies in four different types of industry: wood, printing, metal foundry, and spray painting. Three scenarios were modelled and measured, when possible, at each company. When modelled, 13 users visited each company on the same occasion creating individual assessments. Consensus assessments were also modelled for each scenario by six occupational hygienists. The multiple users' outcomes were often spread over two risk bands in the control banding part, and the differences in the quantitative exposure outcomes for the highest and lowest assessments per scenario varied between a factor 2 and 100. Four parameters were difficult for the users to assess and had a large impact on the outcome: type of task, breathing zone, personal protection, and control measures. Only two scenarios had a higher measured risk quota than predicted by the control banding part, also two scenarios had slightly higher measured median exposure value than modelled consensus in the quantitative exposure assessment part. Hence, the variability between users was large but the model performed well. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Annals of Occupational Hygiene
volume
59
issue
7
pages
821 - 835
publisher
Oxford University Press
external identifiers
  • pmid:25858432
  • wos:000361490900001
  • scopus:84939610655
ISSN
1475-3162
DOI
10.1093/annhyg/mev027
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
8c82ccfc-1c2f-4e44-8cf2-6edc28cd3c01 (old id 5345035)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25858432?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2015-05-06 12:27:44
date last changed
2017-07-23 03:06:29
@article{8c82ccfc-1c2f-4e44-8cf2-6edc28cd3c01,
  abstract     = {Stoffenmanager is an exposure and risk assessment tool that has a control banding part, with risk bands as outcome and a quantitative exposure assessment part, with the 90th percentile of the predicted exposure as a default outcome. The main aim of the study was to investigate whether multiple users of Stoffenmanager came to the same result when modelling the same scenarios. Other aims were to investigate the differences between outcomes of the control banding part with the measured risk quota and to evaluate the conservatism of the tool by testing whether the 90th percentiles are above the measured median exposures. We investigated airborne exposures at companies in four different types of industry: wood, printing, metal foundry, and spray painting. Three scenarios were modelled and measured, when possible, at each company. When modelled, 13 users visited each company on the same occasion creating individual assessments. Consensus assessments were also modelled for each scenario by six occupational hygienists. The multiple users' outcomes were often spread over two risk bands in the control banding part, and the differences in the quantitative exposure outcomes for the highest and lowest assessments per scenario varied between a factor 2 and 100. Four parameters were difficult for the users to assess and had a large impact on the outcome: type of task, breathing zone, personal protection, and control measures. Only two scenarios had a higher measured risk quota than predicted by the control banding part, also two scenarios had slightly higher measured median exposure value than modelled consensus in the quantitative exposure assessment part. Hence, the variability between users was large but the model performed well.},
  author       = {Landberg, Hanna and Berg, Peter and Andersson, Lennart and Bergendorf, Ulf and Karlsson, Jan-Eric and Westberg, Håkan and Tinnerberg, Håkan},
  issn         = {1475-3162},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {7},
  pages        = {821--835},
  publisher    = {Oxford University Press},
  series       = {Annals of Occupational Hygiene},
  title        = {Comparison and Evaluation of Multiple Users' Usage of the Exposure and Risk Tool: Stoffenmanager 5.1.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev027},
  volume       = {59},
  year         = {2015},
}