Occupational hygienists and safety and health practitioners have a solid history involving the use of occupational exposure limits (OELs). The role of OELs in characterizing workplace exposures to potentially hazardous chemicals has been significant, and they also help to ensure appropriate protections are in place and functioning. In addition, OELs provide the means for hazard assessment and risk communication. Yet setting appropriate OELs is resource intensive, requiring dose-response data, exposure data, and technical expertise to accurately characterize hazards for risk management purposes. And in a world of work where the number of chemical substances in use vastly exceeds the number of chemicals with OELs, the search for additional strategies for chemical risk assessment and management began. One such strategy gaining stronger acceptance and increasing utility is occupational exposure banding and the use of occupational exposure bands (OEBs).

Effective emergency management and response require appropriate utilization of various resources as an incident evolves. This manuscript describes the information resources used in chemical emergency management and operations and how their utility evolves from the initial response phase to recovery to event close out. The authors address chemical hazard guidance in the context of four different phases of emergency response: preparedness, emergency response (both initial and ongoing), recovery, and mitigation. Immediately following a chemical incident, during the initial response, responders often use readily available, broad-spectrum guidance to make rapid decisions in the face of uncertainties regarding potential exposure to physical and health hazards. Physical hazards are described as the hazards caused by chemicals that can cause harm with or without direct contact. Examples of physical hazards include explosives, flammables, and gases under pressure. This first line of resources may not be chemical-specific in nature, but it can provide guidance related to isolation distances, protective actions, and the most important physical and health threats. During the ongoing response phase, an array of resources can provide detailed information on physical and health hazards related to specific chemicals of concern. Consequently, risk management and mitigation actions evolve as well. When the incident stabilizes to a recovery phase, the types of information resources that facilitate safe and effective incident management evolve. Health and physical concerns transition from acute toxicity and immediate hazards to both immediate and latent health effects. Finally, the information inputs utilized during the preparedness phase include response evaluations of past events, emergency preparedness planning, and chemical-specific guidance about chemicals present. This manuscript details a framework for identifying the effective use of information resources at each phase and provides case study examples from chemical hazard emergencies.

Bisphenol A is a commercially important chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic, epoxy resins and other specialty products. Despite an extensive body of in vitro, animal and human observational studies on the effects of exposure to bisphenol A, no authoritative bodies in the U.S. have adopted or recommended occupational exposure limits for bisphenol A. In 2017, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published a Draft process for assigning health-protective occupational exposure bands, i.e. an airborne concentration range, to chemicals lacking an occupational exposure limit. Occupational exposure banding is a systematic process that uses both quantitative and qualitative toxicity information on selected health effect endpoints to assign an occupational exposure band for a chemical. The Draft process proposes three methodological tiers of increasing complexity for assigning an occupational exposure band. We applied Tier 1 (based on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling) and Tier 2 (based on authoritative sources/reviews) to assign an occupational exposure band to bisphenol A. Under both Tier 1 and 2, the occupational exposure band for bisphenol A was "E" (<0.01 mg/m(3)), an assignment based on eye damage. "E" is the lowest exposure concentration range, reserved for chemicals with high potential toxicity. If eye damage was excluded in assigning an air concentration exposure range, then bisphenol A would band as "D" (>0.01 to 0.1 mg/m(3)) under Tier 1 (based on reproductive toxicity and respiratory/skin sensitization) and under Tier 2 (based on specific target organ toxicity-repeated exposure). In summary, Tiers 1 and 2 gave the same occupational exposure band for bisphenol A when eye damage was included ("E") or excluded ("D") as an endpoint.

The rate at which chemicals are introduced into commerce continues to outpace the development of authoritative occupational exposure limits. Occupational exposure banding is a tool that empowers and enables occupational hygienists to address unregulated chemicals. An occupational exposure band is not meant to replace an OEL; rather, it serves as a starting point to inform risk management decisions. Given the utility of an OEB, more occupational hygiene professionals are embracing the proposed NIOSH occupational exposure banding tool and using the occupational exposure banding process to guide their risk management decisions for chemicals without OELs. Occupational exposure banding, also known as hazard banding, is a process intended to quickly and accurately assign chemicals to specific categories (bands) that correspond to a range of exposure concentrations. These bands are assigned on the basis of a chemical&#8217;s toxicological potency and the adverse health effects associated with exposure to the chemical. The output of this process is an OEB. The pharmaceutical sector and some major chemical companies have used occupational exposure banding over the past several decades to establish exposure control limits or ranges for new or existing chemicals that lack formal OELs.

The exposome has been defined as the totality of exposures individuals experience over the course of their lives and how those exposures affect health. Three domains of the exposome have been identified: internal, specific external, and general external. Internal factors are those that are unique to the individual, and specific external factors include occupational exposures and lifestyle factors. The general external domain includes sociodemographic factors such as educational level and financial status. Eliciting information on the exposome is daunting and not feasible at present; the undertaking may never be fully realized. A variety of tools have been identified to measure the exposome. Biomarker measurements will be one of the major tools in exposomic studies. However, exposure data can also be obtained from other sources such as sensors, geographic information systems, and conventional tools such as survey instruments. Proof-of-concept studies are being conducted that show the promise of exposomic investigation and the integration of different kinds of data. The inherent value of exposomic data in epidemiologic studies is that they can provide greater understanding of the relationships among a broad range of chemical and other risk factors and health conditions and ultimately lead to more effective and efficient disease prevention and control.

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are a critical component of the risk assessment and risk management process and their use remains a staple of occupational hygiene practice. There are dozens of organizations and agencies that derive OELs worldwide. Yet, while most of these groups describe their administrative procedures as well as the rationale for the derivation of OELs for individual substances, few provide equally complete documentation of the underlying scientific methodology for conducting the quantitative risk assessment employed in OEL development. The paucity of written descriptions of OEL development methodology has resulted in a lack of transparency related to implementation of important scientific principles for OEL development and inconsistent practices for OEL development within and among organizations. The absence of such transparency limits the opportunities for international harmonization of existing values and OEL setting practices among organizations. | Given these and other challenges, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) began an effort to identify and characterize leading issues pertaining to OELs and their development through research which culminated in a collection of articles focused on each key issue. Those articles and the key issues they explore comprise this supplement of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. Utilizing subject matter expertise from researchers and thought leaders in the occupational hygiene profession and affiliated fields of environmental public health, the goal of this effort is to describe the issues related to education and communication of science principles and to understand how they can be incorporated into (and thereby impact) the practices of OEL development and interpretation. Focusing specifically on the state-of-the-science in the fields of exposure science, occupational hygiene, risk assessment, and toxicology this effort sought to provide a clear description of how advances in these research areas can contribute to the practice of OEL setting—by reviewing the methods used for most OELs that are currently available as well as new methods that are actively being incorporated in the OEL process. An essential topic included within the set of complementary and interrelated articles dedicated to this pursuit is the consideration and interpretation of OELs in the context of evolving risk management practices. The articles are intended to serve as a current critical review of occupational risk assessment methods that will enable occupational hygiene professionals to have a clear understanding of the science methods incorporated in the OELs they develop or use. A brief introduction to each article in this collection is provided in the following paragraphs.

Occupational exposure limits have traditionally focused on preventing morbidity and mortality arising from inhalation exposures to individual chemical stressors in the workplace. While central to occupational risk assessment, occupational exposure limits have limited application as a refined disease prevention tool because they do not account for all of the complexities of the work and non-occupational environments and are based on varying health endpoints. To be of greater utility, occupational exposure limits and other risk management tools could integrate broader consideration of risks from multiple exposure pathways and routes (aggregate risk) as well as the combined risk from exposure to both chemical and non-chemical stressors, within and beyond the workplace, including the possibility that such exposures may cause interactions or modify the toxic effects observed (cumulative risk). Although still at a rudimentary stage in many cases, a variety of methods and tools have been developed or are being used in allied risk assessment fields to incorporate such considerations in the risk assessment process. These approaches, which are collectively referred to as cumulative risk assessment, have potential to be adapted or modified for occupational scenarios and provide a tangible path forward for occupational risk assessment. Accounting for complex exposures in the workplace and the broader risks faced by the individual also requires a more complete consideration of the composite effects of occupational and non-occupational risk factors to fully assess and manage worker health problems. Barriers to integrating these different factors remain, but new and ongoing community-based and worker health-related initiatives may provide mechanisms for identifying and integrating risk from aggregate exposures and cumulative risks from all relevant sources, be they occupational or non-occupational.

With increasing numbers and quantities of chemicals in commerce and use, scientific attention continues to focus on the environmental and public health consequences of chemical production processes and exposures. Concerns about environmental stewardship have been gaining broader traction through emphases on sustainability and "green chemistry" principles. Occupational safety and health has not been fully promoted as a component of environmental sustainability. However, there is a natural convergence of green chemistry/sustainability and occupational safety and health efforts. Addressing both together can have a synergistic effect. Failure to promote this convergence could lead to increasing worker hazards and lack of support for sustainability efforts. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has made a concerted effort involving multiple stakeholders to anticipate and identify potential hazards associated with sustainable practices and green jobs for workers. Examples of potential hazards are presented in case studies with suggested solutions such as implementing the hierarchy of controls and prevention through design principles in green chemistry and green building practices. Practical considerations and strategies for green chemistry, and environmental stewardship could benefit from the incorporation of occupational safety and health concepts which in turn protect affected workers.

BACKGROUND: Silicosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling respirable crystalline silica dust, is an occupational illness affecting millions of workers worldwide. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has partnered with the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization, and multiple agencies in the Americas to implement the program "The Elimination of Silicosis in the Americas". OBJECTIVES: One component of this program is control banding, a qualitative risk assessment and management strategy that allows non-experts to use task-based hazard data and potential exposure information to determine appropriate controls. RESULTS: From 2005 to the present, NIOSH occupational health researchers have worked with experts in Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Brazil to assess, implement, and provide tools to evaluate the use of control banding methodology.

This article presents an overview of a strategy for assignment of hazard-specific skin notations (SK), developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This health hazard characterization strategy relies on multiple SKs capable of delineating systemic (SYS), direct (DIR), and immune-mediated (SEN) adverse effects caused by dermal exposures to chemicals. One advantage of the NIOSH strategy is the ability to combine SKs when it is determined that a chemical may cause multiple adverse effects following dermal contact (e.g., SK: SYS-DIR-SEN). Assignment of the SKs is based on a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach, which refers to the critical examination of all available data from diverse lines of evidence and the derivation of a scientific interpretation based on the collective body of data including its relevance, quality, and reported results. Numeric cutoff values, based on indices of toxic potency, serve as guidelines to aid in consistently determining a chemical's relative toxicity and hazard potential. The NIOSH strategy documents the scientific rationale for determination of the hazard potential of a chemical and the subsequent assignment of SKs. A case study of acrylamide is presented as an application of the NIOSH strategy.

June 3, 2008, turned into a nightmare for Chris and Janet Augeri. Instead of celebrating their son Rob's 31st birthday, they were making plans for his funeral. | Robert (Rob) Augeri of Londonderry, N.H., a husband and father of four children ranging in age from 1 to 12, was killed at 1:30 a.m. while working in a highway construction zone. Rob was painting lines in the roadway on Interstate 495 near Methuen, Mass., when a dump truck backed into him in the closed left travel lane. Neither the driver of the truck nor his passenger was injured.

In Alabama, a framing crew member who was moving a roof truss into place while supporting himself on an 8-inch wide structural beam fell 27 feet to the ground inside the partially constructed building. The native Mexican laborer, who understood little English, was not wearing or using personal fall protection equipment. An 8-foot by 4-foot truss fell at the same time, striking the worker's head when he hit the ground. He was pronounced dead at a local hospital.