Occupational exposure limits (OELs) under occupational safety and health (OSH) legislation, and authorisation and restriction requirements under the chemicals regulation REACH, are the key regulatory tools for managing workplace chemical exposures in the EU. The present study examines how OELs and REACH requirements are interpreted and implemented at the workplace level, and how they impact workplace chemical safety. A mixed-methods study was conducted in Finland, Latvia, Norway, and Slovenia. An online survey targeted labor inspectors (n = 85), and company OSH managers (n = 323) in 3 sectors: chemical industry, metal industry, and motor vehicle maintenance and repair. In addition, semistructured interviews were conducted with labor inspectors (n = 19) and OSH experts (n = 30), including company and organization representatives and OSH service providers. Survey data were analyzed descriptively, and inductive content analysis was used for the interview data. Awareness of OELs and REACH requirements was reported as highly variable across workplaces in all participating countries, with larger companies higher in the supply chain demonstrating greater awareness and implementation capacity. Safety data sheets and chemical suppliers were the most frequently reported information sources. OELs were recognized as reference values for exposure and risk assessment, while REACH restrictions and authorisations were more often associated with discontinuation of substance use. Reported barriers to implementation included limited financial resources, insufficient competence in smaller companies, complex legislation, and weak supply chain communication. Positive examples included mandatory training obligations (eg diisocyanate restriction) and proactive inspection practices.

Abstract Introduction A first version of a European Job-exposure matrix (EuroJEM) for chemicals and particles has been developed within the EU Exposome Project for Health and Occupational Research (EPHOR). The aim was to produce an improved tool for exposure assessment for epidemiological studies on the European population. The working group includes experts on job-exposure matrices and/or occupational exposures from several European countries, including Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, France, and Spain. Methodology The first version, EuroJEM1.0, includes Respirable Crystalline Silica Dust, Wood dust, Diesel Engine Exhaust (EC) and Nickel. Exposure data were obtained from JEM-holders, and occupational codes were translated into ISCO-88(COM). Experts from the working group independently harmonized EuroJEM values from three to five JEMs for each agent. Consensus was reached during meetings. First the prevalence of exposed subjects in an occupation was assessed. In the next step a level was assigned to occupations with at least 25 % exposed workers. Nickel could not be assigned with exposure levels due to poor data quality. Regional differences in exposure have been included when indicated from the underlying data. The EuroJEM will be made publicly available. Results EuroJEM contains 29 occupations exposed to Respirable Crystalline Silica Dust, 12 to Wood dust and 44 to Diesel Engine Exhaust and 14 to Nickel. Conclusions This is the first attempt to harmonize several European JEMs to be used in European epidemiological studies on work exposure and disease. It will be linked with the EPHOR mega cohort as a next step.

Introduction A first version of a European Job-exposure matrix (EuroJEM) for chemicals and particles has been developed within the EU Exposome Project for Health and Occupational Research (EPHOR). The aim was to develop an improved tool for exposure assessment suitable for epidemiological studies on the European population. The working group includes experts on job-exposure matrices and/or occupational exposures from several European countries, including Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, France, and Spain. Material and Methods The first version, EuroJEM1.0, includes four agents; Respiratory Crystalline Silica Dust (RCS), Nickel, Wood dust and Diesel Engine Exhaust (measured as Elemental Carbon, EC).The agents were chosen based on suggestions from occupational hygienist and epidemiologists within the project, considering availability of high-quality exposure data and research priorities within the EPHOR project. Data of interest were obtained from JEM-holders, and when necessary, occupational codes were translated into the International Standard Classification of Occupations, ISCO-88(COM). Experts from the working group independently assigned EuroJEM values from three to five JEMs for each agent. Consensus was reached during meetings. In the first step, the prevalence of exposed subjects in each occupation was assessed for each specific agent, including regional and temporal differences. In the second step occupations will be assigned with an exposure level from quantitative 'state of the art' JEMs available. The work on this part is ongoing. The EuroJEM will be linked with the EPHOR mega cohort and will be publicly available for widespread use. Results EuroJEM contains 31 occupations exposed to RCS, 14 to Nickel, 34 to Wood dust and 44 to Diesel Engine Exhaust, where at least 25% of the workers within the occupation are exposed. Conclusions This is the first attempt to harmonize several European JEMs to be used in European epidemiological studies on work exposure and disease.

In this article, we have responded to the key statements in the article by Koivisto et al. (2022) that were incorrect and considered to be a biased critique on a subset of the exposure models used in Europe (i.e. ART and Stoffenmanager®) used for regulatory exposure assessment. We welcome scientific discussions on exposure modelling (as was done during the ISES Europe workshop) and criticism based on scientific evidence to contribute to the advancement of occupational exposure estimation tools. The tiered approach to risk assessment allows various exposure assessment models from screening tools (control/hazard banding) through to higher-tiered approaches. There is a place for every type of model, but we do need to recognize the cost and data requirements of highly bespoke assessments. That is why model developers have taken pragmatic approaches to develop tools for exposure assessments based on imperfect data. We encourage Koivisto et al. to focus on further scientifically robust work to develop mass-balance models and by independent external validations studies, compare these models with alternative model tools such as ART and Stoffenmanager®.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVEIn Finland and other northern countries, vegetable greenhouse workers are exposed to airborne dust and microbes all year round. The aim of the study was to assess respiratory exposure to dust, endotoxins and microbes, and to identify the risk phases of respiratory and skin exposure to promote safe working methods.MATERIAL AND METHODSWork in greenhouses was observed and recorded in a structured form. 23 personal samples and eight stationary samples of dust, endotoxins and viable microbes were collected from eight tomato or cucumber greenhouses in Finland. Dust samples were analysed gravimetrically. Endotoxins were analysed on filters by chromogenic Limulus amoebocyte lysate assay. Microbes were collected on filters, incubated and counted in three different culture media. Eight additional stationary samples of microbes were collected on a six-phase impactor.RESULTSThe greenhouses were generally clean and well organised, but skin protection was deficient. The median of personal dust exposure was 0.24 mg/m3: 0.21 mg/m3 in the tomatohouses and 0.62 mg/m3 in the cucumber greenhouses. The mean level of bacteria in the tomato houses was 2.7 × 103 and in the cucumber houses 1.6×104. Those of fungi were 3.6 × 105 and 1.7 × 105 on Hagem and 8.1 × 105 and 1.9 × 105 on DG-18, respectively. The microbes made up about 1/10 of these values in the stationary samples. Very low concentrations of endotoxins were found in 5/23 air samples.CONCLUSIONSThe clean appearance of the greenhouses was reflected in the low to moderate levels of dust. Risk phases of high exposure, such as lifting leaf debris, were identified. The microbe species were typical of this climate, and their levels were comparable to other greenhouse studies, but lower than in farming. Prevention among the foreign workforce is challenging due to the lack of a common language.

The aim of this work is to evaluate and describe the current status of, and prospects for, the future of occupational hygiene in Finland. The main sources of information include a seminar held in the annual meeting of Finnish Occupational Hygiene Society and interviews with different stakeholders. Nanotechnology and other new materials, changing work environments, circular economy including green jobs, new medical methods and advances of construction methods were recognized as future challenges. Future work opportunities for occupational hygiene experts included exposure assessments in indoor air surveys, private consulting and entrepreneurship in general, international activities and product safety issues. Unclear topics needing more attention in the future were thought to be in new exposures, sensitive persons, combined effects, skin exposures and applicability of personal protective equipment. Occupational hygiene should broaden its view; occupational hygienists should have to cooperate with other specialists and grasp new challenges.

Background According to the statistics of the Farmers' Social Insurance Institution Mela, approximately six per cent of insured farmers have received compensation for an occupational accident in recent years. Methods The study population consisted of 3117 farmers and was weighted to be equivalent to the actual distribution of the production sector in Finland in 2014. The data was collected through computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). The structure of the interviews was planned by a group of experts at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, and included questions on the nature of occupational accidents. Results Of the interviewed farmers, 15% had had an accident during farm work in the previous 12 months. Out of these, two thirds required medical care after the accident. Livestock farmers were far more likely to have had occupational accidents than crop farmers. One in four (25%) dairy cattle farmers had had an accident, while the number for crop farmers was 11%. Relative to part-time farmers, full-time farmers had had more accidents (19% and 7%, respectively) and were also more likely to have required medical care afterwards (13% and 5%, respectively). The most recent occupational accident for which farmers had seen a doctor had usually occurred either during cattle tending (24%), forest work (13%) or maintaining machines (12%). Conclusions According to the farmers' own accounts, there had been a third more occupational accidents requiring medical care than what is shown in the compensation statistics of Mela. This is largely explained by the bonus system of the current farmer's accident insurance legislation in which the insurance fees significantly decrease after a number of years without accidents. The greater frequency of accidents among full-time farmers is explained both by a greater amount of time spent on farm work and a larger focus on the more high-risk livestock farming.

Introduction: The requirements of the European Union Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), including the preparation of exposure scenarios for the communication of safe use, are focused on single substances. Since the chemical products used at workplaces are typically mixtures, it is important to ensure that accurate information is available regarding their safe use. The focus of the present study was on the methods for consolidating (combining) the information presented in the exposure scenarios of the individual components of a mixture.Methods: We tested the applicability and comparability of three methods for consolidating the exposure scenario information on six real products, focusing on occupational exposure. Two of the reviewed methods were based on the identification of the critical components that determine the health effects and risk management of the product, and one was based on the selection of the most stringent risk management measures presented in the exposure scenarios of the components.Results: The differences in the critical components recognised by the two critical component-based methods revealed limitations in both of the methods. The quality and comprehensiveness of the consolidated scenarios produced by the two methods were generally of the same level, depended directly on the content of the exposure scenarios of the critical components. Choosing the most stringent risk management measures improved the comprehensiveness of the scenarios. All of the examined methods run the risk of communicating over-precautionary measures if the concentration of the components determining the level of protection is not taken into consideration.Conclusions: Of the three methods considered, we recommend the selection of the most stringent operational conditions and risk management measures as a conservative default approach for consolidating exposure scenario information. If a critical component-based approach is used, checking the adequacy of the consolidated scenario for the other components of the mixture is recommended. With all of the methods, further modification of the consolidated scenario may be necessary to achieve the intended level of protection.