Table 1.
Use and derivation of private OELs. Percentagesa apply to number of respondents (in italics) per question (in bold)
| Occupational hygienists count (%) | Safety engineers count (%) | Combined count (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kind of OELs applied | |||
| Sum respondents | 139 (100) | 198 (100) | 337 (100) |
| Both public and private OELs | 126 (91) | 137 (69) | 263 (78) |
| Only public OELs | 12 (9) | 56 (28) | 68 (20) |
| Only private OELs | 1 (1) | 5 (3) | 6 (2) |
| Derive private OELs themselves? | |||
| Yes | 82 (59) | 37 (17) | 119 (35) |
| No | 57 (41) | 161 (83) | 218 (65) |
| Main reason for not deriving private OELs | |||
| Sum respondents | 57(100) | 161(100) | 218(100) |
| Consult an expert on OEL derivation | 14 (25) | 61 (38) | 75 (34) |
| Currently only public OELs needed | 15 (26) | 59 (37) | 74 (34) |
| Apply established safe work practices | 15 (26) | 17 (11) | 32(15) |
| OELs are determined at the company | 7 (12) | 15 (9) | 22 (10) |
| Other | 4 (7) | 8 (5) | 12 (6) |
| No answer | 2 (4) | 1 (1) | 3 (1) |
| Used sources for identifying potential step II OELs b | |||
| Sum respondents c | 82 (100) | 35 (100) | 117 (100) |
| OEL databases | 64 (78) | 11 (31) | 75 (64) |
| International OELs directly | 23 (28) | 8 (23) | 31 (26) |
| Producer and/or safety data sheet | 8 (10) | 10 (29) | 18 (15) |
| ECHA/REACH/DNEL | 13 (16) | 2 (6) | 15 (13) |
| Other | 8 (10) | 7 (20) | 15 (13) |
| Applied rules of thumb for selecting among several potential step II OELs b | |||
| Sum respondents c | 82 (100) | 35 (100) | 117 (100) |
| Choose lowest | 34 (41) | 29 (83) | 63 (54) |
| Quality assessment using predefined criteria | 31 (38) | 4 (11) | 35 (30) |
| Case-by-case quality assessment of scientific basis | 27 (33) | 2 (6) | 29 (25) |
| Other | 10 (12) | 7 (20) | 17 (15) |
| Perceived issues with step III OELs b | |||
| Sum respondents | 66 (100) | 27 (100) | 93 (100) |
| Hazardbanding concentration ranges too conservative | 23 (35) | 9 (33) | 32 (34) |
| Lack of data | 24 (36) | 7 (26) | 31 (33) |
| Methodology for OEL derivation | 20 (30) | 7 (26) | 27 (29) |
| Lack of expertise | 11 (17) | 1 (4) | 12 (13) |
| Labour- and cost intensive | 9 (14) | 3 (11) | 12 (13) |
| Uncertain results | 4 (6) | 1 (4) | 5 (5) |
| Other | 7 (11) | 6 (22) | 13 (14) |
| Proposed solutions to the identified issues with step III OELs b | |||
| Sum respondents | 56 (100) | 19 (100) | 75 (100) |
| OEL derivation protocol | 20 (36) | 7 (37) | 27 (36) |
| Toxicological expertise/training | 8 (14) | 6 (32) | 14 (19) |
| Information sharing/curated database of step III OELs | 9 (16) | 2 (11) | 11 (15) |
| Improve knowledgebase | 7 (13) | 4 (21) | 11 (15) |
| Access to tox data | 6 (11) | 0 (0) | 6 (8) |
| Other | 11 (20) | 1 (5) | 12 (16) |
aPercentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding off or due to more than one answer possible (labelled b).
bThese are categorized free-text answers, more than one answer per respondent possible, no statistical tests performed.
cThese respondents do not fully correspond to the ones stating to derive private OELs; 4 occupational hygienists and 7 Safety Engineers stated to derive private OELs but did not respond to the questions on step II OELs.