...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Human and ecological risk assessment >Setting Risk-Based Occupational Exposure Limits for No-Threshold Carcinogens
【24h】

Setting Risk-Based Occupational Exposure Limits for No-Threshold Carcinogens

机译：为无阈值致癌物设定基于风险的职业接触限值

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Several regulators have recently issued so-called risk-based occupational exposure limits for carcinogenic substances, and also reported estimates of the risk of fatality that exposure to the limit value would give rise to. This practice provides an opportunity to study how differences in the exposure limits set by different regulators are influenced by differences in the scientific judgment (what is the risk at different levels?) and in the policyjudgment (how should large risks be accepted?). Based on a broad search, a list was compiled of exposure limits for carcinogens that the respective regulator associates with a numerical risk estimate. For benzene, such data was available from six regulators. The differences in estimates of the risk/exposure relationship and in risk tolerance were about equal in size for benzene, while the range for acceptability was somewhat wider. A similar pattern was observed, although less clearly, for substances with data from only two or three regulators. It is concluded that the science factor and the policy factor both contribute to differences in exposure limits for carcinogens. It was not possible to judge which of these two factors has the larger influence.
机译：几个监管机构最近发布了所谓的基于风险的致癌物质职业接触限值，并且还报告了暴露于限值会导致死亡的风险的估计。这种做法为研究不同监管机构设定的暴露极限的差异如何受到科学判断（不同水平的风险是什么？）和政策判断（应如何接受大风险）的差异如何影响提供了机会。在广泛搜索的基础上，编制了一份清单，列出了相应监管机构与数字风险估计值相关的致癌物暴露极限。对于苯，可从六个监管机构获得此类数据。苯的风险/暴露关系和风险承受能力的估计值差异大致相同，而可接受性的范围则稍宽一些。对于只有两个或三个调节剂数据的物质，观察到了相似的模式，尽管不太清楚。结论是，科学因素和政策因素均导致致癌物暴露极限的差异。无法判断这两个因素中哪个因素影响更大。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号