Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1997;54:217-222

METHODOLOGY Series editors: T C Aw, A Cockcroft, R McNamee

Occupational exposure limits for chemicals in theEuropean Union

W J Hunter, G Aresini, R Haigh, P Papadopoulos, W Von der Hude

EuropeanCommission,Directorate-GeneralV, Employment,Industrial Relations,and Social Affairs,Public Health andSafety at Work, BatEUFO, Plateau duKirchberg, L-2920LuxembourgW J HunterG AresiniR HaighP PapadopoulosW Von der HudeCorrespondence to:Dr W J Hunter, EuropeanCommission, Directorate-General V, Employment,Industrial Relations, andSocial Affairs, Public Healthand Safety at Work, BatEUFO, Plateau duKirchberg, L-2920Luxembourg.Accepted 1 August 1996

Exposure limits for dangerous substances inworking environments have played a majorpart in the control of occupational disease.Exposure limits are quantitative health stan-dards expressed as mean concentrations over agiven period which an environmental pollutantmust not exceed if the exposed workers' healthis not to be affected. This is true provided theterm limit is not accompanied by adjectivessuch as acceptable or tolerable, which implythe general social acceptability of a particularrisk or general biological tolerance of an expo-sure.

It is obvious that acceptable cannot beapplied on the basis of a decision taken by sci-entists alone; it implies evaluation both of thehealth effect and any other socioeconomic orpolitical factor implied in a decision of thisnature. The term tolerable makes no biologicalsense in that each subject tends to respond toan exogenous nuisance in a personal way, as afunction of numerous individual factors.Thus, a certain level of exposure may well betolerated (the internal environment remains inequilibrium) by one subject and not byanother. For these reasons the current scien-tific trend is to exclude these two adjectives inthe context of exposure limits; in 1977 theInternational Labour Organisation (ILO)defined an exposure limit as:

". .. the concentration in air of a harmfulsubstance which, if the standards arerespected, does not generally have harmfuleffects-including long-term effects on pos-terity-on the health of workers exposed for8 to 10 hours a day, 40 hours a week; thisexposure is considered acceptable by thecompetent authority which determines thelimits, but it is possible that it may not com-pletely guarantee the protection of thehealth of all the workers; accordingly, theexposure limit does not constitute anabsolute dividing line between harmless andharmful concentrations, but is intendedsolely as a guide to prevention".In fact, verification that a specific chemical

or physical agent does not exceed the exposurelimits laid down for working environments (afundamental and often decisive aspect in theprevention of occupational diseases) is todayonly one factor in assessing good practice inindustrial hygiene, and does not signify biolog-ical compatibility for all exposed people. Thuswhen the results of environmental monitoringhave to be compared with reference values, itis essential also to take account of other factors

which influence exposure and of different bio-logical conditions if we are not to lose sight ofthe ultimate objective of prevention.

Approach ofthe European UnionThe main role of the exposure limits in thecontrol and prevention of occupational dis-eases has been recognised by the EuropeanCommunities since the adoption of the firstaction programme on the health and safety atwork in 1978,' with a subsequent inclusion ofrelevant terminology in the community legisla-tion on the use of chemicals at work.The first comprehensive framework for

Community legislation on chemicals in theworkplace was included in Council Directive80/1107/EEC,2 which set out measures for thecontrol of risks related to chemical, physical,and biological agents. It was amended in 1988by the adoption of Directive 88/642/EEC,3which emphasised the mechanisms for settingexposure limits for hazardous chemicals.Furthermore Council Directive 90/394/EECon carcinogens at work4 defines carcinogens inrelation to the criteria set up under the frame-work of Council Directive 67/548/EEC,5 andcontains a particular provision for setting uplimit values for carcinogens.The concept embodied in these Directives

of having two different types of exposure limitswas agreed by the Council of Ministers: (a)"binding limit value", adopted by the Councilunder the procedure laid down in Article 1 1 8aof the Treaty; reflects scientific data as well associoeconomic considerations and must betransposed into national legislation as a mini-mum requirement, and (b) "indicative limitvalue", adopted by the Commission afterobtaining the opinion of a committee consist-ing of representatives of the Member Statesand presided over by a representative of theCommission; an indicative limit value reflectsexpert evaluations based on scientific data;national authorities shall take indicative limitvalues into account, among other things, whenthey adopt national measures for the protec-tion of workers.

These limit values are stated as the eighthour time weighted average (8 h TWA) con-centration for exposure of a substance ingaseous, vaporous, or suspended form in theair at the workplace, whereas exposure meansthe presence of a chemical agent in the airwithin the breathing area of a worker.Community legislation, which may be

217

Hunter, Aresini, Haigh, Papadopoulos, Von der Hude

Table 1 Substances for which binding limit values or prohibition measures exit

Vinyl chloride monomer6 7 ppmLead and its ionic compounds7 0- 15 mg/mr3Asbestos8:

Chrysotile 0-60 f/mIOther forms (alone or in mixtures) 0 30 f/mI

2-Napthylamine and its salts9 Ban of production or use4-Aminobiphenyl and its salts9 Ban of production or useBenzidine and its salts9 Ban of production or use4-Nitrodiphenyl9 Ban of production or use

Table 2 Substances for which indicative limit values exist due to Commission Directive9113221EEC'0

Limit valuest

Substance CAS* mg/m'f ppmf

Nicotine 54-11-5 05 -

Formic acid 64-18-6 9 5Acetic acid 64-19-7 25 10Methanol 67-56-1 260 200Acetonitrile 75-05-8 70 40Picric acidl 88-89-1 0-1Naphthalene 91-20-3 50 10Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 5 1Resorcinoll 108-46-3 45 10Diethylamine 109-89-7 30 10Pyridine¶ 110-86-1 15 5Carbon dioxide 124-38-9 9 000 5 000Oxalic acid 144-62-7 1Cyanamide¶ 420-04-2 2Calcium dihydroxide¶ 1305-62-0 5Disphosphorus pentoxide¶ 1314-56-3 1Disphosphorus pentasulphide¶ 1314-80-3 1Cresols (all isomers)¶ 1319-77-3 22 5Platinum (metallic)¶ 7440-06-4 1Lithium hydride 7580-67-8 0-025Brominel 7726-95-6 0 7 0.1Phosphorus pentachloride¶ 10026-13-8 1Nitrogen monoxide 10102-43-9 30 25Pyrethrum 8003-34-7 5Barium (soluble compounds as Ba)¶ - 0 5Silver (soluble compound as Ag)¶ - 0 01Tin (inorganic compounds as Sn)¶ - 2

*CAS = chemical abstract service number.tMeasured or calculated in relation to a reference period of eight hours (8 hTWA).tng/M3 Of air at 20°C and 101,3 KPa (760 mm mercury pressure).Sppm = Parts per million by volume in air (ml/m3).¶Existing scientific data on health effects seem to be particularly limited.

amended by the Council, requires already thatbinding limit values be fixed for certain chemi-cals (appendix 1). After a similar procedure,specific Council Directives"9 have laid downbinding limit values or prohibition measures

for the chemicals (table 1). Apart from thegroups of chemicals for which binding limitvalues may be specified, the Commission isempowered to fix "indicative limit values".Table 2 shows the chemicals for which indica-tive limit values have been adopted inCommission Directive 91/322/EEC.'0

Scientific basis for exposure limitsDespite the different concepts sometimesencountered, there is nowadays a generalagreement on the methods and variables to beused in laying down exposure limits at work.Despite the acknowledgement of the need formore standardised toxicological and epidemio-logical studies to provide the scientific basisfor the proposals for health based exposurelimits for the working environment, minimum

data have been identified on: (a) the physicaland chemical properties of the substanceunder investigation, including the quality andquantity of impurities; (b) the results of studiesof acute, subacute, short term, and chronictoxicity (through the airways, stomach, andskin; of animals or humans). Information on

genotoxicity, sensitisation, and reproductivetoxicity should be taken into consideration,when available.The first task in evaluating the available

data is the identification of a no observedadverse effect level (NOAEL). However,whenever the only data available are thosederived from animal experiments, it is essen-tial, for various reasons, to introduce a factorby which the observed non-effect dose isdivided. It should be stressed that in choosingand applying the final figure, the factor shouldonly take human health into consideration.This procedure is a cornerstone of quantita-tive, environmental, and industrial toxicology.Nevertheless, it is on the basis of the NOAELthat the factors can be applied and thus it isnecessary to find this level to suggest an appro-priate dose.As far as carcinogens are concerned, in the

light of present knowledge the scientific com-munity does not recognise the existence of adose for carcinogens below which we can becertain that cancer will not occur. Molecularbiology has amply shown the persistent exis-tance of chemical carcinogens which can dam-age DNA so that it is not possible to postulatea threshold dose that would have no genotoxiceffect. Neither does epidemiology provide evi-dence of a zero risk of tumours. Even if it canbe said for a given cohort of workers exposedthat there is no significant increase in the inci-dence of cancer, it is easy to argue that everyworking situation is specific and concerns spe-cific groups of workers.A different problem, but one that has identi-

cal practical implications, concerns the possi-bility of proposing exposure limits forsubstances which cause sensitivity. The obser-vance of the exposure limits is not sufficient toprotect people who are sensitised to the spe-cific substance used at work; however, it isknown that the lower the exposure to chemi-cals with sensitising capacity, the smaller thenumber of workers who will develop allergicsyndromes.

Scientific Committee for OccupationalExposure Limits to Chemical Agents(SCOEL)In 1990, at the request of the Council, theEuropean Commission had set up an informalgroup of scientists, known as the ScientificExpert Group (SEG), to give advice on settinglimit values, after having reviewed the differentapproaches in the member states. To encour-age the work to develop harmonised occupa-tional exposure limits (OELs), the EuropeanCommission decided to formalise the SEGand with its Decision of 12 July 199511 has setup a formal base for the work on the scientificevaluation of the risk at the workplace related tochemical substances. The Committee formedcomprises not more than 21 members drawnfrom all member states and reflects the fullrange of scientific expertise which is necessaryto fulfil its mandate, including, in particularchemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, occupa-tional medicine, industrial hygiene, and gen-

218

Occupational exposure limits for chemicals in the European Union

Table 3 Key principles agreed by SCOEL

Strategy for short term exposureStrategy to apply uncertainty factorsStrategy for assigning a skin notationInterpretation of neurobehavioural studiesReproductive toxicityAssessment of sensitisersBiological limit values8 h TWA exposure limitsRole of the SCOEL in the evaluation of chemical carcinogens

eral competence in setting OELs.Article 2 of the Decision describes the key

issues of the major task of the SCOEL:"The Committee shall in particular give

advice on the setting of OELs based on scien-tific data and where appropriate shall propose

values which may include:the eight-hour time weighted average

(TWA);short-term/excursion limits (STEL);biological limit values"To take into account specific problems "the

OELs may be supplemented, as appropriate,by further notations' and " the committee shalladvise on any other absorbtion of the sub-stance in question via other routes".

It has already become clear that several keyprinciples concerning the criteria of settingOELs need to be discussed in detail becausealready existing national scientific committeeshave applied different approaches to developtheir limit values. This was influenced on theone hand by different historically developedlegislation and on the other hand by the factthat not only one truth can be interpretedfrom several scientific data.The SCOEL has considered these differ-

ences and started a fruitful discussion on theirprinciples to fulfil the requirements of theEuropean legislation. They have alreadyagreed on some key principles which will bepublished in brief documents (table 3).

It is well understood that not all aspects ofdebate can be discussed at once, furthermore,the development in science underlies rapidchanges. This means that also in future theSCOEL will consider this dynamic processand will further go on discussing other keyprinciples of the procedure to set OELs.

Procedure for the establishment of limitvalues in the European UnionThe scientific reliability of the SCOEL recom-

mendations is the cornerstone for any of theCommission's legislative proposals to set limitvalues for chemicals. It was soon recognisedthat a procedure for the adoption of OELsgenerally acceptable to all interested groupswould be of great importance, it will facilitatethe work of the Commission and it will min-imise or even eliminate the negative scientificcritisism of the figures decided by the SCOEL.

For this reason in 1994, after an extensiveconsultation of the tripartite AdvisoryCommittee for Safety, Hygiene, and HealthProtection at Work (ACSHH), theCommission approved a Guidance note (as an

internal working document) on procedures toset limit values, which is to be updated in the

light of experience. This Guidance note setsout the arrangements for the scientific reviewand evaluation for establishing OELs in theEuropean Union. It includes the procedure tobe followed and how, and at what stage, theinterested parties (government, industry,workers, the scientific community, and otherrelevant organisations) can make their contri-bution to this procedure.

Table 4 summarises the main stages of theprocess. Whereas the first three stages aremainly related to the scientific evaluationwhich concerns the work of the SCOEL, thesubsequent stages are more related to the workcarried out by the European Commission, andnon-scientific matters have also to be consid-ered. The SCOEL starts its work by evaluatingcriteria documents from different sources.These criteria documents should contain allavailable information and should fit with a for-mat described in the guidelines for the prepa-ration of criteria documents.'2 The identifiedbase document is announced by theCommission through publication in theOfficial Journal with the request for furtherdata, especially unpublished, to be provided tothe Commission, to guarantee the complete-ness of the data for the chemical agent con-cerned.The SCOEL evaluates the scientific dossier

and the suplementery data for the identifica-tion of the critical health effects. The detailedevaluation of the key studies describing them,leads to a short document which describes therecommended OELs and the recommendationis supported and explained by information onthe basic data, a description of the criticaleffect, the extrapolation techniques used, andany data on possible risks to human health.The technical feasibility of monitoring expo-sure is also noted. Furthermore the SCOELdecided to identify important gaps in the dataand need for more research.Once the summary document is agreed by

the Committee the Commissiom makes itpublic to interested parties with the request forhealth based scientific comments and eventu-ally further data. After a comments period ofabout six months the SCOEL rediscusses thedocument in the light of the commentsreceived and adopts the final version which isthen published by the Commission.By applying this procedure, recommenda-

tions of more than 50 OELs have been madeto the Commission (appendix 2). The experi-ence on this work has shown that a processclear to the member states of the EuropeanUnion and the social partners is a good wayforward, although not all recommendations

Table 4 Stages leading to the establishment of OELs

Stage 1 Preparation of a scientific dossier for reviewStage 2 Evaluation of scientific dossierStage 3 Development of recommendation from the SCOEL

to the Commission services for a scientificallybased OEL

Stage 4 Development of proposal for an OEL by theCommission services

Stage 5 Consultation of the Advisory Committee for Safety,Hygiene, and Health Protection at Work

Stage 6 Adoption of the implementing Directive

219

Hunter, Aresini, Haigh, Papadopoulos, Von der Hude

are welcomed unanimously by all interestedparties. In this context it should be stressedthat the primary task of the SCOEL is the rec-

ommendation of a health based OEL.Once the Commission services have

received recommendations from the SCOELthey are in a position to develop legal proposalsfor OELs. At this stage and according to thetype of the OEL, the Commission services willseek relevant technical and socioeconomicdata. If any of the interested parties is aware

that there are such data which can be shown tobe pertinent to the development of a

Commission's proposal then these should bemade known to the Commission services.The Commission's proposal for a legislative

text is submitted to the ACSHH. At this stageall the interested parties have a further oppor-

tunity, through the ACSHH structure, to con-

tribute to the opinion adopted by theCommittee. The opinion delivered by theACSHH is available through its minutes, andis also published in the ACSHH's annualreport. Once these consultations have beencompleted the Commission services willfinalist their preparation of a proposal to beagreed by the Commission. According to thetype of OEL and the legal procedure selected,further consultation on the Commission's pro-

posal, within the appropriate European Unioninstitutions, will take place, before the finaladoption and publication in the OfficialJournal of an OEL.

Future workIn 1995 the Commission adopted a

Communication on a programme concerningsafety, hygiene, and health at work(1996-2000). ' The programme underlinesthe need for further action in setting limit val-ues, through the formalisation of SCOEL andthe continuation of the efforts for adoption bythe Council of the Commission's proposal for a

Directive on chemical agents.'4As far as the legislative action is concerned,

the Commission intends to carry out the fol-lowing proceedures.

(1) To push for progress on the proposal forchemical agents pending now at Council level.This proposal has been developed to providean opportunity for consolidating and simplify-ing old legislation on chemicals, and to bringthe existing measures up to date in respect ofthe social aspects of the internal market andrelations with the Community's trading part-ners and to fulfil international obligations,especially after the conclusions of the UnitedNations concerns on environment and devel-opment (UNCED).The new Directive will be an individual

Directive under the Framework Directive89/391/EEC'5 and intends to amplify theFramework Directive's general provisions by:(a) establishing minimum requirementsspecifically identified for the protection ofworkers against risks to their health and safetyarising from any chemical agent at work; (b)consolidating, clarifying, updating, and adapt-ing existing provisions on chemical agents in

the workplace in the light of current knowl-edge and aligning them with Directive89/391/EEC; (c) ensuring that all precaution-ary measures at work are based on a properassessment of risks arising from the way work-ers are exposed to chemical agents and that bytaking account of the features of the work-place, the activity and likely exposure protec-tion measures properly reflect the scale of riskwithout imposing unnecessary burdens onemployers.The concept of having two different types of

occupational exposure levels, of different sta-tus, is retained from Directive 80/1107/EEC.2

(2) To make proposals for legislation con-cerning indicative limit values for chemicals,based on the existing recommendations ofSCOEL (appendix 2).

(3) To push for progress to theCommission's proposal amending the carcino-gens Directive 90/394/EEC,'6 where a bindinglimit value of 1 ppm for benzene is proposed.The Commission, in cooperation with the

ACSHH, has already developed an agreedopen list (appendix 3) of chemical agentswhere there is major concern at the workplace.The SCOEL new recommendations for OELsof many chemicals are expected.The advantages of a common European

approach to the process for setting limit valuesare obvious. The enormous effort necessary toevaluate toxicological data should not beduplicated. The Commission has access to theresults of several data reporting programmes-for example, risk assessment for existingsubstances and risk assessment for pesti-cides-which are carried out under Europeanlegislation, unpublished data from allEuropean industries can be considered, andcost sharing for the development of urgentlyneeded data on a European level is promoted.

Appendix 1 Substances for which binding limit valuesmay be established

PART 1AcrylonitrileAsbestosArsenic and compoundsBenzeneCadmium and compoundsMercury and compoundsNickel and compoundsLead and compoundsChlorinated hydrocarbons:

ChloroformParadichlorobenzeneCarbon tetrachloride

PART 2Carcinogens(a) Substance to which, in Annex I to Directive

67/548/EEC5 the risk-phrase R 45 "may cause cancer"is applied

(b) Preparation which, under Article 3(5)(0) of Directive88/379/EEC'7 must be labelled as R 45 "may causecancer"

(c) Substance, preparation, or a process referred to in AnnexI to Directive 90/394/EEC4 as well as a substance orpreparation released by a process referred to in Annex Ito Directive 90/394/EEC.4 The list of this Annexincludes:1 Manufacture of auramine2 Work involving exposure to aromatic polycyclic

hydrocarbons present in coal soots, pitch, fumes,or dust

3 Work involving exposure to dusts, fumes, and spraysproduced during the roasting and electrorefining ofcupronickel mattes

4 Strong acid process in the manufacture of isopropylalcohol

220

Occupational exposure limits for chemicals in the European Union

Appendix 2 Substances for which SCOEL has made recommendations

8 h TWA

Substance CAS ppm mg/m3

Acetone 67-64-1 500 1210Allyl alcohol 107-18-6 2 4-8Ammonia 7664-41-7 20 14Amylacetate, tert- 625-16-1 50 270Benzene 71-43-2 RA4Butanone, 2- 78-93-3 100 300Butoxyethanol, 2- 111-76-2 20 98Butoxyethyl acetate, 2 112-07-2 20 134Butylacrylate, n- 141-32-2 2 11Carbon monoxide 630-08-0 20 23Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 1 6 4Chlorodifluoromethane 75-45-6 1000 3600Chloroform 67-66-3 2 10Cumene 98-82-8 20 100Cyclohexane 110-82-7 50 175Cyclohexanone 108-94-1 10 40 8Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- 95-50-1 20 122Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- 106-46-7 20 122Dichloroethane, 1,1- 75-34-3 100 412Diethylether 60-29-7 100 308Dimethylacetamide, N,N- 127-19-5 10 36Dimethylamine 124-40-3 2 3-8Dimethylether 115-10-6 1000 1920Dipropyleneglycol

monomethylether 34590-94-8 50 308Ethanolamine 141-43-5 1 2-5Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 200 734Ethylamine 75-04-7 5 9-4Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 100 422Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 10 26Heptanone, 2- 110-43-2 50 238Heptanone, 3- 106-35-4 20 95Hexane, n- 110-54-3 20 72Hydrogen bromide 10035-10-6Hydrogen chloride 7647-01-0 5 8Hydrogen selenide 7783-07-5 0-02 0 7Methoxypropanol-2, 1- 107-98-2 50 188Methoxypropylacetate-2, 1 108-65-6 50 275Methyl formate 107-31-3Methlheptan-3-one, 5- 541-85-5 10 53Methlyhexan-2-one, 5- 110-12-3 20 95Methylpentan-2-one, 4- 108-10-1 20 83Monochlorbenzene 108-90-7 10 47Monochloroethane 75-00-3 100 268Nitric acid 7697-37-2Pentylacetate 628-63-7 50 270Pentylacetate, 2- 626-38-0 50 270Pentylacetate, 3- 620-11-1 50 270Pentylacetate, iso- 123-92-2 50 270Phenol 108-95-2 2 7-8Phosgene 75-44-5 0-02 0-08Phosphoric acid 7664-38-2 -

Propionic acid 79-09-4 10 31Silver, metallic 7440-22-4 0.1Sodium azide 26628-22-8 0 1Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 50 150Toluene 108-88-3 20 76-6Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- 120-82-1 2 15-1Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- 71-55-6 100 555Triethylamine 121-44-8 2 8-4Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,3- 526-73-8 20 100Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4- 95-63-6 20 100Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5- 108-67-8 20 100Trimethylbenzenes 25551-13-7 20 100Xylene, m- 108-38-3 20 221Xylene, o- 95-47-6 20 221Xylene, p- 106-42-3 20 221Xylenes, isomers 1330-20-7 20 221

STEL*

ppm mg/m3

5 12-150 36100 540

10 53100 117

5 32

50 250

20 81-650 30650 306

200 616

5 9-4

3 7-6400 1468

200 88420 52

2 6-710 150*05 0-17

100 375100 550- no20 107

50 20820 94

0-5 1-3100 540100 540100 540100 540

0.1 0Q42

20 62

0-3100 30050 191-55 37-8

200 11103 12-6

100 442100 442100 442100 442

NOTt Opinions in preparation:AcroleinButadiene, 1,3-

Skin Caprolactam, epsilon-ChlorineChromium (II) compounds

Skin Chromium (III) compoundsChromium metal

Skin CyclohexanolSkin Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4-

Dinitro-o-cresol, 4,6-Ethyl acrylate

Skin Fluorides, inorganic several

Fluorine

Skin GlycerolSki Heptane, n-

Hexanone, 2--.in Hydrogen fluoride

Hydrogen sulphideHydrogenated terphenyls

- Isophorone- Lead- Maleic anhydrideSkin Mercury, inorganic- Methyl acrylate

Methyl methacrylateNitrogen dioxide

Skin Pentane, isoSkin Pentane, n-- Pentane, neo-

Phenylpropene, 2-Skin PhosphineSkin Piperazine

SulfotepSulphur dioxideTetraethylsilicateTrichloroacetic acidVanadium pentoxideZinc oxide

Skin Future work:Skin AcrylamideSkin Acrylonitrile- Aldicarb- Allyl chloride- Aniline

ArsineBenzo(a)pyreneBenzyl alcoholBisphenol AButanol, 1-Butanol, 2-Cadmium, and compounds

Skin CaptanCarbon disulphideChloro-1,3-butadiene, 2-ChloracetylchlorideChromium (VI) compounds

S-.n CyanidesSkin Diethylaminoethanol, 2-Shin Dimethylformamide, N,N-

Shin DinoterbSkhn Diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate

- EnfluraneSkin Epichlorohydrine- Ethylene oxide- Formaldehyde- Furfural- Furfuryl alcoholSkin GlycolethersSkin HalothaneSkin Hexamethylene diisocyanateSkin Isoflurane

Isophorone diisocyanateminute Man made mineral fibres

Manganese, and compoundsugh the Mesityl oxide

MethamsodiumMethyl bromideMethyl iodideMethyl isocyanateMethyl isothiocyanateMethyl-2-pyrrolidone, N-Methylene chlorideMorpholineNickel, and compoundsOrganic dustsOrganophosphorus compoundsOzonePhthalic anhydrideSilica, crystalline quartzStoddard solvent or white spiritStyreneTalc (cosmetic grade)TetrachloroethyleneThioglycolic acidToluene-2,4,-diiocyanateToluene-2,6-diisocyanateTributyltin compoundsTrichloroethyleneTriglycidal isocyanurateVinyl acetateVinyl toluenes, all isomersVinylidene chlorideWelding fumesWood dust

Appendix 3 Priorities of the work programme on OELs

Substances CAS

107-02-8106-99-0105-60-27782-50-5

7440-47-3108-93-094-75-7534-52-1140-88-5

7782-41-456-81-5142-82-5591-78-67664-39-37783-06-461788-32-778-59-17439-92-1108-31-67439-97-696-33-380-62-610102-44-078-78-4109-66-0590-35-298-83-97803-51-2110-85-03689-24-57446-09-578-10-476-03-91314-62-11314-13-2

79-06-1107-13-1116-06-3107-05-162-53-37784-42-150-32-8100-51-680-05-771-36-378-92-27440-43-9133-06-275-15-0126-99-879-04-9

100-37-868-12-21420-07-1101-68-813838-16-9106-89-875-21-850-00-098-01-198-00-0

151-67-7822-06-026675-46-74098-71-9

7439-96-5141-79-7137-42-874-83-974-88-4624-83-9556-61-6872-50-475-09-2110-91-87440-02-0

10028-15-685-44-914808-60-78052-41-3100-42-514807-96-6127-18-468-11-1584-84-991-08-7

79-01 6

2451-62-9108-05-425013-15-475-35-4

*The STEL is a limit value above which exposure should not occur and is related to a 15period, unless otherwise specified.tA skin notation assigned to the OEL identifies the possibility of significant uptake throskin.tAccording to the risk assessment 8 h TWA should be < 1 ppm.

221

Hunter, Aresini, Haigh, Papadopoulos, Von der Hude

1 Council Resolution of 29 June 1978 on an action pro-gramme of the European Communities on safety andhealth at work. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities 1978;C165111 7 1978:1-13.

2 Council Directive 80/1107/EEC of 27 November 1980 onthe protection of workers from the risks related to expo-sure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work.Official Journal of the European Communities 1980;L327/3*12*1980:8-13.

3 Council Directive 88/642/EEC of 16 December 1988amending Directive 80/1107/EEC of 27 November 1980on the protection of workers from the risks related toexposure to chemical, physical, and biological agents atwork. Official journal of the European Communities1988;L356124 1241988:74-8.

4 Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the pro-tection of workers from the risks related to exposure tocarcinogens at work. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities 1990;L196/26 7'1990:1-7.

5 Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on theapproximation of the laws, regulations, and administra-tive provisions relating to the classification, packaging,and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journalof the European Communities 1967;L196116 8 1967:1.Directive as amended by Commission Directive 93/21/EEC. Official journal of the European Communities1993;Ll 10/4 5 1993:20. Criteria for classification as car-cinogenic substances. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities 1993;LIOA/4'5'1993:61-2.

6 Council Directive 78/610/EEC of 29 June 1978 on theapproximation of the laws, regulations and administrativeprovisions of the Member States on the protection of thehealth of workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer.Official Journal of the European Communities 1978;L197122 7 1978:12-8.

7 Council Directive 82/605/EEC of 28 July 1982 on theprotection of workers from the risks related to exposureto metallic lead and its ionic compounds at work.Official Journal of the European Communities 1982;L247123*8-1982:12-21.

8 Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on theprotection of workers from the risks related to exposure toasbestos at work. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities 1983;L263/24-91983:25-32. Council Direc-tive 91/382/EEC of 25 June 1991 amending Directive83/477/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks

related to exposure to asbestos at work. OfficialJournal oftheEuropean Communities 1991;L206129*7*1991:16-8.

9 Council Directive 88/364/EEC of 9 June 1988 on the pro-tection of workers by the banning of certain specifiedagents and/or certain work activities. OfficialJournal of theEuropean Communities 1988;L17919 7 1988:44-7.

10 Commission Directive 91/322/EEC of 29 May 1991 onestablishing indicative limit values by implementingCouncil Directive 80/1107/EEC on the protection ofworkers from the risks related to exposure to chemical,physical, and biological agents at work. Official Journal ofthe European Communities 1991;L17715 71991:22-4.

11 Commission Decision of 12 July 1995 setting up aScientific Committee for Ocupational Exposure Limits toChemical Agents. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities 1 995;L18819 81995:14-5.

12 Occupational exposure limits. Criteria documents Guidance noteEUR 13776. Luxembourg: Official Publications of theEuropean Communities, 1992.

13 Communication from the Commission on a Community pro-gramme concerning safety, hygiene, and health at work(1996-2000). (COM(95) 282 final.) Luxembourg:Publications of the European Communities, 1996.

14 Proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of thehealth and safety of workers from the risks related tochemical agents at work. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities 1993;C165116 6 1993:4-14. Modified pro-posal for a Council Directive on the protection of thehealth and safety of workers from the risks related tochemical agents at work. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities 1994;C1911147 1994:7-29.

15 Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on theintroduction of measures to encourage improvements inthe safety and health ofworkers at work. OfficialJournal ofthe European Communities 1989;L183129 6 1989:1-8.

16 Proposal for a Council Directive amending for the first timeDirective 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers fromthe risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work.Official Journal of the European Communities 1995;C317128411-95: 16-8.

17 Council Directive 88/379/EEC of 7 June 1988 on theapproximation of the laws, regulations, and administra-tive provisions of the member states relating to the classi-fication, packaging, and labelling of dangerouspreparations. Official Journal of the European Communities1988;L187116 7 1988:14-30.

Occupational and Environmental Medicine and theelectronic age

OEM has an Email address which is100632.3615@compuserve.com. We wel-come contact by Email, including letters tothe editor. Some of our reviewers alreadysend us their reports by Email, helping tospeed up the peer review process.We are moving towards electronic pub-

lishing and for some months now we havebeen asking authors to send us their revisedpapers on disk as well as a hard copy. I amdelighted to report that nearly all our

authors are managing to comply with thisrequest. Oddly enough, the few authorswho have not sent us a disk version of theirrevised papers have been almost exclusivelyfrom the United Kingdom. I would beinterested in suggestions for why this mightbe. Perhaps United Kingdom basedauthors read our correspondence andinstructions less assiduously? Watch forrevised Instructions to Authors.

The Editor

222