Evaluation of the suitability of COSHH Essentials for qualitative assessment of inhalation risk from chemical agents in perfume laboratories: a new perspective.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 ERGONOMICS
Pilar Lorenzale Algarra, Agustín Sánchez-Toledo, Alejandro Guillen Riquelme, Juan José Agún-González, Raúl Aguilar-Elena
{"title":"Evaluation of the suitability of COSHH Essentials for qualitative assessment of inhalation risk from chemical agents in perfume laboratories: a new perspective.","authors":"Pilar Lorenzale Algarra, Agustín Sánchez-Toledo, Alejandro Guillen Riquelme, Juan José Agún-González, Raúl Aguilar-Elena","doi":"10.1080/10803548.2025.2575603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Objectives.</i> Professionals in the perfume industry are routinely exposed to numerous chemical substances during olfactory evaluations, some of which may pose inhalation hazards. Existing qualitative risk assessment tools, such as Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials, provide approximate estimates and may not be well suited to industries with highly specific exposure conditions like perfumery<i>.</i> This study evaluates the applicability and limitations of COSHH Essentials in perfume laboratories and proposes an improved qualitative framework tailored to perfumers' exposure scenarios. <i>Methods.</i> A total of 626 substances from a perfumer's palette were assessed using COSHH Essentials, which classifies substances into risk levels based on hazard, volatility and quantity. A complementary method incorporating molecular-level hazard analysis, exposure patterns, occupational exposure limits and conservative inhalation dose estimations was developed. Statistical agreement between both methods was examined using Cohen's <i>κ</i>, and McNemar's test assessed significant differences. <i>Results.</i> COSHH Essentials identified 76 hazardous substances, while the enhanced method identified 81 substances, including five additional requiring local exhaust ventilation. Agreement was moderate (<i>κ</i> = 0.58; <i>p</i> = 0.031). <i>Conclusion.</i> COSHH Essentials provides a useful baseline but lacks the specificity needed in industries with intentional close-range exposure. The enhanced method enables more precise, context-sensitive assessment and better protection in fragrance laboratories.</p>","PeriodicalId":47704,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics","volume":" ","pages":"683-692"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2025.2575603","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives. Professionals in the perfume industry are routinely exposed to numerous chemical substances during olfactory evaluations, some of which may pose inhalation hazards. Existing qualitative risk assessment tools, such as Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials, provide approximate estimates and may not be well suited to industries with highly specific exposure conditions like perfumery. This study evaluates the applicability and limitations of COSHH Essentials in perfume laboratories and proposes an improved qualitative framework tailored to perfumers' exposure scenarios. Methods. A total of 626 substances from a perfumer's palette were assessed using COSHH Essentials, which classifies substances into risk levels based on hazard, volatility and quantity. A complementary method incorporating molecular-level hazard analysis, exposure patterns, occupational exposure limits and conservative inhalation dose estimations was developed. Statistical agreement between both methods was examined using Cohen's κ, and McNemar's test assessed significant differences. Results. COSHH Essentials identified 76 hazardous substances, while the enhanced method identified 81 substances, including five additional requiring local exhaust ventilation. Agreement was moderate (κ = 0.58; p = 0.031). Conclusion. COSHH Essentials provides a useful baseline but lacks the specificity needed in industries with intentional close-range exposure. The enhanced method enables more precise, context-sensitive assessment and better protection in fragrance laboratories.

COSHH Essentials在香水实验室化学试剂吸入风险定性评估中的适用性评价:一个新的视角。
目标。香水行业的专业人员在嗅觉评估过程中经常接触到大量的化学物质,其中一些可能会造成吸入危险。现有的定性风险评估工具,如对健康有害物质的控制(COSHH)必需品,提供了大致的估计,可能不太适合具有高度特定暴露条件的行业,如香水。本研究评估了COSHH Essentials在香水实验室中的适用性和局限性,并针对调香师的暴露情况提出了改进的定性框架。方法。使用COSHH Essentials对香水调色板中的626种物质进行了评估,该工具根据危害、挥发性和数量将物质分类为风险等级。一种结合分子水平危害分析、暴露模式、职业暴露限值和保守吸入剂量估计的补充方法被开发出来。使用Cohen's κ检验两种方法之间的统计学一致性,McNemar's检验评估显著差异。结果。COSHH Essentials确定了76种有害物质,而增强方法确定了81种物质,其中包括5种需要局部排气通风的额外物质。一致性为中等(κ = 0.58; p = 0.031)。结论。COSHH Essentials提供了一个有用的基线,但在有意近距离接触的行业中缺乏所需的特异性。增强的方法使更精确,上下文敏感的评估和更好的保护香料实验室。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
152
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书