Abstract:STOFFENMANAGER (R) and the Advanced REACH Tool (ART) are recommended tools by the European Chemical Agency for regulatory chemical safety assessment. The models are widely used and accepted within the scientific community. STOFFENMANAGER (R) alone has more than 37 000 users globally and more than 310 000 risk assessment have been carried out by 2020. Regardless of their widespread use, this is the first study evaluating the theoretical backgrounds of each model. STOFFENMANAGER (R) and ART are based on a modified multiplicative model where an exposure base level (mg m(-3)) is replaced with a dimensionless intrinsic emission score and the exposure modifying factors are replaced with multipliers that are mainly based on subjective categories that are selected by using exposure taxonomy. The intrinsic emission is a unit of concentration to the substance emission potential that represents the concentration generated in a standardized task without local ventilation. Further information or scientific justification for this selection is not provided. The multipliers have mainly discrete values given in natural logarithm steps (..., 0.3, 1, 3, ...) that are allocated by expert judgements. The multipliers scientific reasoning or link to physical quantities is not reported. The models calculate a subjective exposure score, which is then translated to an exposure level (mg m(-3)) by using a calibration factor. The calibration factor is assigned by comparing the measured personal exposure levels with the exposure score that is calculated for the respective exposure scenarios. A mixed effect regression model was used to calculate correlation factors for four exposure group [e.g. dusts, vapors, mists (low-volatiles), and solid object/abrasion] by using similar to 1000 measurements for STOFFENMANAGER (R) and 3000 measurements for ART. The measurement data for calibration are collected from different exposure groups. For example, for dusts the calibration data were pooled from exposure measurements sampled from pharmacies, bakeries, construction industry, and so on, which violates the empirical model basic principles. The calibration databases are not publicly available and thus their quality or subjective selections cannot be evaluated. STOFFENMANAGER (R) and ART can be classified as subjective categorization tools providing qualitative values as their outputs. By definition, STOFFENMANAGER (R) and ART cannot be classified as mechanistic models or empirical models. This modeling algorithm does not reflect the physical concept originally presented for the STOFFENMANAGER (R) and ART. A literature review showed that the models have been validated only at the 'operational analysis' level that describes the model usability. This review revealed that the accuracy of STOFFENMANAGER (R) is in the range of 100 000 and for ART 100. Calibration and validation studies have shown that typical log-transformed predicted exposure concentration and measured exposure levels often exhibit weak Pearson's correlations (r is <0.6) for both STOFFENMANAGER (R) and ART. Based on these limitations and performance departure from regulatory criteria for risk assessment models, it is recommended that STOFFENMANAGER (R) and ART regulatory acceptance for chemical safety decision making should be explicitly qualified as to their current deficiencies.

Evaluation and Recommendation of Sensitivity Analysis Methods for Application to Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation Models

A sensitivity analysis of a human exposure model using the Sobol method

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Various Sensitivity Analysis Methods: A Case Study with a Hydrological Model

Evaluating the Theoretical Background of STOFFENMANAGER (R) and the Advanced REACH Tool

Evaluating the Theoretical Background of STOFFENMANAGER® and the Advanced REACH Tool

Non-parametric statistics in sensitivity analysis for model output: A comparison of selected techniques

Sensitivity analysis for biomedical models.

Multifaceted Insight into Sensitivity Analysis and Environmental Impact on Human Health of Soil Contamination Risk Assessment

Sensitivity Analysis for Effects of Multiple Exposures in the Presence of Unmeasured Confounding: Non‐Gaussian and Time‐to‐Event Outcomes

Emulation methods and adaptive sampling increase the efficiency of sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models

Performance of variable and function selection methods for estimating the non-linear health effects of correlated chemical mixtures: a simulation study

Accelerated Sensitivity Analysis in High-Dimensional Stochastic Reaction Networks

Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment

The Future of Sensitivity Analysis: An essential discipline for systems modeling and policy support

New developments in exposure assessment: The impact on the practice of health risk assessment and epidemiological studies

Bayesian Model-Averaged Benchmark Dose Analysis Via Reparameterized Quantal-Response Models

Novel Computational Methods for High-Dimensional Stochastic Sensitivity Analysis

The impact of measurement error in modeled ambient particles exposures on health effect estimates in multilevel analysis: A simulation study

Accessible methods and tools to estimate chemical exposure in humans to support risk assessment: A systematic scoping review

A practical treatment of sensitivity analyses in activity level evaluations

Variance-based sensitivity analysis for stochastic chemical kinetics