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.

Establishing short-term occupational exposure limits (STELs) for sensory irritants using predictive and in silico respiratory rate depression (RD50) models

Sensory irritation as a basis for setting occupational exposure limits

Predicting points of departure and potency categories for fragrance ingredients by integrating OECD in vitro models

From chemosensory thresholds to whole body exposures-experimental approaches evaluating chemosensory effects of chemicals

New Approach Methodology for Assessing Inhalation Risks of a Contact Respiratory Cytotoxicant: Computational Fluid Dynamics-Based Aerosol Dosimetry Modeling for Cross-Species and In Vitro Comparisons

Exposure limits for indoor volatile substances concerning the general population: The role of population-based differences in sensory irritation of the eyes and airways for assessment factors

In silico occupational exposure banding framework for data poor compounds in biotechnology

In Vitro Prediction of Skin-Sensitizing Potency Using the GARDskin Dose–Response Assay: A Simple Regression Approach

ADMET Evaluation in Drug Discovery. Part 17: Development of Quantitative and Qualitative Prediction Models for Chemical-Induced Respiratory Toxicity.

Linking high resolution mass spectrometry data with exposure and toxicity forecasts to advance high-throughput environmental monitoring

Reference dose prediction by using CDK molecular descriptors: A non-experimental method

Inhalation Toxicity Screening of Consumer Products Chemicals using OECD Test Guideline Data-based Machine Learning Models

An epidermal equivalent assay for identification and ranking potency of contact sensitizers

Sensitization Assessment of Extractables and Leachables in Pharmaceuticals: ELSIE Database Analysis

Comparative influences of dermal and inhalational routes of exposure on hazards of cleaning product ingredients among mammalian model organisms

Predicting Chemical Immunotoxicity through Data-Driven QSAR Modeling of Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Agonism and Related Toxicity Mechanisms

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

Probabilistic Reference and 10% Effect Concentrations for Characterizing Inhalation Non-cancer and Developmental/Reproductive Effects for 2,160 Substances

An Assessment of the Ocular Toxicity of Two Major Sources of Environmental Exposure

Deriving a Point of Departure for Assessing the Skin Sensitization Risk of Wearable Device Constituents with In Vitro Methods

Further optimisation of a macromolecular ocular irritation test (OptiSafeTM)