Comparison of chemical risk assessment methods in South Korea and the United Kingdom

Min Uk Kim, Saemi Shin, Sang Hoon Byeon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials (a chemical risk assessment method in the UK) with Chemical Hazard Risk Management (CHARM) (a chemical risk assessment method in South Korea). The differences between the two processes were explored with a particular focus on their features and distinctions. Methods: The results obtained from applying COSHH Essentials and CHARM to 59 carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances were analyzed. The outcomes of the working environment assessments and the collated information about the usage of CMR chemicals were used for the analysis. Results: Among the 59 substances tested, 56 substances were rated at a risk level lower than 2, when evaluated with CHARM. However, with COSHH, all 59 substances were rated at risk level 3 or higher. With COSHH Essentials, the highest hazard group of 4 was automatically assigned to category E substances, regardless of the exposure level assessment. However, for CHARM, the risk could be adjusted according to the exposure level assessment, even for hazard group of 4. Conclusions: CHARM allocated lower risk levels to hazardous substances than COSHH Essentials. Ultimately, COSHH Essentials assesses exposure level through the physical properties and overall handling, and considers hazard with H-statements and R-phrases. COSHH Essentials was deemed more conservative than CHARM. CHARM may have underestimated the risk according to exposure level, even though the chemicals were highly hazardous. Therefore, CHARM can be used for the localized risk assessment of chemicals used in individual workplaces.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)339-345
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Occupational Health
Volume57
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Safety Management
Republic of Korea
Risk Management
Health
United Kingdom
Hazardous Substances

Keywords

  • Carcinogenic
  • Chemical Hazard Risk Management (CHARM)
  • Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials
  • Exposure
  • Hazardous chemicals
  • Mutagenic
  • Reprotoxic (CMR)
  • Risk assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Comparison of chemical risk assessment methods in South Korea and the United Kingdom. / Kim, Min Uk; Shin, Saemi; Byeon, Sang Hoon.

In: Journal of Occupational Health, Vol. 57, No. 4, 01.01.2015, p. 339-345.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1940de81e7a34cc9a540cf515bc15d13,
title = "Comparison of chemical risk assessment methods in South Korea and the United Kingdom",
abstract = "Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials (a chemical risk assessment method in the UK) with Chemical Hazard Risk Management (CHARM) (a chemical risk assessment method in South Korea). The differences between the two processes were explored with a particular focus on their features and distinctions. Methods: The results obtained from applying COSHH Essentials and CHARM to 59 carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances were analyzed. The outcomes of the working environment assessments and the collated information about the usage of CMR chemicals were used for the analysis. Results: Among the 59 substances tested, 56 substances were rated at a risk level lower than 2, when evaluated with CHARM. However, with COSHH, all 59 substances were rated at risk level 3 or higher. With COSHH Essentials, the highest hazard group of 4 was automatically assigned to category E substances, regardless of the exposure level assessment. However, for CHARM, the risk could be adjusted according to the exposure level assessment, even for hazard group of 4. Conclusions: CHARM allocated lower risk levels to hazardous substances than COSHH Essentials. Ultimately, COSHH Essentials assesses exposure level through the physical properties and overall handling, and considers hazard with H-statements and R-phrases. COSHH Essentials was deemed more conservative than CHARM. CHARM may have underestimated the risk according to exposure level, even though the chemicals were highly hazardous. Therefore, CHARM can be used for the localized risk assessment of chemicals used in individual workplaces.",
keywords = "Carcinogenic, Chemical Hazard Risk Management (CHARM), Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials, Exposure, Hazardous chemicals, Mutagenic, Reprotoxic (CMR), Risk assessment",
author = "Kim, {Min Uk} and Saemi Shin and Byeon, {Sang Hoon}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1539/joh.14-0253-OA",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "339--345",
journal = "Journal of Occupational Health",
issn = "1341-9145",
publisher = "Japan Society for Occupational Health",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of chemical risk assessment methods in South Korea and the United Kingdom

AU - Kim, Min Uk

AU - Shin, Saemi

AU - Byeon, Sang Hoon

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials (a chemical risk assessment method in the UK) with Chemical Hazard Risk Management (CHARM) (a chemical risk assessment method in South Korea). The differences between the two processes were explored with a particular focus on their features and distinctions. Methods: The results obtained from applying COSHH Essentials and CHARM to 59 carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances were analyzed. The outcomes of the working environment assessments and the collated information about the usage of CMR chemicals were used for the analysis. Results: Among the 59 substances tested, 56 substances were rated at a risk level lower than 2, when evaluated with CHARM. However, with COSHH, all 59 substances were rated at risk level 3 or higher. With COSHH Essentials, the highest hazard group of 4 was automatically assigned to category E substances, regardless of the exposure level assessment. However, for CHARM, the risk could be adjusted according to the exposure level assessment, even for hazard group of 4. Conclusions: CHARM allocated lower risk levels to hazardous substances than COSHH Essentials. Ultimately, COSHH Essentials assesses exposure level through the physical properties and overall handling, and considers hazard with H-statements and R-phrases. COSHH Essentials was deemed more conservative than CHARM. CHARM may have underestimated the risk according to exposure level, even though the chemicals were highly hazardous. Therefore, CHARM can be used for the localized risk assessment of chemicals used in individual workplaces.

AB - Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials (a chemical risk assessment method in the UK) with Chemical Hazard Risk Management (CHARM) (a chemical risk assessment method in South Korea). The differences between the two processes were explored with a particular focus on their features and distinctions. Methods: The results obtained from applying COSHH Essentials and CHARM to 59 carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances were analyzed. The outcomes of the working environment assessments and the collated information about the usage of CMR chemicals were used for the analysis. Results: Among the 59 substances tested, 56 substances were rated at a risk level lower than 2, when evaluated with CHARM. However, with COSHH, all 59 substances were rated at risk level 3 or higher. With COSHH Essentials, the highest hazard group of 4 was automatically assigned to category E substances, regardless of the exposure level assessment. However, for CHARM, the risk could be adjusted according to the exposure level assessment, even for hazard group of 4. Conclusions: CHARM allocated lower risk levels to hazardous substances than COSHH Essentials. Ultimately, COSHH Essentials assesses exposure level through the physical properties and overall handling, and considers hazard with H-statements and R-phrases. COSHH Essentials was deemed more conservative than CHARM. CHARM may have underestimated the risk according to exposure level, even though the chemicals were highly hazardous. Therefore, CHARM can be used for the localized risk assessment of chemicals used in individual workplaces.

KW - Carcinogenic

KW - Chemical Hazard Risk Management (CHARM)

KW - Control of Substances Hazard to Health (COSHH) Essentials

KW - Exposure

KW - Hazardous chemicals

KW - Mutagenic

KW - Reprotoxic (CMR)

KW - Risk assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938826164&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938826164&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1539/joh.14-0253-OA

DO - 10.1539/joh.14-0253-OA

M3 - Article

C2 - 25891351

AN - SCOPUS:84938826164

VL - 57

SP - 339

EP - 345

JO - Journal of Occupational Health

JF - Journal of Occupational Health

SN - 1341-9145

IS - 4

ER -