[6] An OEB is not meant to replace an OEL, rather it serves as a starting point to inform risk management decisions.
[8] In the absence of an OEL, determining the controls needed to protect workers from chemical exposures can be challenging.
Selection of the most appropriate tier for a specific banding situation depends on the quantity and quality of the available data and the training and expertise of the user.
[1] The resulting airborne concentration target ranges are shown in the graphic:[7] Tier 1, the qualitative tier, produces an occupational exposure band (OEB) assignment based on qualitative data from the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS); it involves assigning the OEB based on criteria aligned with specific GHS hazard codes and categories.
These hazard codes are typically pulled from GESTIS, ECHA Annex VI, or safety data sheets.
[7] The Tier 1 process can be performed by a health and safety generalist, and takes only minutes to complete with the NIOSH OEB e-tool.
Tier 2, the semi-quantitative tier, produces an OEB assignment based on quantitative and qualitative data from secondary sources; it involves assigning the OEB on the basis of key findings from prescribed literature sources, including use of data from specific types of studies.
Tier 2 banding is also incorporated into the NIOSH OEB e-tool but can take hours instead of minutes to complete for a given chemical.
[6] This level of OEB would require the advanced knowledge and experience held by a toxicologist or veteran occupational hygienist.
[7] Since unveiling the occupational exposure banding technique in 2017, NIOSH has sought feedback from its users and has evaluated the reliability of this tool.
[7] This demonstrates the confidence health & safety professionals can have in the OEB process when making risk management decisions for chemicals without OELs.
Other banding schemes are also available, such as Stoffenmanager, EMKG, and International Chemical Control Toolkit of the ILO.