Application of the ISO 9612 standard in a production environment. The different methods were compared with each other. Job-based versus task-based.
Since the standard has also changed in the meantime, the changes are briefly discussed.

placeholder for the synopsis of the presentation

Many employers are not convinced of the added value of a chemical risk analysis for their company and do not wish to invest in it. The goal of the thesis, discussed in this presentation, was to generate a concrete case that makes this added value tangible. For this purpose, a company affiliated with Mensura was selected that has a history of exposure measurements without prior risk analysis. Thus, on one hand, the risk analysis could be verified qualitatively and quantitatively against the history of measurement results. On the other hand, the identification and evaluation of risks, the measurement strategy, and the prevention strategy based on the risk analysis were compared with the historical approach.

Formaldehyde is a hazardous substance and is classified as carcinogenic under CLP legislation. In addition, the substance is also suspected of causing mutagenic effects. For this reason, formaldehyde is strictly regulated, and the occupational exposure limits are very low. To evaluate workers’ exposure to formaldehyde and, if necessary, determine appropriate protective measures, occupational hygienists use various techniques. These range from direct-reading instruments to sampling methods for analytical determination. There are also several modelling tools (such as Stoffenmanager®) used to assess exposure, providing an estimate of potential concentrations in the workplace atmosphere.

The aim of this study is to provide insight into the differences between these techniques for assessing formaldehyde exposure. In this study, two direct-reading measurement techniques (Riken Keiki FP-31 and RAE PGM-6208) were compared with an analytical reference method (based on NIOSH 2016).

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, Ajinomoto Omnichem recognized the importance of maintaining a healthy indoor climate. The company discovered that no risk analysis for indoor air quality (IAQ) existed for non-industrial workplaces. Their goal was to establish a clear internal procedure enabling safety advisors to evaluate IAQ consistently.

An initial screening was conducted using the BSOH CO₂ simulator to assess IAQ across ten workplaces. Evaluations included checklists and point measurements of temperature (°C), relative humidity (%), and CO₂ (ppm). Results showed that IAQ was sufficient in only two workplaces, inconclusive in seven, and insufficient in one.

Based on these findings, five recommendations were formulated to improve IAQ in non-industrial settings. Additionally, a standardized procedure was developed for internal safety advisors to ensure systematic IAQ assessments in all remaining workplaces.