IUCLID 6.4.14 and 6.5.2 packages bundle a new application server, Payara v4 that replaces the previous GlassFish v4. See IUCLID release notes.

Payara v4 is not supported by Chesar 3. Therefore, you cannot deploy and run Chesar 3.5 in the same application server that comes with IUCLID 6.4.14 and 6.5.2. Chesar 3.5 should be deployed to a separate instance of Glassfish/Tomcat application server.

When a new Chesar version is released, full compatibility is ensured only with the newest IUCLID version available at that time. However, some workarounds may ensure the compatibility also with the previous IUCLID version as indicated below. The following table gives an overview of the compatibility between Chesar and IUCLID.

 

 

Chesar version	IUCLID version	Conditions for compatibility	Workaround to allow compatibility
3.5	6.5.x 6.4.x	Fully compatible
	6.3.x	Compatible (see note)	The new functionality in Chesar 3.5 to attach the CSR generated and prefill the relevant information in IUCLID section 13.1 will not work.
3.4	6.5.x 6.4.x	Compatible (see note)	If in IUCLID 6 the picklist entry “not biodegradable” is selected in the endpoint summary 5.2.1 “Biodegradation in water: screening tests”, then in Chesar 3.4 the corresponding field in Box 1 will remain empty. This minor glitch will have no impact on the assessment and on the information reported in the full CSR generated from Chesar. In addition for 6.4.x only, when generating the full CSR from Chesar, some URL addresses may appear (which are displayed as a link in the CSR generated from Chesar 3.5), that point to the relevant place in the IUCLID web user interface.
	6.3.x	Fully compatible
	6.2.0	The compatibility is broken when the user enters some text in the field “Other description” for PROC 0, PC 0, AC 0 in Chesar Box 2 and tries to synchronise the uses with IUCLID 6.2.	Users should temporarily delete the “Other description” texts from Chesar, proceed with the synchronisation, add the “Other description” manually to IUCLID and finally retype it to Chesar.
3.3	6.5.x 6.4.x 6.3.x	Not compatible
	6.2.0	Fully compatible
	6.1.3	The compatibility is broken when the user enters the “Regulatory status” for a use in Chesar box 2 and tries to synchronise the uses with IUCLID 6.1.3.	Users should delete the “regulatory status” in Chesar, proceed with the synchronisation, set the “regulatory status” in IUCLID and finally re-set it in Chesar.
3.2	6.5.x 6.4.x 6.3.x 6.2.0	Not compatible
	6.1.3	Fully compatible
	6.1.2	Fully compatible

 

ECHA has tested Chesar 3.5 with Apache Tomcat versions 8.0.32, 8.5 and 9 (9.0.7), and they are fully compatible.

Chesar 3.5 supports Java 8.

 

No, it is not possible.

If you are using a Chesar Desktop application, you need to import your Chesar 2.3 chr files one by one in Chesar 3.0. Once the files have been imported into Chesar 3.0, you can upgrade Chesar 3.0 to Chesar 3.5.

If you have a Chesar Server application, you can migrate the whole Chesar 2.3 database to Chesar 3.5 following these two steps:

1. With the Chesar 3 migration tool, you migrate Chesar 2.3 database into an empty database (or database schema if you are using Oracle). After the migration, the destination database (or schema in Oracle) will contain data in Chesar 3 format.
2. Connect Chesar 3.5 to the migrated database.

The Chesar 3 migration tool is available for download at https://chesar.echa.europa.eu

A detailed description of the migration from Chesar 2.3 to Chesar 3 is available in the Chesar 3 installation manual (https://chesar.echa.europa.eu/download-chesar-3.0)

Please read carefully the following points:

• Make sure that IUCLID 6 is running when attempting to connect. Irrespective of whether you are using Chesar 3 Desktop or Server version, Chesar can connect to either IUCLID 6 Server or Desktop application.
• Check the IUCLID version you are working with: not all versions of IUCLID 6 and Chesar 3 work together. Chesar 3.0 can connect only to IUCLID 6 v1.0.2 while Chesar 3.2 is compatible with the IUCLID 6 v1.1.0, v1.2.0 and v1.3.0. Chesar 3.3 is fully compatible with IUCLID v6.2.
• Make sure that you have entered the right connection properties in Chesar Box 1 under the Web service connection settings. The connection string to IUCLID (IUCLID URL) should be in the following format: http://<IUCLID6 Server URL>:<port> or https://<IUCLID6 Server URL>:<https port>
• Check that IUCLID 6 runs on the same computer as Chesar 3. If so and if the default IUCLID 6 ports are used (8080 for http and 8181 for https), the IUCLID 6 URL’s to be indicated in Chesar box 1 would be: http://localhost:8080  and  https://localhost:8181

If IUCLID 6 is not using the default ports, to determine the port numbers:

1. Open the IUCLID 6 configuration file domain.xml with a browser:

   <IUCLID6 installation folder>\glassfish4\glassfish\domains\domain1\config\domain.xml

2. Find ports for the network listeners http-listener-1 and http-listener-2 under “server-config”.
   
   

Http-listener-1 defines HTTP port and http-listener-2 HTTPS port (SSL). In the example above:

1. HTTP port is 8080
2. HTTPS port is 8181

Chesar 3.5 introduces a change in the logic of calculating the workers exposure concentration when assessment entities exist.

The change and its possible consequences on the exposure estimate are described in the FAQ “What is the difference between the calculations of workers exposure when assessment entity exists (parallel assessment) between Chesar 3.5 and previous versions of Chesar?”

This change has been introduced after analysing feedback received from Chesar users. For substances assessed via the assessment entity approach, the calculation of the workers exposure concentrations in previous versions of Chesar (until Chesar 3.4) was not in line with the principles of ECETOC TRA, leading to an underestimation of the exposure. After a careful investigation, we decided to implement the change in the ECETOC TRA worker module of Chesar 3.5.

Chesar 3.5 is now aligned with exposure modifier approach for concentration as applied in the TRA.

As a consequence of this change, the worker exposure estimate for complex substances done with previous versions of Chesar will change when upgrading to Chesar 3.5. The change may impact on the risk characterisation conclusion. Depending on the extent to which the risk characterisation has changed, you may need to update the operational condition / risk management measures (OC/RMM) for demonstrating control of risk.

As a general information, to obtain ECETOC TRA exposure estimates in Chesar, a number of steps are taken:

• The ECETOC TRA algorithm estimates the “Initial exposure concentration” values based on the substance properties (molecular weight, physical form and vapour pressure) and the PROC selection.
• These initial exposure concentration values are then multiplied with the relevant exposure modifiers in order to obtain the final exposure concentration values. One of these exposure modifiers is the “Concentration of the substance in the product”.

What has changed in Chesar 3.5 is the calculation of this “exposure modifier for concentration” for substances where assessment entities exist.

Until Chesar 3.4, the workflow was the following:

• First, the value from the Chesar condition of use “Percentage (w/w) of substance in mixture/article” (set in the TRA worker dataset) was assigned to one of the concentration bands of the TRA parameter (>25%, 5-25%, 1-5%, <1%).
• The exposure modifier for concentration (for the registered substance as a whole) was then calculated according to the following table:

   

  Concentration	Exposure modifier for concentration
  If Concentration = “Substance not in mixture”	1
  If Concentration = “>25%”	1
  If Concentration = “5-25%”	0.6
  If Concentration = “1-5%”	0.2
  If Concentration = “<1%”	0.1

   

• For complex substances (i.e. when parallel assessment happens), the final exposure estimates returned by TRA workers (where the exposure modifier above has been applied to the registered substance as a whole) were then (linearly) corrected. This correction was made with the percentage of each assessment entity (AE) in the assessment entity group (AEG) (visible in Box 1) used for the assessment, to obtain an exposure estimate for each AE .

In Chesar 3.5, no changes have been introduced in the calculations of the initial exposure concentrations. However, the place in the process where the correction for the percentage of the AE in the AEG takes place has been changed for substances where assessment entities exist.

Once the initial exposure concentrations have been calculated, the following steps are taken:

• First, the percentage of each AE in the AEG used for the assessment is multiplied with the percentage of the substance in the mixture (= the % indicated in the condition of use “Percentage (w/w) of the substance in the mixture/article” at worker contributing activity level) in order to generate the percentage of each AE in the mixture . So the (linear) correction is now done as a first step instead of at the end.
  The resulting percentage of the AE in the mixture is included as read-only in each TRA worker dataset under the TRA specific parameters and called “Percentage (w/w) of <assessment entity name> in mixture/article”.
• This % of AE in mixture is then mapped to one of the concentration bands of the TRA parameter as follows:

   

  Percentage (w/w) of AE in mixture	Concentration
  If % of AE in mixture >= 100	Substance not in mixture
  If 25 < % of AE in mixture < 100	>25%
  If 5 < % of AE in mixture <= 25	5-25%
  If 1 < % of AE in mixture <= 5	1-5%
  If % of AE in mixture <= 1	<1%

   

• The resulting concentration band is then used to determine the “exposure modifier for concentration” according to the following table (no changes from the current implementation).

   

  Concentration	Exposure modifier for concentration
  If Concentration = “Substance not in mixture”	1
  If Concentration = “>25%”	1
  If Concentration = “5-25%”	0.6
  If Concentration = “1-5%”	0.2
  If Concentration = “<1%”	0.1

   

• Finally the “exposure modifier for concentration” is multiplied (together with the other TRA exposure modifiers) with the initial exposure estimates to generate the final exposure estimate for each AE in the AEG.

As a consequence of this change, the worker assessment of complex substances done with previous versions of Chesar will need to be reviewed when updating to Chesar 3.5.

As the conservativeness has been increased, you may be confronted with higher exposure estimates for the assessment entities and for the substance as a whole. The largest impact is expected for assessment entities where the percentage of the assessment entity in the mixture/article is low (i.e. falling in the lowest concentration band in ECETOC TRA) and in cases where the method for calculating the RCR across assessment entities is set to “Summed RCR”. We are aware that in some cases you will now be confronted with RCRs above 1 and that this change may present an assessment challenge. If safe use cannot be demonstrated with ECETOC TRA, the use of other (higher tier) tools which apply a linearized approach to correct for concentration in the mixture/article (as opposed to the banding used in ECETOC TRA) may offer a solution.

When developing Chesar 3.3, ECHA agreed with ECETOC that when a user selects a TRA subcategory the values of the various parameters cannot be modified. The only exception is the percentage of the substance in the mixture/article, which can always be edited. This approach was preferred as

1. it is more consistent with the SCED approach and
2. it allows for a more transparent reference to a TRA subcategory with a set of default values proposed by ECETOC.

If assessors want to use different values as input in Chesar, they should switch to a manual assessment. In Chesar 3.3, when switching from “TRA subcategory” to “manual assessment” while working with a TRA subcategory, the link to the TRA subcategory is lost. However, if needed, you may refer to it in your explanation for CSR for some conditions of use if you want to justify some “TRA subcategory” values.

When doing this switch, in some cases you may find that your dermal exposure estimates become 10 times higher than what they were when you used the subcategory. This difference is the result of the agreement mentioned above and only affects the following TRA subcategories:

• PC3, Aircare continuous action (solid & liquid)
• AC5/ AC5g, Bedding, mattress
• AC6, Purse, wallet, covering steering wheel (car)
• AC6/ AC6f, Footwear (shoes, boots)
• AC6/ AC6e, Furniture (sofa)
• AC8/ AC8f2, Printed paper (papers, magazines, books)
• AC10/ AC10e/ AC10g, Rubber handles, tyres
• AC10/ AC10a, Flooring
• AC10/ AC10f, Footwear (shoes, boots)
• AC10/ AC10b, Rubber toys
• AC11/ AC11e, Furniture (chair)
• AC11/ AC11a, Walls and flooring (also applicable to non-wood materials)
• AC11/ AC11b, Small toys (car, train)
• AC11/ AC11f, Toys, outdoor equipment
• AC13/ AC13a/ AC13e/ AC13g, Plastic, larger articles (plastic chair, PVC-flooring, lawn mower, PC)
• AC13/ AC13b, Toys (doll, car, animals, teething rings)
• AC13/ AC13f, Plastic, small articles (ball pen, mobile phone)

This difference is caused by a TRA parameter not visible in Chesar called Thickness of Layer (TL), which is not modifiable (neither in Chesar nor in TRA). For dermal exposure assessment of mixtures the TRA tool assumes that a layer (TL) of 0.01 cm of a mixture interacts with the skin, and the substance amount contained in this layer is, by default, immediately and completely transferred to the skin (i.e. dermal transfer factor set to 1). For the TRA subcategories mentioned above, this concept is also applied, but a reduced thickness of layer of 0.001 cm has been set to account for the reduced mobility of substances in the article matrix. When switching from one of these TRA subcategories to a manual assessment, the TL is automatically changed from 0.001 cm to the default 0.01 cm, and this is what causes the estimates to become 10 times higher. Depending on how your manually assessed use-scenario differs from that covered in the TRA subcategory, you may conclude that the TL of 0.001 is still more appropriate for your case than the default of 0.01.

Bear in mind that you may encounter this issue also when migrating from Chesar 3.2 to Chesar 3.3. In Chesar 3.2 it was possible to change some of the default values when a subcategory was selected (as is the case in ECETOC TRA). In case you had modified any of the editable parameters (e.g. amount of product used per application, body parts potentially exposed etc.) in Chesar 3.2, a switch to “manual assessment” takes place during migration to Chesar 3.3. As a consequence, there is no longer a reference to the subcategory and, if you used one of the TRA subcategories listed above, the TL is set to 0.01, and the dermal exposure estimate is 10 times higher than the value provided in Chesar 3.2.

The ESCom phrase catalogue supports the IT exchange of ES information via ESComXML and the harmonisation of communication downstream in the supply chain. If translations of the ESCom phrase catalogue are available, the exposure scenarios to be communicated in the extended SDS can be automatically generated in various languages.

More information on the ESCom package as well as the latest version of the ESCom standard phrase catalogue in Chesar format can be found here.

No, in Chesar you can use either a standard phrase or free text. A combination of the two is not allowed.

Registrants will be able to find use maps generated by downstream user sector organisations in Chesar format (when available) on http://echa.europa.eu/csr-es-roadmap/use-maps.­ Use maps are developed by sector organisations and are only hosted by ECHA in a centralised place.

All the fields describing the uses and contributing activities are imported into IUCLID section 3.5 once you click the “Export uses to IUCLID” button in Chesar Box 4. More specifically, all conditions of use, releases and exposure estimates will populate the related fields in the contributing scenarios tabs (for environment, workers and consumers) in IUCLID section 3.5. Additionally, information on environmental assessment from aggregated sources will populate the related fields in IUCLID section 3.7. If information on use description is added or modified once the uses from Chesar have been exported to IUCLID, the information in IUCLID will be overwritten when the uses are exported again.

When ECETOC TRA is used for the exposure assessment at an elevated operating temperature (>40°C), for liquid the tool automatically selects the higher volatility band to perform the calculations. You can manually adjust the vapour pressure at the relevant (elevated) temperature by overwriting the value under the “TRA specific parameters” section in the TRA edit view in Chesar Box 3.

Chesar 3 has EUSES (for environment) and ECETOC TRA (for workers, consumers) plugged in for exposure estimation.

• EUSES supports the assessment of solid substances, as soon as basic substance properties (Molecular weight, melting point, solubility, vapour pressure, partition coefficient octanol water and biodegradation screening tests) are provided. Therefore, even for solid substances, a vapour pressure must be provided to obtain EUSES exposure estimates.
• TRA consumers does not have specific limitations for solid substances.
• TRA workers supports the exposure assessment of solid as such or in solid mixture. The exposure estimates are calculated based on the level of dustiness of the product used. Chesar 3.3 supports the exposure assessment of solids in liquid mixtures. For more information refer to “Targeted Risk Assessment: Further Explanation of the Technical Basis of the TRA v.3.1 - Technical Report No. 131", ECETOC, 2018

When the operating temperature is below the melting point for a solid substance, the substance is considered as solid and the provision of TRA workers 3.0 for solid substances are applied (exposure estimates are calculated based on the level of dustiness of the substance). If the operating temperature is above the melting point, the substance is considered in Chesar as liquid, and TRA workers 3.0 for liquid is applied for exposure estimation, which means that the exposure is a function of the vapour pressure.

No. However, you can report the relevant information in Chesar Box 4 in the “Workers combined risks” field in section 10.1.

Chesar 3 has the possibility ­­to assess “complex substances” such as substances with many constituents (including UVCBs) and substances which transform by the use of Assessment Entity Groups (AEG). The prerequisite is to create assessment entities in section 0.4 of IUCLID 6 (you can find more information in IUCLID manual for registration https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/22308542/manual_regis_and_ppord_en.pdf).

These will be imported with your substance properties data in Chesar through the web service. The assessment entities can then be used to create AEG which can be used for the assessment. For more information on how to define the AEG refer to Chesar help text in Chesar Box 1. You may also get more information in part D of the Guidance on Chemical safety assessment https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_part_d_en.pdf.

ECETOC TRA workers 3.0 does not provide exposure estimations for PROC 28. However, in some cases, the exposure potential during maintenance is similar to the exposure potential occurring during other types of activities. In such cases, if a suitable justification is reported, the exposure estimation can be based on a different PROC (e.g. PROC 8a when there is a potential for a direct contact with the substance) and in Chesar, the following procedure can be applied:

1. In Box 2, create a worker contributing activity and assign e.g. PROC 8a.
2. Carry out your exposure assessment in Box 3 by adding a TRA workers 3.0 exposure dataset.
3. Specify your set of conditions of use.
4. Add an external tool exposure dataset. In the “external tool exposure dataset” view, link the conditions of use already specified for the TRA assessment, copy the exposure estimates obtained with TRA and justify your selection of PROC (e.g. PROC 8a) for the exposure estimates in the “explanation on exposure estimations” field.
5. When the information from the TRA assessment has been copied into the external tool dataset, the TRA workers 3.0 exposure dataset can be deleted.
6. Go back to the contributing activity level in Box 2 and overwrite the PROC used for the assessment (e.g. PROC 8a) with PROC 28.

Some contributing activities at end-use of chemicals may take place in closed conditions similar to those in the chemical production and refineries, and therefore TRA exposure estimates for PROC 1-3 could be applicable. It should be noted nevertheless that in sectors other than chemical production and refineries a measured data set is needed to validate the use of a “PROCs 1-3 based assessment” (see Guidance R14). With this basis, a similar technique as described for the aforementioned question can be applied.

1. Create a worker contributing activity to which the PROC describing closed systems (e.g. PROC 2) is assigned.
2. Carry out your exposure assessment in Box 3 by adding a TRA workers 3.0 exposure dataset.
3. Specify your set of conditions of use.
4. Add an external tool exposure dataset.
5. In the “external tool exposure dataset” view, link the conditions of use already specified for the TRA assessment, copy the exposure estimates obtained with TRA and justify your selection of PROC 2 for the exposure estimates in the “explanation on exposure estimations” field.
6. When the information from the TRA assessment has been copied into the external tool dataset, the TRA workers 3.0 exposure dataset can be deleted.
7. Go back to the contributing activity level in Box 2 and overwrite the PROC used for the estimation (e.g. PROC 2) with the PROC characterising the nature of the activity carried out under closed conditions.­
8. Do not forget to add the measured dataset (as supportive exposure assessment) which justifies the claim of closed system for the activity

In Chesar some key information related to the waste stage can be documented for each contributing activity for the environment, such as the fraction of substance released to waste stage and whether particular considerations have to be taken into account for the waste treatment operations. There is no particular functionalities for assessing the waste life stage of a substance in Chesar. Nevertheless, it is possible to assess the treatment of waste as a “use” at industrial site.