Answering the Call for Improved Chemical Alternatives Assessments (CAA) (original) (raw)
Environmental Health Perspectives, 2015
Background: Given increasing pressures for hazardous chemical replacement, there is growing interest in alternatives assessment to avoid substituting a toxic chemical with another of equal or greater concern. Alternatives assessment is a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those used in materials, processes, or technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability. oBjectives: The purposes of this substantive review of alternatives assessment frameworks are to identify consistencies and differences in methods and to outline needs for research and collaboration to advance science policy practice. Methods: This review compares methods used in six core components of these frameworks: hazard assessment, exposure characterization, life-cycle impacts, technical feasibility evaluation, economic feasibility assessment, and decision making. Alternatives assessment frameworks published from 1990 to 2014 were included. results: Twenty frameworks were reviewed. The frameworks were consistent in terms of general process steps, but some differences were identified in the end points addressed. Methodological gaps were identified in the exposure characterization, life-cycle assessment, and decision-analysis components. Methods for addressing data gaps remain an issue. discussion: Greater consistency in methods and evaluation metrics is needed but with sufficient flexibility to allow the process to be adapted to different decision contexts. conclusion: Although alternatives assessment is becoming an important science policy field, there is a need for increased cross-disciplinary collaboration to refine methodologies in support of the informed substitution and design of safer chemicals, materials, and products. Case studies can provide concrete lessons to improve alternatives assessment. citation: Jacobs MM, Malloy TF, Tickner JA, Edwards S. 2016. Alternatives assessment frameworks: research needs for the informed substitution of hazardous chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 124:265-280;
Advancing Alternatives Assessment for Safer Chemical Substitution: A Research and Practice Agenda
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018
Alternatives assessment has emerged as a science policy field that supports the evaluation and adoption of safer chemistries in manufacturing processes and consumer products. The recent surge in the development and practice of alternatives assessment has revealed notable methodological challenges. Spurred by this need, we convened an informal community of practice comprising industry experts, academics, and scientists within government and nongovernmental organizations to prioritize a research and practice agenda for the next five years that, if implemented, would significantly advance the field of alternatives assessment. With input from over 40 experts, the agenda outlines specific needs to advance methods, tools, and guidance in five critical areas: hazard assessment, comparative exposure characterization, life cycle considerations, decision making, and professional practice. Fifteen research and practice needs were identified ranging from relatively simple efforts to define a minimum hazard data set to the development of more complex performance and decision-analytic methods and data integration tools. Some research needs involve adapting existing approaches to the alternatives assessment context, while others will require the development of entirely new methods and tools. The proposed research and practice agenda is ambitious. Implementing it will require expanding the current network of researchers from academia, government, and industry, as well as increased funding for methodological, application and evaluation research.
The Architecture of Chemical Alternatives Assessment
Risk Analysis, 2015
Chemical alternatives assessment is a method rapidly developing for use by businesses, governments , and nongovernment organizations seeking to substitute chemicals of concern in production processes and products. Chemical alternatives assessment is defined as a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those in materials, processes, or technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability. The process is intended to provide guidance for assuring that chemicals of concern are replaced with safer alternatives that are not likely to be later regretted. Conceptually , the assessment methods are developed from a set of three foundational pillars and five common principles. Based on a number of emerging alternatives assessment initiatives, in this commentary, we outline a chemical alternatives assessment blueprint structured around three broad steps: Scope, Assessment, and Selection and Implementation. Specific tasks and tools are identified for each of these three steps. While it is recognized that ongoing practice will further refine and develop the method and tools, it is important that the structure of the assessment process remain flexible, adaptive, and focused on the substitution of chemicals of concern with safer alternatives.
2018
This paper provides a state of the art review of substitution and alternatives assessment approaches to advance chemicals management efforts globally. The paper provides: − an overview of informed substitution and alternatives assessment − a review of current alternatives frameworks, methods and tools as well as current challenges and associated needs to advance the science and practice of alternatives assessment − a landscape of substitution and alternatives assessment provisions in existing international and national policies and an outline of considerations for future policy design to support the transition to safer chemicals and technologies − lessons learned from substitution case examples − options for actions for a range of stakeholders including scientists, government officials and enterprises.
Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews, 2020
Alternatives assessment and green chemistry share a common goal of supporting the transition to safer, more sustainable chemicals, materials, and products. Yet the two fields, and their respective scientific communities, are not well integrated. To better understand the nexus between alternatives assessment and green chemistry as complementary approaches to support the development and adoption of safer, more sustainable chemicals for specific functional uses, this article discusses the foundations of the two fields and examines two case examples in which companies have utilized the tools and approaches of both disciplines in developing safer chemical solutions. This research demonstrates the importance and utility of the overlapping skillsets and tools of the two disciplines and the potential benefit of educational opportunities and collaborative spaces in jointly strengthening both fields. Additionally, the literature and case examples identify a number of research and practice needs that would bolster the application of both alternatives assessment and green chemistry in supporting the transition to safer, more sustainable chemistry, including: clearer definitions and criteria of what is 'safer'; improved approaches to evaluate potential unintended consequences of chemical applications; and more effective tools to evaluate toxicity, consider inherent exposure trade-offs, and combine multiple attributes to make an informed decision.
NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 2011
The systematic description and promotion of substitution options and processes is an underdeveloped and often missing element in chemical management and chemical policy discussions. This article describes major barriers and drivers for substitution, and concludes that more specific information can be an essential instrument to overcome those barriers. It also explains the development and features of a large information tool under development called SUBSPORT, an abbreviation for Substitution Support Portal. SUBSPORT is a three-year European project which aims at providing authorities, industry, and stakeholders with information on alternatives for the effective substitution of hazardous chemicals. It will help companies meet the substitution requirements expressed in national, European Union, and international legislation. SUBSPORT will make information available in four languages.
Qualitative approach to comparative exposure in alternatives assessment
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Most alternatives assessments (AAs) published to date are largely hazard-based rankings, thereby ignoring potential differences in human and/or ecosystem exposures; as such, they may not represent a fully informed consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of possible alternatives. Building on the 2014 US National Academy of Sciences recommendations to improve AA decisions by including comparative exposure assessment into AAs, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's (HESI) Sustainable Chemical Alternatives Technical Committee, which comprises scientists from academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations, developed a qualitative comparative exposure approach. Conducting such a comparison can screen for alternatives that are expected to have a higher or different routes of human or environmental exposure potential, which together with consideration of the hazard assessment, could trigger a higher tiered, more quantitative exposure assessment on the alternatives being considered, minimizing the likelihood of regrettable substitution. This article outlines an approach for including chemical ingredient-and product-related exposure information in a qualitative comparison, including ingredient and product-related parameters. A classification approach was developed for ingredient and product parameters to support comparisons between alternatives as well as a methodology to address exposure parameter relevance and data quality. The ingredient parameters include a range of physicochemical properties that can impact routes and magnitude of exposure, whereas the product parameters include aspects such as product-specific exposure pathways, use information, accessibility, and disposal. Two case studies are used to demonstrate the application of the methodology. Key learnings and future research needs are summarized. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;00:000-000.
Introduction Most of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently on the market have not been adequately evaluated to ensure that they can be used safely in consumer products. In the U.S., progressive reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is stalled, in Canada the Chemical Management Plan is moving through its categorization process, and in the EU, REACH dossiers are being reviewed. In the mean time, chronic health problems are on the rise, including neurological disorders, reduced fertility, autoimmune disorders, and some kinds of cancer. Some environmental chemicals are known to cause such disorders and many more are suspected of it, but few have been adequately tested. Given the pace of " new " chemical entering the marketplace, the expense of testing, the challenge of ensuring alternatives are indeed safer, and efforts by some sectors to prevent regulatory response, it is very difficult for regulators to replace harmful chemicals in commerce with safer alternat...
Integrating exposure into chemical alternatives assessment using a qualitative approach
2016
Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Building shared information infrastructure for chemical alternatives assessment
Elementa, 2020
The substitution of hazardous substances with safer alternatives is being driven by policy pressures and business demands. As a result, scientific techniques for chemical alternatives assessment (CAA) have been established and communities of practice are emerging. Interest in safer chemical substitution is widely shared throughout a range of stakeholder groups across science, industry, public policy, and advocacy. Yet there is an unmet need for intentionally designed public information infrastructure to support the highly knowledge-intensive nature of CAA. We report here on the process of developing the Chemical Hazard Data Commons, an experimental project intended to support a diverse community of practitioners by providing publicly accessible chemical hazard data and tools for understanding it. In an arena where market forces and regulatory regimes have largely failed to generate the necessary knowledge, this project represents a novel application of a commons-based approach emphasizing building shared intellectual and technical capacity for CAA. The Data Commons-now a part of the related Pharos Project-includes an online portal providing simultaneous access to many different sources of information and enabling effective interactions with it. Foremost among these interactions are search and retrieval of hazard information about chemical substances, uniform display of the most relevant information, and the ability to automatically screen substances against consistent and transparent hazard-based criteria. We describe the motivation for the project and report on the principles and key considerations that guided its design as a participatory information infrastructure. We present our approach to organizing chemical information; the process of community engagement and planning; and how we constructed the system to provide functional tools. We discuss the outcomes of the project and highlight important challenges-such as fostering active participation and planning for long-term governance. With this article, we hope to inform future efforts for the collaborative development of knowledge resources for chemical alternatives assessment.
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
Companies are interested in improving chemicals to reduce environmental impacts, also known as green chemistry. The 12 principles of green chemistry outline a framework for identifying a greener chemical or process, spanning aspects in health hazard, ecological risk, and resource efficiency across a product lifecycle. However, that framework does not detail how to measure performance. Furthermore, collecting the data required, beyond simple health hazard ratings, is resource intensive. This paper describes an approach for establishing green chemistry metrics (GCM), to evaluate chemicals and chemical processes against the 12 principles, using readily available data, such as the data compiled in compliance with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Using the GCM, chemicals or processes can be ranked by a hierarchy of metrics: (1) scores for each of the 12 principles, (2) three category rankings between new and improved chemicals/processes (improved resource use, increased energy efficiency, and reduced human and environmental hazards), and (3) a summary comparison ranking. The GCM approach is unique in that it is robust and flexible enough to encompass a diverse product portfolio, inexpensive to implement with on-hand data, based on generally accepted industry practices, and allows meaningful communications about chemical sustainability options.
2001
Chemical screening in the United States is often conducted using scoring and ranking methodologies. Linked models accounting for chemical fate, exposure, and toxicological effects are generally preferred in Europe and in product Life Cycle Assessment. For the first time, a comparison is presented in this article of two of the prominent, but structurally different methodologies adopted to help screen and rank chemicals and chemical emissions data. Results for 250 chemicals are presented, with a focus on 12 chemicals of interest in the United Nations Environment Programme's Persistent Organic Pollutants global treaty negotiations. These results help to illustrate the significance of described structural differences and to assess the correlation between the methodologies. The scope of the comparison was restricted here to human health, although the insights would be equally useful in the context of the health of ecosystems. Illustrating the current types of chemical screening and emissions comparison approaches, the relative significance of the scenario and structural differences of the Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool (WMPT) and the Toxic Equivalency Potential (TEP) methodologies are analyzed. The WMPT facilitates comparison in terms of key physicalchemical properties. Measures for Persistence, Bioaccumulation, and Toxicity (PBT) are calculated. Each PBT measure is scored and then these scores are added to provide a single measure of relative concern. TEPs account for chemical fate, multipathway exposure, and toxicity using a model-based approach. This model structure is sometimes considered to provide a less subjective representation of environmental mechanisms, and, hence, an improved basis for screening. Nevertheless, a strong relationship exists between the two approaches and both have their limitations.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2015
The last decade has seen an increased focus on evaluating the safety and sustainability of chemicals in consumer and industrial products. In order to effectively and accurately evaluate safety and sustainability, tools are needed to characterize hazard, exposure, and risk pertaining to products and processes. Because many of these tools will be used to identify problematic chemistries, and because many have potential applications in various steps of an alternatives analysis, the limitations and capabilities of available tools should be understood by users so that, ultimately, potential chemical risk is accurately reflected. In our study, we examined 32 chemical characterization tools from government, industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The tools we studied were diverse, and varied widely in their scope and assessment. As such, they were separated into five categories for comparison: 1) Screening and Prioritization; 2) Database Utilization; 3) Hazard Assessment; 4) Exposure and Risk Assessment; and 5) Certification and Labeling. Each tool was scored based on our weighted set of criteria, and then compared to other tools in the same category. Ten tools received a high score in one or more categories; 24 tools received a medium score in one or more categories, and five tools received a low score in one or more categories. Although some tools were placed into more than one category, no tool encompassed all five of the assessment categories. Though many of the tools evaluated may be useful for providing guidance for hazardsand, in some cases, exposurefew tools characterize risk. To our knowledge, this study is the first to critically evaluate a large set of chemical assessment tools and provide an understanding of their strengths and limitations.
A First Case Study of a Life Cycle-Based Alternatives Assessment (LCAA)
2017
Chemical alternatives assessment (AA) is an emerging screening-level method to replace hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives. Current AA frameworks, however, suffer from gaps in addressing exposure and life cycle impacts, which can leave trade-offs unidentified. Exposure needs to cover various population groups including workers, consumers and the general public, while life cycle impacts need to focus on categories relevant for a given AA chemical-product application. We systematically define the scope of AA and identify key elements for quantitatively considering exposure and life cycle impacts. Our approach is evaluated in a case study, through which we outline future research needs to fully operationalize a consistent and Life Cycle-based Alternatives Assessment (LCAA). We build on a flexible mass balance-based modeling system yielding cumulative multimedia transfer fractions and exposure pathway-specific Product Intake Fractions defined as chemical mass taken in by humans ...
Risk Assessment and Alternatives Assessment: Comparing Two Methodologies
Risk Analysis, 2015
The selection and use of chemicals and materials with less hazardous profiles reflects a paradigm shift from reliance on risk minimization through exposure controls to hazard avoidance. This article introduces risk assessment and alternatives assessment frameworks in order to clarify a misconception that alternatives assessment is a less effective tool to guide decision making, discusses factors promoting the use of each framework, and also identifies how and when application of each framework is most effective. As part of an assessor's decision process to select one framework over the other, it is critical to recognize that each framework is intended to perform different functions. Although the two frameworks share a number of similarities (such as identifying hazards and assessing exposure), an alternatives assessment provides a more realistic framework with which to select environmentally preferable chemicals because of its primary reliance on assessing hazards and secondary reliance on exposure assessment. Relevant to other life cycle impacts, the hazard of a chemical is inherent, and although it may be possible to minimize exposure (and subsequently reduce risk), it is challenging to assess such exposures through a chemical's life cycle. Through increased use of alternatives assessments at the initial stage of material or product design, there will be less reliance on post facto risk-based assessment techniques because the potential for harm is significantly reduced, if not avoided, negating the need for assessing risk in the first place.
Journal of Environmental Management, 2013
A wide range of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) are present in the environment, and many of their adverse effects are unknown. The emergence of new compounds or changes in regulations have led to dynamical studies of occurrence, impact and treatment, which consider geographical areas and trends in consumption and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. A Quantitative study of StructureeActivity Relationship ((Q)SAR) was performed to assess the possible adverse effects of ninety six PPCPs and metabolites with negligible experimental data and establish a ranking of concern, which was supported by the EPA EPI SuiteÔ interface. The environmental and toxicological indexes, the persistence (P), the bioaccumulation (B), the toxicity (T) (extensive) and the occurrence in Spanish aquatic environments (O) (intensive) were evaluated. The most hazardous characteristics in the largest number of compounds were generated by the P index, followed by the T and B indexes. A high number of metabolites has a concern score equal to or greater than their parent compounds. Three PBT and OPBT rankings of concern were proposed using the total and partial ranking method (supported by a Hasse diagram) by the Decision Analysis by Ranking Techniques (DART) tool, which was recently recommended by the European Commission. An analysis of the sensibility of the relative weights of these indexes has been conducted. Hormones, antidepressants (and their metabolites), blood lipid regulators and all of the personal care products considered in this study were at the highest levels of risk according to the PBT and OPBT total rankings. Furthermore, when the OPBT partial ranking was performed, X-ray contrast media, H 2 blockers and some antibiotics were included at the highest level of concern. It is important to improve and incorporate useful indexes for the predicted environmental impact of PPCPs and metabolites and thus focus experimental analysis on the compounds that require urgent attention.
Environmental Science & Technology, 2019
Alternatives assessment is applied for minimizing the risk of unintentionally replacing a hazardous chemical with another hazardous chemical. Central challenges are the diversity of properties to consider and the lack of high-quality experimental data. To address this, a novel alternatives assessment procedure was developed based on in silico data and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods. As a case study, 16 alternatives to the flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether were considered. The hazard properties included persistence (P), bioaccumulation potential (B), toxicities (T), and mobility in water (M). Databases were consulted and 2866 experimental data points were collected for the target chemicals; however, these were mostly replicate data points for some hazard criteria for a subset of alternatives. Therefore, in silico data and three MCDA strategies were tested including heat mapping, multiattribute utility theory (MAUT), and Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité(ELECTRE III). The heat map clearly showed that none of the target chemicals are hazard-free, whereas MAUT and ELECTRE III agreed on ranking the "least worst" choices. This study identified several challenges and the complexity in the alternatives assessment processes motivating more case studies combining in silico and MCDA approaches.