Advancing alternatives assessment for safer chemical substitution: A research and practice agenda.
Alternatives assessment
Decision analysis
Hazard assessment
Toxic chemicals
Journal
Integrated environmental assessment and management
ISSN: 1551-3793
Titre abrégé: Integr Environ Assess Manag
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101234521
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
18
01
2018
revised:
29
05
2018
accepted:
13
08
2018
pubmed:
18
8
2018
medline:
1
1
2020
entrez:
18
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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 5 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 5 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. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;00:000-000. © 2018 SETAC.
Substances chimiques
Hazardous Substances
0
Types de publication
Introductory Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
855-866Subventions
Organisme : Marisla Foundation
Informations de copyright
© 2018 SETAC.
Références
Aschberger K, Campia I, Pesudo LG, Radovnikovic A, Reina V. 2017. Chemical alternatives assessment of different flame retardants-A case study including multi-walled carbon nanotubes as synergist. Environ Int 101:27-45.
[ATSDR] Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry. 2005. Public health assessment guidance manual. Chapter 6: Exposure evaluation: Evaluating exposure pathways. Atlanta (GA): US Centers for Disease Control.
[CADTSC] California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2017. Alternatives analysis guide, version 1.0. Sacramento (CA): Department of Toxic Substances Control. 235 p.
[CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008. Neurologic illness associated with occupational exposure to the solvent 1-bromopropane-New Jersey and Pennsylvania (2007-2008). MMWR 57(48):1300-1302.
Fantke P, Ernstoff AS, Huang L, Csiszar SA, Jolliet O. 2016. Coupled near-field and far-field exposure assessment framework for chemicals in consumer products. Environ Int 94:508-518.
Greir JW. 1982. Ban of DDT and subsequent recovery of reproduction in bald eagles. Science 218(4578):1232-1235.
Geiser K, Tickner J, Edwards S, Rossi M. 2015. The architecture of alternatives assessment. Risk Anal 35(12):2152-2161.
Greggs W, Burns T, Egeghy P, Embry M, Fantke P, Gaborek B, Heine L, Jolliet O, Lee C, Muir D et al. 2019. Qualitative approach to comparative exposure in alternatives assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 15(6):880-894.
Guinee JB. 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Int J LCA 7(5):311-313.
[HBN] Healthy Building Network. 2018. DataCommons. Minneapolis (MN): Healthy Building Network. [accessed 2018 May 24]. https://commons.healthymaterials.net/
[HESI] Health and Environmental Sciences Institute. 2018. Sustainable chemical alternatives committee. Washington DC: HESI. [accessed 2018 May 24]. http://hesiglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/07/Sustainable-Chemical-Alternatives-2017-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Hjorth R, Hansen SF, Jacobs M, Ticker J, Ellenbecker M, Baun A. 2016. The applicability of chemical alternatives assessment for engineered nanomaterials. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13(1):177-187.
[IC2] Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse. 2017. Alternatives assessment guide, version 1.1. Boston MA: Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association. [accessed 2018 May 24]. http://theic2.org/alternatives_assessment_guide
Ichihara G, Kitoh J, Li W, Ding X, Ichihara S, Takeuchi Y. 2012. Neurotoxicity of 1-bromopropane: Evidence from animal experiments and human studies. J Adv Res 3(2):91-98.
Isaacs KK, Goldsmith M, Egeghy P, Phillips K, Brooks R, Hong T, Wambaugh JF. 2016. Characterization and prediction of chemical functions and weight fractions in consumer products. Toxicol Rep 3:723-732.
Jacobs M, Malloy TF, Tickner JA, Edwards A. 2016. Alternatives assessment frameworks: Research needs for the informed substitution of hazardous chemicals. Environ Health Pespect 124(3):265-280.
Lohse J, Wirts M, Ahrens A, Heitmann K, Lundie, S, Lißner L, Wagner A. 2003. Substitution of hazardous chemicals in products and processes. A report compiled for the Directorate General Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection of the Commission of the European Communities. Hamburg (DE): Okopol. [accessed 2018 May 25]. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0402/63f2f5e1276445d632bb2fbf6b260450ae1c.pdf
Malloy T, Blake A, Linkov I, Sinsheimer P. 2015. Decisions, science, and values: Crafting regulatory alternatives analysis. Risk Anal 35(12):2137-2151.
Malloy TF, Zaunbrecher VM, Batteate CM, Blake A, Carroll Jr. WF, Corbett CJ, Hansen SF, Lempert RJ, Linkov I, McFadden R et al. 2017a. Advancing alternative analysis: Integration of decision science. Environ Health Perspect 125(6):066001.
Malloy TF, Zaunbrecher VM, Beryt E, Judson R, Tice R, Allard P, Blake A, Cote I, Godwin H, Heine L et al. 2017b. Advancing alternatives analysis: The role of predictive toxicology in selecting safer chemical products and processes. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13(5):915-925.
Mason A, Greggs W, Landenberger B, Carroll W, Howard B, Risotto S. 2018. A tiered screening approach to evaluating exposures from consumer and commercial products. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 6(5):7010-7016.
[MATURI] Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute. 2006. Five chemicals alternatives assessment study. Prepared by The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute University of Massachusetts Lowell. https://www.turi.org/TURI_Publications/TURI_Methods_Policy_Reports/Five_Chemicals_Alternatives_Assessment_Study._2006
[MATURI] Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute. 2013. The commons principles for alternatives assessment. Lowell (MA): Toxics Use Reduction Institute. [accessed 2018 May 25]. https://www.turi.org/TURI_Publications/TURI_Chemical_Fact_Sheets/Commons_Principles_for_Alternatives_Assessment
[NRC] National Research Council. 2007. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: A vision and a strategy. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
[NRC] National Research Council. 2014. A framework to guide selection of chemical alternatives. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
[NTP] National Toxicology Program. 2014. 13th Report on carcinogens. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services. [accessed 2018 May 25]. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/annualreport/2015/glance/roc/
[OECD] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2017. Alternatives assesssment and substitution toolbox. Paris (FR): Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. [accessed 2017 November 7]. http://www.oecdsaatoolbox.org/
Olewnik AT, Lewis K. 2005. On validating engineering design decision support tools. Concurr Eng Res Appl 13(2):111-122.
Phillips KA, Wambaugh JF, Grulke CM, Dionisio KL, Isaacs KK. 2017. High-throughput screening of chemicals as functional substitutes using structure-based classification models. Green Chem 19(4):1063-1074.
Reh CM, Mortimer VD, Nemhauser JB, Trout D. 2002. NIOSH health hazard evaluation report: HETA-98-0153-2883, Custom Products, Inc., Mooresville, North Carolina. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [accessed 2018 May 25]. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/1998-0153-2883.pdf
Rochester JR, Bolden AL. 2015. Bisphenol S and F: A systematic review and comparison of the hormonal activity of bisphenol A substitutes. Environ Health Perspect 123(7):643-650.
Rossi MS, Blake A. 2014. The plastics score card: Evaluating the chemical footprint of plastics. Version 1.0. Medford (MA): Clean Production Action. [accessed 2018 May 25]. https://www.bizngo.org/sustainable-materials/plastics-scorecard
Tickner J, Jacobs M. 2016. Improving the identification, evaluation, adoption and development of safer alternatives: Needs and opportunities to enhance substitution efforts within the context of REACH. Commissioned by the European Chemicals Agency. Lowell (MA): Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. [accessed 2018 May 24]. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13630/substitution_capacity_lcsp_en.pdf
Tickner JA, Schifano JN, Blake A, Rudisill C, Mulvihill MJ. 2015. Advancing safer alternatives through functional substitution. Environ Sci Technol 49(2):742-749.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 1996. Cleaner technologies substitutes assessment: A methodology and resource guide. EPA-744-R-95-002. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency. [accessed 2018 May 24]. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/cleaner-technologies-substitutes-assessment-ctsa-methodology-and-resource-guide
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. TSCA work plan chemical problem formulation and initial assessment: Cyclic aliphatic bromides cluster flame retardants. Washington (DC): Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. [accessed 2018 May 24]. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/hbcd_problem_formulation.pdf
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. FY 2017 Center of Excellence for Chemical Alternatives assessment request for applications. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency. [accessed 2018 May 24]. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/fy-2017-center-excellence-chemical-alternatives-assessment-request-applications
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. ToxCast Dashboard. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency. [accessed 2018 May 24]. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/toxcast-dashboard
Voutchkova AM, Kostal J, Steinfeld JB, Emerson JW, Brooks BW, Anastas P, Zimmerman B. 2011. Towards rational molecular design: Derivation of property guidelines for reduced acute aquatic toxicity. Green Chem 13(9):2373-2379.
Weis CP. 2016. The value of alternatives assessment. Environ Health Perspect 124(3):A40.
Werner M, Bass R, Premchandran P, Brandt K, Sturges D. 2018. The role of safe chemistry and healthy materials in unlocking the circular economy. Mountainview (CA): Google, Inc. [accessed 2018 May 18]. https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-environment.appspot.com/pdf/Role-of-SafeChemistry-HealthyMaterials_CircularEconomy.pdf
Whittaker MH, Heine LG. 2013. Chemical alternatives assessment (CAA): Tools for selecting less hazardous chemicals. In: Hester HE, Harrison RM, editors. Issues in environmental science and technology. London (UK): Royal Society of Chemistry. p 1-43.