A comparative evaluation of five hazard screening tools

Abstract

An increasing number of hazard assessment tools and approaches are being used in the marketplace as a means to differentiate products and ingredients with lower versus higher hazards or to certify what some call greener chemical ingredients in consumer products. Some leading retailers have established policies for product manufacturers and their suppliers to disclose chemical ingredients and their related hazard characteristics often specifying what tools to use. To date, no data exists that show a tool's reliability to provide consistent, credible screening-level hazard scores that can inform greener product selection. We conducted a small pilot study to understand and compare the hazard scoring of several hazard screening tools to determine if hazard and toxicity profiles for chemicals differ. Seven chemicals were selected that represent both natural and man-made chemistries as well as a range of toxicological activity. We conducted the assessments according to each tool provider's guidelines, which included factors such as endpoints, weighting preferences, sources of information, and treatment of data gaps. The results indicate the tools varied in the level of discrimination seen in the scores for these 7 chemicals and that tool classifications of the same chemical varied widely between the tools, ranging from little or no hazard or toxicity to very high hazard or toxicity. The results also highlight the need for transparency in describing the basis for the tool's hazard scores and suggest possible enhancements. Based on this pilot study, tools should not be generalized to fit all situations because their evaluations are context-specific. Before choosing a tool or approach, it is critical that the assessment rationale be clearly defined and matches the selected tool or approach. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:139-154. C 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC

A quantitative screening‐level approach to incorporate chemical exposure and risk into alternative assessment evaluations

“…In contrast, data‐driven tools use toxicological data for the toxicity endpoints based on the findings from testing substances in experimental animals (in vivo), often at very high doses, as well as in vitro and in silico tests consistent with computational toxicology. Hazard tools that use data result in more consistency in the endpoint and rating scores; whereas, there is a great variability between lists and data tools for the same chemical (Panko et al ). Analysts can review data when scoring hazards taking into account their professional expertise.…”

“…Even with highly qualified toxicologists with similar experience reviewing the same or similar database, an analyst's professional judgment can result in different hazard scores for the some substances. However, these differences are subtle (i.e., high vs very high) than when just lists are used, possibly due to the use of lists that may not be intended for hazard characterization or that may not be considered authoritative (Panko et al ).…”

Authors’ response to Turner et al.

“…Thank you for providing us an opportunity to respond to the comments by Turner et al (this issue) regarding our article, “A Comparative Evaluation of Five Hazard Screening Tools” (Panko et al this issue). We recognize that there are legitimate differences in opinion when it comes to determining which tool to use when evaluating chemical hazards, and as such embarked on our analysis of the top hazard tools (Gauthier et al ) to highlight the profound differences that can be obtained depending on the tool selected.…”

“…As scientists, we understand the foundation for many of the tools and know that they do not use the same scoring approach. However, as we stated in the introduction to our study, “Organizations, including retailers and various business groups, often identify a suite of tools for evaluating chemicals in products, implying that any tool is equally informative for assessing hazards,” and then go on to describe specific examples of where this is the case (Panko et al this issue). As such, we agree with Turner et al that it is “common knowledge among experienced scientists trained in chemical hazard assessment that list‐based tools cannot provide the level of hazard specificity that is seen when comprehensive assessment methodologies are used.” However, as we noted in our examples, many influential organizations in the market do not recognize this basic concept when specifying the use of a certain tool, nor do all tool users have the same scientific background.…”

Multicriteria Decision Analysis Characterization of Chemical Hazard Assessment Data Sources

“…With the worldwide promotion of green chemistry practices and safer consumer and industrial products, there is an increased need to facilitate the selection of safer chemicals with well-designed decision tools and corresponding data sources (EC 1999;CA DTSC 2010;USEPA 2017). Chemical hazard assessment (CHA) is a method designed to examine a chemical's inherent potential to cause adverse effects on human health and the environment, using various tools and frameworks to aid with the decision-making process for screening and ranking chemicals and their alternatives (LCSP 2011;USEPA 2011;CPA 2012;MBDC 2012;Hester and Harrison 2013;IC2 2014;NRC 2014;OECD 2014;Jacobs et al 2016;Panko et al 2017;CPA 2018a). Among currently available CHA frameworks, GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals version 1.4 (GreenScreen), created by Clean Production Action, is a decision framework developed to screen chemicals on the basis of their hazard traits using transparent and systematic benchmarking criteria (CPA 2018b).…”