Chemical Alternatives Assessment: Enabling Substitution to Safer Chemicals

Lavoie, Emma T.; Heine, Lauren; Holder, Helen; Rossi, Mark; Lee, Robert E.; Connor, Emily; Vrabel, Melanie A.; DiFiore, David; Davies, Clive E

doi:10.1021/es200029j

Cited by 27 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of LCA, we use chemical alternatives assessments (CAA) of manufacturing process chemicals and solar cell material compositions to create a focused assessment of human and environmental toxicity and hazard [15]. This hazard based CAA requires the application of scoring and screening tools that facilitate hazard comparison [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This hazard based CAA requires the application of scoring and screening tools that facilitate hazard comparison [15]. Hazard scoring or screening tools are methods that provide guidance for substance selection via the combination of regulatory and industry accepted hazard classification metrics and properties into scores.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a connection creates a hypothetical CIGS solar cell with reduced hazard in both life cycle stages. Lavoie et al [15] suggest using life cycle thinking with a CAA, but the authors do not present explicit methodologies for accomplishing this goal. To do this, we implement what we call life cycle hazard projection (LCHP).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative alternative materials assessment to screen toxicity hazards in the life cycle of CIGS thin film photovoltaics

Eisenberg

Lam

et al. 2013

Journal of Hazardous Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative alternative materials assessment to screen toxicity hazards in the life cycle of CIGS thin film photovoltaics

Eisenberg

Lam

et al. 2013

Journal of Hazardous Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Changing materials only after careful consideration of the alternatives will help avoid unintended consequences and prevent regrettable substitutions [3]. Uninformed decisions may cause manufacturers to change materials multiple times, incurring the cost of transition each time [4]. Chemical substitutions can be costly, and the required changes can be disruptive to product releases.…”

Section: Of Rohs In February 2003 Eu Directive 2002/95/ Ec On the Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Risk by Reducing Hazard – Use of Chemical Hazard Screening as the First Step in the Assessment Process

Wendschlag¹,

Robertson²,

Holder³

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 2014 Conference ICT for Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-With the introduction of materials specific legislation, such as RoHS in 2003, the pace of change of materials in the electronics industry has seen a dramatic increase. Changing materials is costly, and an important business need is the development of a process to select alternatives that will not need to be substituted in the future. To guard against multiple substitutions, the alternatives selected need to have lower impacts on human health and the environment. According to the principles of green chemistry the most efficient way to reduce overall risk is to use less hazardous materials in product design. To guard against regrettable substitution, and future restriction, an alternatives assessment process including chemical hazard assessment as the first step in the process is described. Example applications of the alternatives assessment process are introduced.

show abstract

“…Substitution of flame retardants (and plastics additives in general) is a complex task. A number of requirements must be met on both fire safety, compatibility with the plastic, mechanical, physical and electrical properties, health and environmental properties and commercial viability (Lavoie et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%