Chemical assessment state of the science: Evaluation of 32 decision‐support tools used to screen and prioritize chemicals

Abstract

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 hazards - and, in some cases, exposure - few 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.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis Characterization of Chemical Hazard Assessment Data Sources

“…These attributes were selected on the basis of various previous studies (Klimisch et al 1997;Gauthier et al 2015;USEPA 2015;OECD 2016a) and are briefly described here. These attributes were selected on the basis of various previous studies (Klimisch et al 1997;Gauthier et al 2015;USEPA 2015;OECD 2016a) and are briefly described here.…”

“…Five performance attributes (reliability, adequacy, transparency, volume, and ease of use) were used for the present study. These attributes were selected on the basis of various previous studies (Klimisch et al 1997;Gauthier et al 2015;USEPA 2015;OECD 2016a) and are briefly described here. Further details on the definition, characterization, and quantification of these attributes are available in Supplemental Data.…”

Addressing Hazardous Implications of Additive Manufacturing: Complementing Life Cycle Assessment with a Framework for Evaluating Direct Human Health and Environmental Impacts

“…The EATOS (Environmental Assessment Tool for Organic Synthesis) has also been commonly utilized. 3 Comprehensively evaluating hazards in sourcing and manufacturing materials is precluded by the large number of chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of one material; extensive chemical assessments of all chemicals that make up a material is not always feasible (Gauthier et al 2015). Instead, as a first-pass approach, chemicals can be grouped into two categories: reagents and solvents, and evaluated more generally (Prat et al 2014).…”

Air Pollution Monitoring Changes to Accompany the Transition from a Control to a Systems Focus

“…This is useful for both sustainability users, e.g., LCA, and risk assessment users, e.g., substituting fuels and chemicals in early life stages that prevent a future air pollutant [23]. The prioritization must address both parent compounds and degradation products.…”