Environmental assessments of electronics: a new model to bridge the gap between full life cycle evaluations and product design

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

“…Within the three hazard groups there is a relative prioritization of hazard metrics similar to GS, where certain metrics yield higher TPI values. The three hazard group scores are weighted equally, combined, and scaled into a 0-100 value (0 = no hazard, 100 = very hazardous) [18,19]. For example, ethylene has very high HH impacts but minimal W-E and OH impacts, with resultant TPI = 35.…”

“…The TPI offers a higher resolution scoring method, which can serve a different purpose than hazard screening. For example, one alternative postprocessing method is to sum chemical scores of mixtures into a single value [19]. For this case study, however, it was desirable to have the robustness of two sets of assessment scores as the basis for the hazard screening, therefore it was necessary to post-process the TPI results in such a way that comparisons to the GS results could indeed be made.…”

“…Two hazard assessment tools are used to score and rank materials in this study: The Green Screen for Safer Chemicals TM (GS) and the Toxic Potential Indicator (TPI) developed by Clean Production Action (CPA) and Fraunhofer IZM, respectively [17][18][19]. After completing both CAAs, we use the LCHP methodology to establish a combined, low-hazard option for both manufacturing process chemicals and solar cell material composition simultaneously.…”

International harmonization of models for selecting less toxic chemical alternatives: Effect of regulatory disparities in the United States and Europe

“…Here, we summarize the computational structure and input parameters. The basic EUTPI requires 3 input parameters to capture human health impacts, environmental impacts, and other safety considerations for substances (Nissen et al 1997). These parameters are denoted by occupational exposure limits (MAKs) or EU carcinogenicity classifications, German water hazard classifications (WGK), and Risk phrases (R‐phrases), respectively.…”

“…Hazard‐based toxicity assessment tools are essential to facilitate alternative assessments in the quest to use safer, nontoxic materials for designing and manufacturing consumer products. The development of the Toxic Potential Indicator (TPI) model at the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany was motivated by the need for an environmental assessment method that is more transparent than comprehensive life cycle analysis (LCA) to rate hazardous materials used in commercial products and industrial processes (Nissen et al 1997, 1998; Yen and Chen 2009). The reasoning is that although traditional LCA can provide quantitative comparisons of environmental impacts across various stages of materials' life cycles (ISO 14040 2006), it is difficult to apply in market settings with fast product turnover rates (e.g., electronics) because it is tedious and requires special expertise not necessarily accessible to manufacturers (Millet et al 2007).…”