No abstract

Emissions of plastic waste to the environment and the subsequent degradation into microplastic particles that have the potential to interact with biological organisms represent a concern for global society. Current understanding of the potential impacts on aquatic and terrestrial population stability and ecosystem structure and function associated with emissions of microplastic particles is limited and insufficient to fully assess environmental risks. Multistakeholder discussions can provide an important element in helping to identify and prioritize key knowledge gaps in assessing potential risks. In the present review, we summarize multistakeholder discussions from a 1‐d International Council of Chemical Associations–sponsored symposium, which involved 39 scientists from 8 countries with representatives from academia, industry, and government. Participants were asked to consider the following: discuss the scientific merits and limitations of applying a proposed conceptual environmental risk assessment (ERA) framework for microplastic particles and identify and prioritize major research needs in applying ERA tools for microplastic particles. Multistakeholder consensus was obtained with respect to the interpretation of the current state of the science related to effects and exposure to microplastic particles, which implies that it is unlikely that the presence of microplastic in the environment currently represents a risk. However, the quality and quantity of existing data require substantial improvement before conclusions regarding the potential risks and impacts of microplastic particles can be fully assessed. Research that directly addresses the development and application of methods that strengthen the quality of data should thus be given the highest priority. Activities aimed at supporting the development of and access to standardized reference material were identified as a key research need. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:2087–2100. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Background: The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted at the United Nations Environment Programme, selected human toxicity impacts from exposure to chemical substances as an impact category that requires global guidance to overcome current assessment challenges. The initiative leadership established the Human Toxicity Task Force to develop guidance on assessing human exposure and toxicity impacts. Based on input gathered at three workshops addressing the main current scientific challenges and questions, the task force built a roadmap for advancing human toxicity characterization, primarily for use in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Objectives: The present paper aims at reporting on the outcomes of the task force workshops along with interpretation of how these outcomes will impact the practice and reliability of toxicity characterization. The task force thereby focuses on two major issues that emerged from the workshops, namely considering near-field exposures and improving dose–response modeling. Discussion: The task force recommended approaches to improve the assessment of human exposure, including capturing missing exposure settings and human receptor pathways by coupling additional fate and exposure processes in consumer and occupational environments (near field) with existing processes in outdoor environments (far field). To quantify overall aggregate exposure, the task force suggested that environments be coupled using a consistent set of quantified chemical mass fractions transferred among environmental compartments. With respect to dose–response, the task force was concerned about the way LCIA currently characterizes human toxicity effects, and discussed several potential solutions. A specific concern is the use of a (linear) dose–response extrapolation to zero. Another concern addresses the challenge of identifying a metric for human toxicity impacts that is aligned with the spatiotemporal resolution of present LCIA methodology, yet is adequate to indicate health impact potential. Conclusions: Further research efforts are required based on our proposed set of recommendations for improving the characterization of human exposure and toxicity impacts in LCIA and other comparative assessment frameworks. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3871

Alpha-keto esters can be converted into alpha-hydroxy acids in a single flask involving metal-catalyzed silylene transfer, 6pi-electrocyclization, Ireland-Claisen rearrangement, and hydrolysis. This reaction sequence is stereoselective and tolerates alkyl- and aryl-substituted alpha-keto ester substrates as well as an alpha-imino ester.

As the general public and retailers ask for disclosure of chemical ingredients in the marketplace, a number of hazard screening tools were developed to evaluate the so-called "greenness" of individual chemical ingredients and/or formulations. The majority of these tools focus only on hazard, often using chemical lists, ignoring the other part of the risk equation: exposure. Using a hazard-only focus can result in regrettable substitutions, changing 1 chemical ingredient for another that turns out to be more hazardous or shifts the toxicity burden to others. To minimize the incidents of regrettable substitutions, BizNGO describes "Common Principles" to frame a process for informed substitution. Two of these 6 principles are: "reduce hazard" and "minimize exposure." A number of frameworks have emerged to evaluate and assess alternatives. One framework developed by leading experts under the auspices of the US National Academy of Sciences recommended that hazard and exposure be specifically addressed in the same step when assessing candidate alternatives. For the alternative assessment community, this article serves as an informational resource for considering exposure in an alternatives assessment using elements of problem formulation; product identity, use, and composition; hazard analysis; exposure analysis; and risk characterization. These conceptual elements build on practices from government, academia, and industry and are exemplified through 2 hypothetical case studies demonstrating the questions asked and decisions faced in new product development. These 2 case studies-inhalation exposure to a generic paint product and environmental exposure to a shampoo rinsed down the drain-demonstrate the criteria, considerations, and methods required to combine exposure models addressing human health and environmental impacts to provide a screening level hazard and exposure (risk) analysis. This article informs practices for these elements within a comparative risk context to improve alternatives assessment evaluation and decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag