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/es1015789

Cited by 92 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The U.S.-EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program aims to identify chemicals and processes with less human health and environmental impact by considering also economic effects and product performance (Lavoie et al, 2010). U.S.-EPA has carried out several “Alternative Assessments for Flame retardants of concern” published in a series of reports focusing on different substances or different applications (US-EPA, 2013, US-EPA, 2014a, US-EPA, 2014b, US-EPA, 2015b, US-EPA, 2015a).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chemical alternatives assessment (CAA) is a methodology for identifying, comparing and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (Lavoie et al, 2010, Whittaker and Heine, 2013, NAS, 2014, Geiser et al, 2015). Multiple methods and paradigms for CAA have been proposed and are in use by different organisations to address the challenge of substituting chemicals identified as having a negative impact on human health and/or the environment (CPSI, 2016; SubsPort, 2016).…”

Section: Process and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chemical alternatives assessment of different flame retardants – A case study including multi-walled carbon nanotubes as synergist

Aschberger

Campia

Pesudo

et al. 2017

Environment International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flame retardants (FRs) are a diverse group of chemicals used as additives in a wide range of products to inhibit, suppress, or delay ignition and to prevent the spread of fire. Halogenated FRs (HFRs) are widely used because of their low impact on other material properties and the low loading levels necessary to meet the required flame retardancy. Health and environmental hazards associated with some halogenated FRs have driven research for identifying safer alternatives. A variety of halogen-free FRs are available on the market, including organic (phosphorus and nitrogen based chemicals) and inorganic (metals) materials. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) have been demonstrated to act as an effective/synergistic co-additive in some FR applications and could thereby contribute to reducing the loading of FRs in products and improving their performance.As part of the FP7 project DEROCA we carried out a chemical alternatives assessment (CAA). This is a methodology for identifying, comparing and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern based on criteria for categorising human and environmental toxicity as well as environmental fate. In the project we assessed the hazard data of different halogen-free FRs to be applied in 5 industrial and consumer products and here we present the results for MWCNT, aluminium diethylphosphinate, aluminium trihydroxide, N-alkoxy hindered amines and red phosphorus compared to the HFR decabromodiphenylether. We consulted the REACH guidance, the criteria of the U.S.-EPA Design for Environment (DfE) and the GreenScreen® Assessment to assess and compare intrinsic properties affecting the hazard potential.A comparison/ranking of exposure reference values such as Derived No Effect Levels (DNELs) showed that FRs of concern are not identified by a low DNEL. A comparison based on hazard designations according to the U.S.-EPA DfE and GreenScreen® for human health endpoints, aquatic toxicity and environmental fate showed that the major differences between FRs of concern and their proposed alternatives are the potential for bioaccumulation and CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic) effects. As most alternatives are inorganic chemicals, persistence (alone) is not a suitable criterion.From our experiences in carrying out a CAA we conclude: i) REACH registration dossiers provide a comprehensive source of hazard information for an alternative assessment. It is important to consider that the presented data is subject to changes and its quality is variable. ii) Correct identification of the chemicals is crucial to retrieve the right data. This can be challenging for mixtures, reaction products or nanomaterials or when only trade names are available. iii) The quality of the data and the practice on how to fill data gaps can have a huge impact on the results and conclusions. iv) Current assessment criteria have mainly been developed for organic chemicals and create challenges when applied to inorganic solids, including nanomaterials. It is therefore crucial to analyse and report uncertain...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Process and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical alternatives assessment of different flame retardants – A case study including multi-walled carbon nanotubes as synergist

Aschberger

Campia

Pesudo

et al. 2017

Environment International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And even at this point some the European Council for Alkylphenols and Derivatives argued that it was premature to classify nonylphenol as an SVHC based on its endocrine-disruptive properties, since no general EDC definition was agreed upon (ECHA, 2013). A possible alternative to this prolongation of the decision-making process would have been to conduct a chemical alternative assessment (CAA) (Lavoie et al, 2010) at a much earlier stage. The outcome of a CAA is meant to provide stakeholders with an assessment of alternatives to the chemicals in question, thus facilitating the substitution process (Lavoie et al, 2010).…”

Section: Improving Scientific Foundation and Ensuring Timely Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A possible alternative to this prolongation of the decision-making process would have been to conduct a chemical alternative assessment (CAA) (Lavoie et al, 2010) at a much earlier stage. The outcome of a CAA is meant to provide stakeholders with an assessment of alternatives to the chemicals in question, thus facilitating the substitution process (Lavoie et al, 2010). Illuminating such substitution pathways seems to be a good and viable step in ensuring more timely decision making and therefore protection.…”

Section: Improving Scientific Foundation and Ensuring Timely Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental risk assessment of chemicals and nanomaterials — The best foundation for regulatory decision-making?

Syberg

Hansen

2016

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These assessment tools assign hazard levels, ranging from very low to very high, to human health, environmental fate, and safety end points (e.g., carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, flammability, acute mammalian and aquatic toxicities) based on a set of authoritative references and available data on chemical properties and structures. 16 Some of the tools assign final grades or benchmarks that range from safer (preferable) to avoid, while others leave hazard levels in disaggregated forms to allow for comparison of specific end points. These tools have been applied to comparatively assess flame retardants 17 and chemicals in the photovoltaic manufacturing process.…”

Section: ■ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transitioning to Safer Chemicals in Academic Research Laboratories: Lessons Learned at the University of Washington

Krenz

Simcox

Tepe

et al. 2016

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemicals are an integral component of laboratory activities in academia but minimizing hazards and environmental impacts of chemicals is challenging. This paper describes how laboratories in University of Washington's Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences (UW DEOHS) partnered with the UW Green Laboratory Program to explore approaches for assisting laboratories to adopt green chemistry principles and select safer chemicals. Chemical inventories, purchasing records, and hazardous waste data were used to quantitate chemical use in DEOHS. Characterizing chemical use based on the data sources provided the project team with a summary of the high volume chemicals used by departmental laboratories. As a way to target chemicals that are highly hazardous but not used in large masses/ volumes, laboratory managers were asked about highly hazardous or toxic chemicals they used. Two chemicals were selected for alternatives assessments and developed into case studies that represent different barriers that laboratories face in their efforts to transition to greener and safer chemicals. This project provided a unique opportunity to survey chemicals used by a set of laboratories with diverse research topics and to assess the practicality of transitioning to safer and greener chemicals in laboratory research using case studies.

show abstract

Chemical Alternatives Assessment: Enabling Substitution to Safer Chemicals

Cited by 92 publications

References 1 publication

Chemical alternatives assessment of different flame retardants – A case study including multi-walled carbon nanotubes as synergist

Chemical alternatives assessment of different flame retardants – A case study including multi-walled carbon nanotubes as synergist

Environmental risk assessment of chemicals and nanomaterials — The best foundation for regulatory decision-making?

Transitioning to Safer Chemicals in Academic Research Laboratories: Lessons Learned at the University of Washington

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About