Abstract
The goal of alternatives assessment (AA) is to facilitate a comparison of alternatives to a chemical of concern, resulting in the identification of safer alternatives. A two-stage methodology for comparing chemical alternatives was developed. In the first stage, alternatives are compared using a variety of human health effects, ecotoxicity, and physicochemical properties. Hazard profiles are completed using a variety of online sources and quantitative structure–activity relationship models. In the second stage, alternatives are evaluated utilizing an exposure/risk assessment over the entire life cycle. Exposure values are calculated using screening-level near-field and far-field exposure models. The second stage allows one to more accurately compare potential exposure to each alternative and consider additional factors that may not be obvious from separate binned persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity scores. The methodology was utilized to compare phosphate-based alternatives for decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) in electronic applications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnot JA, Mackay D (2008) Policies for chemical hazard and risk priority setting: can persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and quantity information be combined? Environ Sci Technol 42:4648–4654. doi:10.1021/es800106g
Arnot JA, Mackay D, Webster E, Southwood JM (2006) Screening level risk assessment model for chemical fate and effects in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 40:2316–2323. doi:10.1021/es0514085
Arnot JA, Mackay D, Parkerton TF, Zaleski RT, Warren CS (2010) Multimedia modeling of human exposure to chemical substances: the roles of food web biomagnification and biotransformation. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:45–55
Arnot J, Brown T, Wania F, Breivik K, McLachlan M (2012) Prioritizing chemicals and data requirements for screening-level exposure and risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 120:1565–1570
Bennett DH, Furtaw EJ (2004) Fugacity-based indoor residential pesticide fate model. Environ Sci Technol 38:2142–2152. doi:10.1021/es034287m
Cashman S et al. (2016) Mining public data from the united states environmental protection agency to support rapid life cycle inventory modeling of chemical manufacturing accepted for publication to environmental science and technology
ChemAxon (2016) Physico-chemical property predictors. Calculations and predictions of essential physico-chemical characteristics. https://www.chemaxon.com/products/calculator-plugins/property-predictors/. Accessed 29 July 2016
ChemHAT.org (2016) Chemical hazards and alternatives toolbox. http://www.chemhat.org/en. Accessed 2 Nov 2016
Chen D, Hale RC (2010) A global review of polybrominated diphenyl ether flame contamination in birds. Environ Int 36:800–811
Clean Production Action (2007) The Green Screen for safer chemicals: evaluating flame retardants for TV enclosures. http://www.greenscreenchemicals.org/static/ee_images/uploads/resources/EvaluatingFlameRetardants_GreenScreenSaferChemicals_2007.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2016
Cohen Hubal EA et al (2010) Advancing exposure characterization for chemical evaluation and risk assessment. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 13:299–313. doi:10.1080/10937404.2010.483947
Dionisio KL et al (2015) Exploring consumer exposure pathways and patterns of use for chemicals in the environment. Toxicol Rep 2:228–237
D’Silva K, Fernandes A, Rose M (2004) Brominated organic micropollutants—igniting the flame retardant issue. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 34:141–207
Egeghy PP, Judson R, Gangwal S, Mosher S, Smith D, Vail J, Cohen Hubal EA (2012) The exposure data landscape for manufactured chemicals. Sci Total Environ 414:159–166. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.046
Environment Canada (2006) Ecological Screening Assessment Report on Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs). https://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=0DDA2F24-1. Accessed 22 July 2016
European Chemicals Agency (2016) C&L inventory. http://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals. Accessed 22 July 2016
European Chemicals Bureau (2002) European Union Risk Assessment Report Bis(Pentabromophenyl) Ether: Risk Assessment. CAS No. 1163-19-5. EINECS No. 214-604-9. Luxemborg
European Commission (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances, commission regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of the European parliament and of the council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Ispra, Italy: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Chemicals Bureau.
European Commission (2008) The directive on dangerous substances. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/dansub/home_en.htm. Accessed 29 July 2016
European Union (2008) Classification and labelling (CLP/GHS). https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/classification-labelling_en. Accessed 29 July 2016
Fantke P, Ernstoff AS, Huang L, Csiszar SA, Jolliet O (2016) Coupled near-field and far-field exposure assessment framework for chemicals in consumer products. Environ Int. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.06.010
Fukata H, Omori M, Osada H, Todaka E, Mori C (2005) Necessity to measure PCBs and organochlorine pesticide concentrations in human umbilical cords for fetal exposure assessment. Environ Health Perspect 113:297–303
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (2006) A report to the general assembly and the governor in response to public act 94-100 decaBDE study: a review of available scientific research. http://www.epa.state.il.us/reports/decaBDE-study/available-research-review.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2016
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2016) Agents classified by the IARC monographs, vol 1–116. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/. Accessed 22 July 2016
Isaacs KK et al (2014) SHEDS-HT: an integrated probabilistic exposure model for prioritizing exposures to chemicals with near-field and dietary sources. Environ Sci Technol 48:12750–12759. doi:10.1021/es502513w
Jonkers N, Krop H, van Ewijk H, Leonards PEG (2016) Life cycle assessment of flame retardants in an electronics application. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:146–161. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0999-z
KEMI (1995) The flame retardants project—a collection of reports on some flame—retardants and an updated ecotoxicological summary for tetrabromobisphenol A. PM nr 10/95. The Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, Solna
Mackay D (1991) Multimedia environmental models; the fugacity approach. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 67–183
Mackay D, Di Guardo A, Paterson S, Cowan CE (1996a) Evaluating the environmental fate of a variety of types of chemicals using the EQC model. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1627–1637. doi:10.1002/etc.5620150929
Mackay D, Di Guardo A, Paterson S, Kicsi G, Cowan CE (1996b) Assessing the fate of new and existing chemicals: a five-stage process. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1618–1626. doi:10.1002/etc.5620150928
Martin TM (2016) Prediction of in vitro and in vivo oestrogen receptor activity using hierarchical clustering. SAR QSAR Environ Res 27:17–30. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2015.1125945
Martin TM, Harten P, Venkatapathy R, Das S, Young DM (2008) A hierarchical clustering methodology for the estimation of toxicity. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:251–266. doi:10.1080/15376510701857353
Martin MT, Knudsen TB, Reif DM, Houck KA, Judson RS, Kavlock RJ, Dix DJ (2011) Predictive model of rat reproductive toxicity from ToxCast high throughput screening. Biol Reprod 85:327–339. doi:10.1095/biolreprod.111.090977
McKone TE (1993) CalTOX, a multimedia total-exposure model for hazardous waste sites. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/139702. Accessed 19 July 2016
McLachlan MS, Czub G, MacLeod M, Arnot JA (2011) Bioaccumulation of organic contaminants in humans: a multimedia perspective and the importance of biotransformation. Environ Sci Technol 45:197–202. doi:10.1021/es101000w
National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (NITE) (2016) GHS classification results. http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/english/ghs/all_fy_e.html. Accessed 22 July 2016
National Research Council (2014) A framework to guide selection of chemical alternatives. National Research Council. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18872/a-framework-to-guide-selection-of-chemical-alternatives. Accessed 16 Oct 2015
Niemelä JR, Wedebye EB, Nikolov NG, Ringsted GEJoT (2010) The Advisory list for self-classification of dangerous substances CLP-version, Ver. 3. Division of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby
OECD (1992) OECD Guideline for Test No. 301: ready biodegradability. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-301-ready-biodegradability_9789264070349-en. Accessed 23 Aug 2016
Pharos (2016) Pharos Chemical and Material Library (CML). https://www.pharosproject.net/material/chemical. Accessed 29 July 2016
Rosenbaum RK et al (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546. doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4
Rosenbaum RK et al (2011) USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:710–727. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0316-4
Shin H-M, McKone TE, Bennett DH (2012) Intake fraction for the indoor environment: a tool for prioritizing indoor chemical sources. Environ Sci Technol 46:10063–10072. doi:10.1021/es3018286
Shin H-M et al (2015) Risk-based high-throughput chemical screening and prioritization using exposure models and in vitro bioactivity assays. Environ Sci Technol 49:6760–6771. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00498
Sjödin A, Hagmar L, Klasson-Wehler E, Kronholm-Diab K, Jakobsson E, Bergman A (1999) Flame retardant exposure: polybrominated diphenyl ethers in blood from Swedish workers. Environ Health Perspect 107:643–648
Stapleton HM, Dodder NG, Offenberg JH, Schantz MM, Wise SA (2005) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in house dust and clothes dryer lint. Environ Sci Technol 39:925–931. doi:10.1021/es0486824
The Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (2005) Decabromodiphenylether: an investigation of non-halogen substitutes in electronic enclosure and textile applications. http://www.sustainableproduction.org/downloads/decaBDESubstitutesFinal4-15-05.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016
Thomas RS et al (2012) A comprehensive statistical analysis of predicting in vivo hazard using high-throughput in vitro screening. Toxicol Sci 128:398–417. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfs159
UNECE (2007) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev02/02files_e.html. Accessed 25 July 2016
US EPA (2008) Using the 2006 Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) public data: background document. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/iurdbbackground_0.pdf. Accessed 19 July 2016
US EPA (2010) An exposure assessment of polybrominated diphenyl ethers. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=210404&CFID=66107585&CFTOKEN=76035728. Accessed 26 July 2016
US EPA (2011) Design for the Environment Program Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation Version 2.0. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/alternatives-assessment-criteria-hazard-evaluation. Accessed 2 Nov 2016
US EPA (2011a) Design for the environment program alternatives assessment criteria for hazard evaluation. Version 2.0. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/alternatives-assessment-criteria-hazard-evaluation. Accessed 28 July 2016
US EPA (2011b) National-scale air toxics assessment. https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment. Accessed 19 July 2016
US EPA (2012) EPI Suite Version 4.11. Syracuse Research Corporation. https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-program-interface. Accessed 24 July 2016
US EPA (2014a) An alternatives assessment for the flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/decaBDE_final.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2016
US EPA (2014b) Chemical and Product Categories (CPCat) database. http://actor.epa.gov/cpcat/faces/home.xhtml. Accessed 19 July 2016
US EPA (2016a) ACToR (Aggregated Computational Toxicology Resource). https://actor.epa.gov/actor/. Accessed 22 July 2016
US EPA (2016b) ECOTOX Knowledgebase. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/. Accessed 22 July 2016
US EPA (2016c) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). https://www.epa.gov/iris. Accessed 22 July 16
US EPA (2016d) National Emissions Inventory. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory
US EPA (2016e) Reviewing new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca
US EPA (2016f) T.E.S.T. Version 4.2. http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/toxicity-estimation-software-tool-test. Accessed 24 July 2016
US EPA (2016 g) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program
U.S. National Library of Medicine (2016) Hazardous Substances Databank. https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB. Accessed 22 July 2016
Vermeire TG et al (1997) European union system for the evaluation of substances (EUSES). Princples and structure. Chemosphere 34:1823–1836. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00017-9
Vermeire T et al (2005) European union system for the evaluation of substances: the second version. Chemosphere 59:473–485. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.01.062
Wambaugh JF et al (2013) High-throughput models for exposure-based chemical prioritization in the ExpoCast project. Environ Sci Technol 47:8479–8488. doi:10.1021/es400482g
Wambaugh JF, Wang A, Dionisio KL, Frame A, Egeghy P, Judson R, Setzer RW (2014) High throughput heuristics for prioritizing human exposure to environmental chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 48:12760–12767. doi:10.1021/es503583j
Wehage K, Chenhansa P, Schoenung JM (2016) An open framework for automated chemical hazard assessment based on GreenScreen for safer chemicals: a proof of concept. Integr Environ Assess Manag. doi:10.1002/ieam.1763
Wenger Y, Li D, Jolliet O (2012) Indoor intake fraction considering surface sorption of air organic compounds for life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:919–931. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0420-0
Weschler CJ, Nazaroff WW (2010) SVOC partitioning between the gas phase and settled dust indoors. Atmos Environ 44:3609–3620. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.06.029
Wetmore BA et al (2015) Incorporating high-throughput exposure predictions with dosimetry-adjusted in vitro bioactivity to inform chemical toxicity testing. Toxicol Sci 148:121–136. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfv171
Wikipedia.org (2016) Decabromodiphenyl ether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether#Voluntary_and_governmental_actions
Wilson MP, Hammond SK, Nicas M, Hubbard AE (2007) Worker exposure to volatile organic compounds in the vehicle repair industry. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:301–310. doi:10.1080/15459620701258021
Wolfe K et al. (2016) Chemical transformation system: cloud based cheminformatic services to support integrated environmental modeling. In: Sauvage S (ed) J-MS-PaAER 8th international congress on environmental modelling and software society (iEMSs), Toulouse
Danish Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Protection Agency. http://eng.mst.dk/topics/chemicals/assessment-of-chemicals/the-advisory-list-for-selfclassification/. Accessed 22 July 2016
Zhang X, Arnot JA, Wania F (2014) Model for screening-level assessment of near-field human exposure to neutral organic chemicals released indoors. Environ Sci Technol 48:12312–12319. doi:10.1021/es502718k
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Disclaimer The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Martin, T.M. A framework for an alternatives assessment dashboard for evaluating chemical alternatives applied to flame retardants for electronic applications. Clean Techn Environ Policy 19, 1067–1086 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1300-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1300-2