Qualitative approach to comparative exposure in alternatives assessment
Greggs, William; Burns, Thomas; Egeghy, Peter; Embry, Michelle R; Fantke, Peter; Gaborek, Bonnie; Heine, Lauren; Jolliet, Olivier; Lee, Carolyn; Muir, Derek; Plotzke, Kathy; Rinkevich, Joseph; Sunger, Neha; Tanir, Jennifer Y; Whittaker, Margaret
2019-11
Citation
Greggs, William; Burns, Thomas; Egeghy, Peter; Embry, Michelle R; Fantke, Peter; Gaborek, Bonnie; Heine, Lauren; Jolliet, Olivier; Lee, Carolyn; Muir, Derek; Plotzke, Kathy; Rinkevich, Joseph; Sunger, Neha; Tanir, Jennifer Y; Whittaker, Margaret (2019). "Qualitative approach to comparative exposure in alternatives assessment." Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15(6): 880-894.
Abstract
Most alternatives assessments (AAs) published to date are largely hazard‐based rankings, thereby ignoring potential differences in human and/or ecosystem exposures; as such, they may not represent a fully informed consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of possible alternatives. Building on the 2014 US National Academy of Sciences recommendations to improve AA decisions by including comparative exposure assessment into AAs, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute’s (HESI) Sustainable Chemical Alternatives Technical Committee, which comprises scientists from academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations, developed a qualitative comparative exposure approach. Conducting such a comparison can screen for alternatives that are expected to have a higher or different routes of human or environmental exposure potential, which together with consideration of the hazard assessment, could trigger a higher tiered, more quantitative exposure assessment on the alternatives being considered, minimizing the likelihood of regrettable substitution. This article outlines an approach for including chemical ingredient‐ and product‐related exposure information in a qualitative comparison, including ingredient and product‐related parameters. A classification approach was developed for ingredient and product parameters to support comparisons between alternatives as well as a methodology to address exposure parameter relevance and data quality. The ingredient parameters include a range of physicochemical properties that can impact routes and magnitude of exposure, whereas the product parameters include aspects such as product‐specific exposure pathways, use information, accessibility, and disposal. Two case studies are used to demonstrate the application of the methodology. Key learnings and future research needs are summarized. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;00:000–000. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)Key PointsAlternatives Assessment (AA) describes the approach to identify, compare, and select safer and more sustainable alternatives to chemicals of concern.Alternatives Assessments have often been hazard‐based rankings used to substitute individual ingredients and may not represent a fully informed consideration of advantages or disadvantages of possible alternative solutions.Chemical alternatives that may have a higher or different route of exposure potential (human or environmental) can be identified via a qualitative exposure approach, which could trigger a higher tiered, more quantitative assessment to minimize the likelihood of regrettable substitution.This work outlines a classification approach for including chemical ingredient‐ and product‐related exposure information to support comparisons between alternatives in a qualitative manner using 2 case studies.Publisher
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
1551-3777 1551-3793
Other DOIs
Types
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.