Cargando…

Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals

BACKGROUND: Given increasing pressures for hazardous chemical replacement, there is growing interest in alternatives assessment to avoid substituting a toxic chemical with another of equal or greater concern. Alternatives assessment is a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer altern...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jacobs, Molly M., Malloy, Timothy F., Tickner, Joel A., Edwards, Sally
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4786344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26339778
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409581
_version_ 1782420542780866560
author Jacobs, Molly M.
Malloy, Timothy F.
Tickner, Joel A.
Edwards, Sally
author_facet Jacobs, Molly M.
Malloy, Timothy F.
Tickner, Joel A.
Edwards, Sally
author_sort Jacobs, Molly M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Given increasing pressures for hazardous chemical replacement, there is growing interest in alternatives assessment to avoid substituting a toxic chemical with another of equal or greater concern. Alternatives assessment is a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those used in materials, processes, or technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this substantive review of alternatives assessment frameworks are to identify consistencies and differences in methods and to outline needs for research and collaboration to advance science policy practice. METHODS: This review compares methods used in six core components of these frameworks: hazard assessment, exposure characterization, life-cycle impacts, technical feasibility evaluation, economic feasibility assessment, and decision making. Alternatives assessment frameworks published from 1990 to 2014 were included. RESULTS: Twenty frameworks were reviewed. The frameworks were consistent in terms of general process steps, but some differences were identified in the end points addressed. Methodological gaps were identified in the exposure characterization, life-cycle assessment, and decision–analysis components. Methods for addressing data gaps remain an issue. DISCUSSION: Greater consistency in methods and evaluation metrics is needed but with sufficient flexibility to allow the process to be adapted to different decision contexts. CONCLUSION: Although alternatives assessment is becoming an important science policy field, there is a need for increased cross-disciplinary collaboration to refine methodologies in support of the informed substitution and design of safer chemicals, materials, and products. Case studies can provide concrete lessons to improve alternatives assessment. CITATION: Jacobs MM, Malloy TF, Tickner JA, Edwards S. 2016. Alternatives assessment frameworks: research needs for the informed substitution of hazardous chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 124:265–280; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409581
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4786344
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47863442016-03-16 Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals Jacobs, Molly M. Malloy, Timothy F. Tickner, Joel A. Edwards, Sally Environ Health Perspect Review BACKGROUND: Given increasing pressures for hazardous chemical replacement, there is growing interest in alternatives assessment to avoid substituting a toxic chemical with another of equal or greater concern. Alternatives assessment is a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those used in materials, processes, or technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this substantive review of alternatives assessment frameworks are to identify consistencies and differences in methods and to outline needs for research and collaboration to advance science policy practice. METHODS: This review compares methods used in six core components of these frameworks: hazard assessment, exposure characterization, life-cycle impacts, technical feasibility evaluation, economic feasibility assessment, and decision making. Alternatives assessment frameworks published from 1990 to 2014 were included. RESULTS: Twenty frameworks were reviewed. The frameworks were consistent in terms of general process steps, but some differences were identified in the end points addressed. Methodological gaps were identified in the exposure characterization, life-cycle assessment, and decision–analysis components. Methods for addressing data gaps remain an issue. DISCUSSION: Greater consistency in methods and evaluation metrics is needed but with sufficient flexibility to allow the process to be adapted to different decision contexts. CONCLUSION: Although alternatives assessment is becoming an important science policy field, there is a need for increased cross-disciplinary collaboration to refine methodologies in support of the informed substitution and design of safer chemicals, materials, and products. Case studies can provide concrete lessons to improve alternatives assessment. CITATION: Jacobs MM, Malloy TF, Tickner JA, Edwards S. 2016. Alternatives assessment frameworks: research needs for the informed substitution of hazardous chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 124:265–280; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409581 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2015-09-04 2016-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4786344/ /pubmed/26339778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409581 Text en http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, “Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives”); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.
spellingShingle Review
Jacobs, Molly M.
Malloy, Timothy F.
Tickner, Joel A.
Edwards, Sally
Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals
title Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals
title_full Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals
title_fullStr Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals
title_full_unstemmed Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals
title_short Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals
title_sort alternatives assessment frameworks: research needs for the informed substitution of hazardous chemicals
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4786344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26339778
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409581
work_keys_str_mv AT jacobsmollym alternativesassessmentframeworksresearchneedsfortheinformedsubstitutionofhazardouschemicals
AT malloytimothyf alternativesassessmentframeworksresearchneedsfortheinformedsubstitutionofhazardouschemicals
AT ticknerjoela alternativesassessmentframeworksresearchneedsfortheinformedsubstitutionofhazardouschemicals
AT edwardssally alternativesassessmentframeworksresearchneedsfortheinformedsubstitutionofhazardouschemicals