Are Hazard Assessment Methods in the Assessment of Chemical Alternatives Suitable for REACH?

Juliane Glüge,Rachel L. London,Martin Scheringer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-21mv3-v2
2024-07-17
Abstract:The assessment of chemical alternatives for hazardous substances is an important prerequisite for avoiding regrettable substitution, and several methods have been developed in the past to perform such an hazard assessment for chemical alternatives. We investigate here whether GreenScreen®, Cradle to Cradle®, Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), the Pollution Prevention Options Analysis System, the U.S. EPA Safer Choice Standard and Criteria, and the GHS column model 2020 from IFA use similar criteria for the evaluation of substances as Article 57 of REACH and how suitable these methods are for assessing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. MCDA and GreenScreen® were analyzed in detail using two different datasets. The results of the assessments show that none of the investigated hazard assessment methods use the same criteria as described in Article 57 of REACH. It was also not possible to parameterize multi-attribute value theory (MAVT), a commonly used MCDA method, to align with Article 57 of REACH by using the relatively simple objective hierarchy that has been proposed in previous publications. There is therefore an urgent need for a modified/new method that can be used in the future to assess organic substances that are used within the European Economic Area.
Chemistry
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is to evaluate whether the current hazard assessment methods for chemical substitutes are consistent with the criteria in Article 57 of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) in the European Union, and whether these methods are suitable for assessing per - and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Specifically, the paper explores the following aspects: 1. **Consistency of assessment methods**: The paper investigates whether methods such as GreenScreen®, Cradle to Cradle®, multi - criteria decision analysis (MCDA), Pollution Prevention Options Analysis System (P2OSys), the U.S. EPA Safer Choice Criteria and Guidelines, and the GHS Column Model 2020 of the German Social Accident Insurance Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (IFA) use criteria similar to those in REACH Article 57 to assess substances. 2. **Applicability of PFAS**: The paper pays special attention to whether these hazard assessment methods are applicable to PFAS, a specific chemical category. PFAS has attracted wide attention due to its persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity, so a method that can comprehensively assess these characteristics is required. 3. **Avoidance of regrettable substitution**: The paper emphasizes the importance of avoiding "regrettable substitution" when looking for substitutes, that is, avoiding replacing existing harmful substances with another harmful substance. To achieve this, an assessment method that can comprehensively consider all relevant hazards is required. ### Main findings - **Method consistency**: The research results show that none of the investigated hazard assessment methods fully meet the criteria in REACH Article 57. In particular, multi - attribute value theory (MAVT), a commonly used MCDA method, cannot be aligned with REACH Article 57 even when using a relatively simple objective hierarchy. - **Assessment of PFAS**: Current methods have deficiencies in assessing PFAS, for example, failing to cover all relevant hazards (such as mobility, global warming potential and ozone depletion potential), or having insufficiently strict assessment criteria for certain hazards. - **Improvement needs**: Therefore, the paper points out that there is an urgent need to develop or modify new methods to better assess organic substances used in the European Economic Area, especially in the upcoming EU PFAS restrictions. ### Conclusion The paper emphasizes the importance of ensuring that assessment methods are consistent with regulatory requirements in the process of selecting chemical substitutes, especially when dealing with chemicals with special hazards such as PFAS. By improving existing assessment methods or developing new methods, regrettable substitution can be more effectively avoided, thereby protecting human health and the environment.