Abstract: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 uncertainties for each decision making step.

Why are nanomaterials different and how can they be appropriately regulated under REACH?

A European nano-registry as a reliable database for quantitative risk assessment of nanomaterials? A comparison of national approaches

Regulation of engineered nanomaterials: current challenges, insights and future directions

Nanomaterials: certain aspects of application, risk assessment and risk communication

Nano(Q)SAR: Challenges, Pitfalls and Perspectives

Analytical and toxicological aspects of nanomaterials in different product groups: Challenges and opportunities

Material-specific properties applied to an environmental risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials – implications on grouping and read-across concepts

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

Nanomaterials in the aquatic environment: A European Union–United States perspective on the status of ecotoxicity testing, research priorities, and challenges ahead

Reproducibility of methods required to identify and characterize nanoforms of substances

The importance of categorization of nanomaterials for environmental risk assessment

Limitations and Modifications of Skin Sensitization NAMs for Testing Inorganic Nanomaterials

Three-tiered approach for standard information requirements for polymers requiring registration under REACH

A comprehensive framework for evaluating the environmental health and safety implications of engineered nanomaterials

Use of new scientific developments in regulatory risk assessments: challenges and opportunities

Analysis of Nanomaterials on Biological and Environmental Systems and New Analytical Methods for Improved Detection.

Ecotoxicity testing of nanomaterials in sediment – suggestions to improve science and regulation

NANOMATERIALS IN THE ENVIRONMENT: BEHAVIOR, FATE, BIOAVAILABILITY, AND EFFECTS

Evaluation of Exposure Concentrations Used in Assessing Manufactured Nanomaterial Environmental Hazards: Are They Relevant?

Safe nanomaterials: from their use, application and disposal to regulations

A framework for chemical safety assessment incorporating new approach methodologies within REACH