You are here:
COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL SCREENING AND RANKING APPROACHES: THE WASTE MINIMIZATION PRIORITIZATION TOOL VERSUS TOXIC EQUIVALENCY POTENTIALS: JOURNAL ARTICLE
Citation:
Description:
NRMRL-STD-0014 Pennington*, D.W., and Bare*, J.C. Comparison of Chemical Screening and Ranking Approaches: The Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool versus Toxic Equivalency Potentials. Risk Analysis (Anderson, E.L. (Ed.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers) 21 (5):897-912 (2001). EPA/600/J-02/177. Chemical screening in the United States is often conducted using scoring and ranking methodologies. Linked models accounting for chemical fate, exposure, and toxicological effects are generally preferred in Europe andin product Life Cycle Assessment. For the first time, a comparison is presented in this article of two of the prominent but structurally different methodologies adopted to help screen and rank chemicals and chemical emissions data. Results for 250 chemicals are presented, with a focus on 12 chemicals of interest in the United Nations Environment Programme's Persistent Organic Pollutants global treaty negotiations. These results help to illustrate the significance of described structural differences and to assess the correlation between the methodologies. The scope of the comparison was restricted here to human health, although the insights would be equally useful in the context of the health of ecosystems. Illustrating the current types of chemical screening and emissions comparison approaches, the relative significance of the scenario and structural differences of the Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool (WMPT) and the Toxic Equivalency Potential (TEP) methodologies were analyzed in this article. The WMPT facilitates comparison in terms of key physical-chemical properties. Measures for Persistence, Bioaccumulation, and Toxicity (PBT) are calculated. Each PBT measure is scored and then these scores are added to provide a singlre measure of relative concern. TEP's account for chemical fate, multipathway exposure, and toxicity using a model based approach. This model structure is sometimes considered to provide a less subjective representation of environmental mechanisms, and hence, an improved basis for screening. Nevertheless, a strong relation exists between the two approaches exits and both have their limitations.