You are here:
A framework for an alternatives assessment dashboard for evaluating chemical alternatives applied to flame retardants for electronic applications
Martin, T. A framework for an alternatives assessment dashboard for evaluating chemical alternatives applied to flame retardants for electronic applications. CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 19(4):1067-1086, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1300-2
This product will lay out the framework for the methodology for the sustainability dashboard and show its application for a set of relevant compounds. This methodology will enable users to compare the hazard profile of chemical alternatives in a user-friendly tabular fashion. In future the dashboard will encapsulate efforts to assess exposure (and risk) in a high-throughput fashion. The methodology will utilize high-throughput toxicity for several toxicity endpoints and may be utilized to estimate lifetime risk in terms of the oral equivalent dose. The intended end users are primarily US EPA partners responsible for chemical safety, chemical companies performing alternatives assessments, the CSS research program, and the general scientific community.
The goal of alternatives assessment (AA) is to facilitate a comparison of alternatives to a chemical of concern, resulting in the identification of safer alternatives. A two-stage methodology for comparing chemical alternatives was developed. In the first stage, alternatives are compared using a variety of human health effects, ecotoxicity, and physicochemical properties. Hazard profiles are completed using a variety of online sources and quantitative structure–activity relationship models. In the second stage, alternatives are evaluated utilizing an exposure/risk assessment over the entire life cycle. Exposure values are calculated using screening-level near-field and far-field exposure models. The second stage allows one to more accurately compare potential exposure to each alternative and consider additional factors that may not be obvious from separate binned persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity scores. The methodology was utilized to compare phosphate-based alternatives for decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) in electronic applications.
Record Details:Record Type: DOCUMENT (JOURNAL/PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL)
Organization:U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
LAND AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DIVISION
EMERGING CHEMISTRY AND ENGINEERING BRANCH