Combined Application of the Essential-Use and Functional Substitution Concepts: Accelerating Safer Alternatives

Learning from Safe-by-Design for Safe-and-Sustainable-by-Design: Mapping the current landscape of Safe-by-Design reviews, case studies, and frameworks

With the introduction of the European Commission's "Safe and Sustainable-by-Design" (SSbD) framework, the interest in understanding the implications of safety and sustainability assessments of chemicals, materials, and processes at early-innovation stages has skyrocketed. Our study focuses on the "Safe-by-Design" (SbD) approach from the nanomaterials sector, which predates the SSbD framework. In this assessment, SbD studies have been compiled and categorized into reviews, case studies, and frameworks. Reviews of SbD tools have been further classified as quantitative, qualitative, or toolboxes and repositories. We assessed the SbD case studies and classified them into three categories: safe(r)-by-modeling, safe(r)-by-selection, or safe(r)-by-redesign. This classification enabled us to understand past SbD work and subsequently use it to define future SSbD work so as to avoid confusion and possibilities of "SSbD-washing" (similar to greenwashing). Finally, the preexisting SbD frameworks have been studied and contextualized against the SSbD framework. Several key recommendations for SSbD based on our analysis can be made. Knowledge gained from existing approaches such as SbD, green and sustainable chemistry, and benign-by-design approaches needs to be preserved and effectively transferred to SSbD. Better incorporation of chemical and material functionality into the SSbD framework is required. The concept of lifecycle thinking and the stage-gate innovation model need to be reconciled for SSbD. The development of high-throughput screening models is critical for the operationalization of SSbD. We conclude that the rapid pace of both SbD and SSbD development necessitates a regular mapping of the newly published literature that is relevant to this field.

Alternatives assessment: An analysis on progress and future needs for research and practice

Alternatives assessment is a science-policy approach to support the informed substitution of chemicals of concern in consumer products and industries, with the intent of avoiding regrettable substitution and facilitating the transition to safer, more sustainable chemicals and products. The field of alternatives assessment has grown steadily in recent decades, particularly after the publication of specific frameworks and the inclusion of substitution and alternatives assessment requirements in a number of policy contexts. Previously, 14 research and practice needs for the field were outlined across five critical areas: comparative hazard assessment, comparative exposure characterization, lifecycle considerations, decision-making and decision analysis, and professional practice. The aim of the current article is twofold: to highlight methodological advances in the growing field of alternatives assessment based on identified research and practice needs and to propose areas for future developments. We assess advances in the field based on the analysis of a broad literature review that captured 154 sources published from 2013 to 2022. The results indicate that research conducted advanced many of the needs identified, but several remain underaddressed. Although the field has clearly grown and taken root over the past decade, there are still research and practice gaps, most notably on the hazard assessment of mixtures or different forms of chemicals, the integration of lifecycle considerations, and the development of practical approaches to address trade-offs in decision-making. We propose modifications to four of the prior research and practice needs in addition to new needs, including the development of standardized hazard assessment approaches for chemical mixtures as well as better integration of equity and/or justice considerations into assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1-18. © 2023 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Nontarget Identification of Novel Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Soils from an Oil Refinery in Southwestern China: A Combined Approach with TOP Assay

Oil refinery activity can be an emission source of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the environment, while the contamination profiles in soils remain unknown. This study investigated 44 target PFAS in soil samples collected from an oil refinery in Southeastern China, identified novel PFAS, and characterized their behaviors by assessing their changes before and after employing advanced oxidation using a combination of nontarget analysis and a total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay. Thirty-four target PFAS were detected in soil samples. Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) were the dominant PFAS. Twenty-three novel PFAS of 14 classes were identified, including 8 precursors, 11 products, and 4 stable PFAS characterized by the TOP assay. Particularly, three per-/polyfluorinated alcohols were identified for the first time, and hexafluoroisopropanol (HFIP) quantified up to 657 ng/g dw is a novel precursor for TFA. Bistriflimide (NTf2) potentially associated with an oil refinery was also reported for the first time in the soil samples. This study highlighted the advantage of embedding the TOP assay in nontarget analysis to reveal not only the presence of unknown PFAS but also their roles in environmental processes. Overall, this approach provides an efficient way to uncover contamination profiles of PFAS especially in source-impacted areas.

Optimizing Chemicals Management in the United States and Canada through the Essential-Use Approach

Chemicals have improved the functionality and convenience of industrial and consumer products, but sometimes at the expense of human or ecological health. Existing regulatory systems have proven to be inadequate for assessing and managing the tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce. A different approach is urgently needed to minimize ongoing production, use, and exposures to hazardous chemicals. The premise of the essential-use approach is that chemicals of concern should be used only in cases in which their function in specific products is necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society and when feasible alternatives are unavailable. To optimize the essential-use approach for broader implementation in the United States and Canada, we recommend that governments and businesses (1) identify chemicals of concern for essentiality assessments based on a broad range of hazard traits, going beyond toxicity; (2) expedite decision-making by avoiding unnecessary assessments and strategically asking up to three questions to determine whether the use of the chemical in the product is essential; (3) apply the essential-use approach as early as possible in the process of developing and assessing chemicals; and (4) engage diverse experts in identifying chemical uses and functions, assessing alternatives, and making essentiality determinations and share such information broadly. If optimized and expanded into regulatory systems in the United States and Canada, other policymaking bodies, and businesses, the essential-use approach can improve chemicals management and shift the market toward safer chemistries that benefit human and ecological health.