Toxics Use Reduction Institute
5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study
Liz Harriman
Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell
National Environmental Partnership Summit
May 2007
Overview
• Substitution – Global and Local Context• 5 Chemicals Study Overview• Stakeholder Process• Alternatives Assessment Methodology
– Technical– Financial– Environmental, Health and Safety
• Example Results• Key EH&S and Assessment Issues • Conclusions
Substitution: Global and Local Context
• International – European UnionV Denmark, Germany, France, etc. substitution
studiesMREACH
• National – USV EPA DfE Flame Retardant Study, Formulators
Project
• States• Numerous state efforts to restrict certain
chemicals (typically restriction M, substitution V)• WA (decaBDE), ME (PBDEs), CA (perc), etc.
Substitution: Local Context
• MassachusettsV Toxics Use Reduction Act 1989, Amended 2006MAn Act for a Healthy Massachusetts - Safer
Alternatives bill filed• Promoted by Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow
V FY06 5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study• How does alternatives assessment work? What will it
tell us?
5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment - Legislative Request
• State legislature charged TURI with assessing alternatives to 5 chemicals:– Lead– Formaldehyde – Perchloroethylene – Hexavalent chromium– di-(2 ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
• 11 months to complete study and report• For each substance:
– Describe significant uses in manufacturing and products– Identify possibly alternatives, proven and emergent, for
selected uses
5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment - Scope
• Assess potential of alternatives to serve as substitutes for specific applications:– Technical feasibility– Financial feasibility– Environmental, and public/occupational health and safety
• High priority uses and alternatives to be assessed– Stakeholder interest– Use in Massachusetts– Manufacturing balanced with consumer products– Potential for substitutes and improvement
• Alternatives include: chemicals, materials and products/function substitutes
Selected Chemical Uses
PerchloroethyleneFormaldehyde
DEHP
LeadHexavalent Chromium
Alternatives AssessmentMethodology
• Initial screen for PBTs and Carcinogens• Investigation of feasibility, applicability for
different applications and situations• Qualitative assessment of [ +, =, -, or ? ] for
important and relevant parameters for:– technical – financial – environmental– human health– safety
• Summary of important and relevant life cycle considerations for product/function substitutes
Key EH&S Parameters: Preferred Sources
• Published, publicly available, references from authoritative bodies– HSDB, NIOSH, IRIS, IARC, USEPA fact sheets,
NFPA– Models – PBT Profiler
• State/International sources– CA Prop 65, EU ESIS, WMA, IPCC
• Industry Sources– MSDS
• Published studies
Technical Feasibility
• Key performance requirements– Longevity, physical characteristics, quality,
maintenance, etc.
• Sources of information– Industry and user experience– Previous robust studies– Technical experts– Manufacturer’s product information
Key EH&S Parameters: Environmental
• PBT {PBT Profiler}– Persistence/Biological Degradability– Bioaccumulation– Aquatic Toxicity
• Environmental Mobility {HSDB, PBT Profiler}– Water solubility, Kd, log Kow, Koc
• Degradation products {HSDB, studies}• Ozone depletion potential {WMA}• Global Warming Potential {IPCC}
Key EH&S Parameters: Human Health
• Human health – Chronic/CMR– Carcinogenicity {EPA, IARC}– Mutagenicity {EU ESIS}– Reproductive/developmental toxicity {EU ESIS, CA Prop 65}
• Endocrine Disruption – no accepted standard
• Human health – acute/occupational– Oral LD50, Inhalation LC50, Dermal Ld50 {HSDB}– IDLH, PEL, REL {NIOSH}– Irritation {HSDB, NIOSH, MSDS}– Skin Sensitization {ACGIH, AIHA}– Reference Dose {HSDB, IRIS}– Metabolites of concern {HSDB}
Key EH&S Parameters: Safety
• Safety– Corrosivity {HSDB, MSDS}– Reactivity {NIOSH, MSDS}– Flash Point {HSDB, MSDS}– Flammability {NIOSH, MSDS}– Vapor Pressure {HSDB, MSDS}
Formaldehyde Alternatives Assessment Summary for Preserved Specimens for Educational Dissection
Assessment Criteria
Formalin-Fixed Specimen
(Reference)
Comparison Relative to Specimens in Formalin
Form-alternate(propylene glycol
based)
STF(includes
Diazolid-inyl urea)
Ward’s(glutar-aldehyde
based)
Video/Virtual
Dissection
Technical/Performance
Criteria
Color Not life-like + + + n/aTexture Hardened + + = n/aStiffness Rigid + + = n/aOdor Irritating + + = +
Longevity Indefinite ? ? - +
Special handling Extensive + + + +
Availability Good = = = =
Educational value Good = = = -Financial Criteria
Cost (per specimen) $5.60 + + + n/a
Environ-mental
Criteria
EcoToxicityNot acutely toxic, except to
zooplakton - - - +
Hazardous Waste Storage/ Disposal
Regulated + + + +
Carcinogen Yes + + + +
Human Health
Criteria
LD50 (oral rat) 100 mg/kg + + + +
Sensitizer Yes + + =/+ +
Skin Adsorption Yes = = = +
Irritation Severe + + + +
COMPARISON KEY+ Better = Similar - Worse ? Unknown
EH&S Data Issues
• “Authoritative bodies” don’t always have most up-to-date information
• Data discrepancies
• Data gaps
• Not enough measured data (e.g., PBT), so used modelling results
• No US consensus on some indicators (e.g., endocrine disruption)
• Inability to include complexity, different interpretations of study results, etc.
EH&S Assessment Issues
• Mixtures• Material alternatives vs. chemical alternatives
– e.g., different flooring materials rather than different plasticizers
• Process alternatives – achieve function, but no comparable substance to compare against– Video dissection vs. formaldehyde preserved
specimens
Conclusions
• In every application studied, at least one alternative was identified that was – commercially available, – was likely to meet the technical
requirements of some users, and – was likely to have reduced environmental
and occupational health and safety impacts.
Conclusions (cont.)
• Study results are useful for:– Businesses or educated consumers
• Apply results to their specific application and values
– Researchers• Pulls together current state of knowledge about
alternatives and potential impacts
– Policy-makers• Provides information about potential for substitution for
specific chemicals and uses
• Study available at www.turi.org
Thank-you
• Contact Information:
Liz HarrimanDeputy Director
MA Toxics Use Reduction InstituteUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell
One University Ave.
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-3387
Top Related