Are Hazard Assessment Methods in the Assessment of Chemical Alternatives Suitable for REACH?

The assessment of chemical alternatives for hazardous
substances
is an important prerequisite for avoiding regrettable substitution,
and several methods have been developed in the past to perform such
a hazard assessment for chemical alternatives. We investigate here
whether GreenScreen, Cradle to Cradle, multiple-criteria decision
analysis (MCDA), the Pollution Prevention Options Analysis System,
the U.S. EPA Safer Choice Standard and Criteria, and the GHS column
model 2020 from IFA use similar criteria for the evaluation of substances
as Article 57 of the European chemicals regulation, REACH, and how
suitable these methods are for assessing per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances. MCDA and GreenScreen were analyzed in detail using two
different data sets. The results of the assessments show that none
of the investigated hazard assessment methods use the same criteria
as described in Article 57 of REACH. It was also not possible to parametrize
multi-attribute value theory (MAVT), a commonly used MCDA method,
to align with Article 57 of REACH by using the relatively simple objective
hierarchy that has been proposed in previous publications. There is
therefore an urgent need for a modified/new method that can be used
in the future to assess organic substances that are used within the
European Economic Area.

对有害物质的化学替代品进行评估是避免令人遗憾的替代行为的重要前提，过去已经开发出多种方法来执行此类化学替代品的风险评估。本研究旨在探讨GreenScreen、摇篮到摇篮（Cradle to Cradle）、多标准决策分析（MCDA）、污染预防选项分析系统、美国环保署（U.S. EPA）的Safer Choice标准和准则以及IFA的GHS列模型2020是否采用与欧洲化学品法规（REACH）第57条相类似的评价标准，以及这些方法在评估全氟和多氟烷基物质方面的适用性。MCDA和GreenScreen分别使用两组不同的数据集进行了详细分析。评估结果显示，所调查的风险评估方法中，没有任何一种采用了与REACH第57条所描述的相同标准。此外，也无法通过使用先前出版物中提出的相对简单的目标层次结构，对多属性价值理论（MAVT），一种常用的MCDA方法进行参数化，以与REACH第57条相一致。因此，迫切需要一种修改后的新方法，该方法能够在未来用于评估在欧洲经济区使用的有机物质。