Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29917303›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2019

Qualitative approach to comparative exposure in alternatives assessment.

William Greggs, Thomas Burns, Peter Egeghy, Michelle R Embry, Peter Fantke, Bonnie Gaborek, Lauren Heine, Olivier Jolliet, Carolyn Lee, Derek Muir and 5 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. CombinedJournal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  3. High Throughput Risk and Impact Screening of Chemicals in Consumer Products.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2021
    Article
  4. CombiningEnvironmental science & technology · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

William GreggsSoleil Consulting, Sanibel, Florida, USA.
Thomas BurnsNovozymes, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Peter EgeghyUS Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, North Carolina.
Michelle R EmbryHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Peter FantkeTechnical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Bonnie GaborekDuPont Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences, Newark, Delaware, USA.
Lauren HeineNorthwest Green Chemistry, Spokane, Washington, USA.
Olivier JollietUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Carolyn LeeExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Annandale, New Jersey, USA.
Derek MuirEnvironment and Climate Change Canada, Burlington, Ontario.
Kathy PlotzkeDow Chemical, Midland, Michigan, USA.
Joseph RinkevichSciVera, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Neha SungerWest Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jennifer Y TanirHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Margaret WhittakerToxServices, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

HESIMarie Curie project Quan-Tox 631910
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most alternatives assessments (AAs) published to date are largely hazard-based rankings, thereby ignoring potential differences in human and/or ecosystem exposures; as such, they may not represent a fully informed consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of possible alternatives. Building on the 2014 US National Academy of Sciences recommendations to improve AA decisions by including comparative exposure assessment into AAs, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's (HESI) Sustainable Chemical Alternatives Technical Committee, which comprises scientists from academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations, developed a qualitative comparative exposure approach. Conducting such a comparison can screen for alternatives that are expected to have a higher or different routes of human or environmental exposure potential, which together with consideration of the hazard assessment, could trigger a higher tiered, more quantitative exposure assessment on the alternatives being considered, minimizing the likelihood of regrettable substitution. This article outlines an approach for including chemical ingredient- and product-related exposure information in a qualitative comparison, including ingredient and product-related parameters. A classification approach was developed for ingredient and product parameters to support comparisons between alternatives as well as a methodology to address exposure parameter relevance and data quality. The ingredient parameters include a range of physicochemical properties that can impact routes and magnitude of exposure, whereas the product parameters include aspects such as product-specific exposure pathways, use information, accessibility, and disposal. Two case studies are used to demonstrate the application of the methodology. Key learnings and future research needs are summarized. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;00:000-000. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Indexed as

Decision MakingEcotoxicologyEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringRisk AssessmentWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater Pollutants, ChemicalChemical substitutionConsumer productsData selectionExposure assessmentParameter relevance

Identifiers

PMID29917303
PMCPMC6899567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.