ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2024
Are Hazard Assessment Methods in the Assessment of Chemical Alternatives Suitable for REACH?
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessments of Chemical Alternatives (MCDA-ACA).Environmental science & technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.