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

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.