Prioritizing potentially problematic chemical substances is key to effectively focusing green chemistry efforts in electronics manufacturing. Existing scientific tools ...
A Protocol for Prioritizing Chemicals of Concern in the Electronics Industry
2018
An Overview
Prioritizing potentially problematic chemical substances is key to effectively focusing green chemistry efforts in electronics manufacturing. Existing scientific tools and policy frameworks, however, do not provide immediately applicable and transparent methods that companies can use to identify chemicals of concern. We have developed a Chemical Prioritization Protocol to systematically evaluate chemicals of interest and support Apple's Safer Materials Program. Electronics companies can use this Protocol to proactively identify chemicals that may warrant chemical management actions. Chemical prioritization can guide further efforts to make products and materials safer for manufacturing workers, customers, recyclers, and the planet. The Chemical Prioritization Protocol is a multi-criteria evaluation framework that synthesizes a wide range of relevant information about chemical hazard, use, exposure potential, and public concern into a simple set of quantitative indicators. This paper presents the design and application of the Protocol.
1. Introduction
Apple leads the industry in reducing or eliminating the hazardous substances commonly used in electronics, and is committed to the health and safety of people who make and use Apple products. This means proactively restricting hazardous substances and using safer materials in its products and processes. Apple relies on toxicological and environmental sciences, public policy, and industry insight to prioritize which substances to restrict or substitute. With ever-greater attention focused on the safety of materials used across products and manufacturing processes, chemical management decisions increase in complexity and scope. The need for a data-driven methodology to support the evaluation and prioritization of chemical substances has motivated the development of this Chemical Prioritization Protocol.
1.1. The need for a new framework We reviewed existing frameworks that could be used for chemical prioritization, including risk assessment and hazard assessment methodologies, list-based screening tools, ecolabel certification criteria, and public policy frameworks. We found each of these tools to be unsuitable on its own. Many existing frameworks either do not have sufficient depth, lack a detailed method of use, or do not evaluate all of the factors that we consider relevant to prioritizing chemical substances for action. For example, sophisticated hazard assessment frameworks such as the GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals offer great depth and comparative power but focus exclusively on one aspect of a substance.1 Some excellent alternatives analysis frameworks (e.g., NRC) exist that incorporate a wide range of chemical safety and sustainability concerns, but they are mostly designed for deep, context-specific assessments that are more appropriate at a later stage of material selection than chemical prioritization.2
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
2
Figure 1: Modular structure of the Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2. Design of the Chemical Prioritization Protocol
The Chemical Prioritization Protocol is a multi-criteria decision aid that helps identify substances that may be problematic. It can be used to evaluate and compare chemical substances on a scale from high to low priority, based on factors that are relevant to decision-making in the design of safer products and materials. It is designed to generate findings that are easily understandable, and to make meaningful use of available data even when those data are incomplete or imperfect.
2.1. Scope and domain of applicability The Chemical Prioritization Protocol evaluates chemicals with three major considerations in mind:
· Hazard: The inherent ability of the substance to cause harm to health and the environment · Presence: The presence of the substance in technical systems (electronic products and supply chains)
and in the environments that are affected by chemical hazards · Focus: The nature and degree of industrial, regulatory, and civil society concerns about the substance All substances that may exist in products, workplaces, or manufacturing processes can be prioritized. The Protocol was designed to be used by electronics companies, but it can be used to evaluate chemicals used in any manufacturing sector. Some parts of the Protocol address company-specific manufacturing, supply chain, and policy factors, and these parts are designed to be flexible and adaptable to each company's unique position.
2.2. Structure The Chemical Prioritization Protocol is a framework of evaluative criteria and decision logic. There are three evaluation modules addressing the three primary considerations identified above (Hazard, Presence, and Focus). Each evaluation module is organized into separate components (Figure 1), which integrate various metrics, criteria, and data sources (see Appendices A and B for criteria, evaluation methods, and data sources). These criteria are based on established science and assessment methods whenever possible.
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
3
Evaluating substances involves applying the Protocol's technical criteria to generate detailed numeric scores. The Protocol's scoring system includes simple rules for aggregating these scores to calculate an overall prioritization score for each module. All three module scores have a range of zero to ten, where zero is the lowest priority and ten is the highest.
Figure 2. Example plot showing prioritized substances. Hazard and presence are on the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively, while focus level determines the circle size (larger circle size = higher focus). Data availability is represented by the color intensity of the circles (darker color = more robust data set).
2.3. Prioritization logic The three module scores (Hazard, Presence, and Focus) are distinct, representing independent dimensions of chemical priority. To prioritize substances, we suggest creating a scatter plot using hazard and presence as the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively, and representing the focus score using the radius of each point. This allows all three scores to be represented simultaneously without diluting or compromising them as independent metrics. High-priority substances will generally appear as large circles toward the top right, and low-priority substances as small circles toward the bottom left. An example plot is shown above. The scatter plot (Figure 2) provides an informative high-level presentation of chemical prioritization results. However, the specific breakdown of scores produced by each of the Protocol's evaluation modules can also be visualized to give more detailed insight into each chemical's position in the overall prioritization. We consider this level of transparency to be essential to supporting chemical prioritization decision-making.
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
4
3. Prioritization case studies
We have applied the Chemical Prioritization Protocol to a range of substances to investigate its effectiveness in differentiating between higher- and lower-priority chemicals. Here we present three case studies showing the application of the Protocol to the following sets of chemicals.
· Trial substances: We constructed a set of 45 substances that are deliberately diverse, varying in kind (organic, inorganic, etc.), levels of concern (chemicals of concern, benign substances, unknowns), and data availability (well-studied to unknown; i.e., substances with data gaps).
· Apple Regulated Substances Specification (RSS): We selected 40 representative substances from the Apple RSS, 069-0135-J (https://www.apple.com/environment/safer-materials/). The RSS describes Apple's global restrictions on the use of certain chemical substances or materials in Apple's products, accessories, manufacturing processes, and packaging used for shipping products to Apple's end customers. The selected substances are considered to be higher priority for avoidance or substitution.
· ZDHC MRSL: We selected 40 representative substances from the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Manufacturing Restricted Substances List (ZDHC MRSL, version 1.1). We chose this list because it is comparable to the Apple RSS in terms of representing higher-priority substances, but selected with emphasis on a different industry (textiles).
10
Presence
9
8
Al
MeOH
7
Toluene
MMA
6
Styrene
Acrylonitrile
NMP
HFE-7200
1,3-BD
5
TBBPA Hexane
CFCs
H2O
Caprolactam BPA
TPP
PVS
Carbon black Benzene
Cd
4
Fe2O3
Al(OH)3 Si SiPOAM2BMSA TiO2
3
MIT Acetone
LiCoO2
Carnauba wax
Propane
NaCl
4-Cl-BLTiPFF6
2
HFC-43-10MEE
APP
Epoxidized soy oil
TCEP
Tin octoate TBTO
1 DIMPTS
2-PIP
Glucose
CD
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Figure 3. Prioritization of test substances.
Hazard
9
10
3.1. Results Figure 3 shows the prioritization results for the set of 45 trial substances, illustrating how the Protocol differentiates between chemicals. Low-hazard substances such as water, glucose, and natural waxes received low hazard module scores, while toxic substances like cadmium (Cd) and tributyltin oxide (TBTO) received high scores. Substances associated with significant use and industrial emissions in electronics manufacturing scored high in presence. Finally, substances associated with a high degree of concern among policymakers and civil society, like the polymer precursor bisphenol A (BPA), received high focus scores.
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
5
Most substances from the Apple RSS scored higher on all three dimensions than substances that are not on the RSS. This is consistent with expectations for a set of substances that have been selected for their high hazard and significant industrial use in the electronics sector. Furthermore, many of these substances also received high focus scores, consistent with the fact that many of the same chemicals restricted by Apple are receiving attention from policymakers, advocates, and civil society. Likewise, among ZDHC MRSL substances, most had higher hazard and focus scores than substances not on the MRSL. However, the Protocol produced lower presence scores for many textile-specific compounds.
Overall, prioritization scores calculated using the Protocol for these sets of substances are broadly consistent with conventional expert assessments of chemical hazard and priority.
4. Development of technical criteria
In the following sections we provide an overview of the Chemical Prioritization Protocol's technical criteria and discuss the rationale behind their development.
4.1. Hazard Hazard is a substance's potential to harm human or environmental health. The Hazard module builds on established chemical assessment methods to provide a multifaceted evaluation of hazard. It is designed to produce a simple yet systematic score that encompasses human health hazards, environmental hazards, environmental fate (persistence and bioaccumulation), and physical hazards. The evaluation methodology is applicable over a wide range of data availability, and the scoring system provides indicators of uncertainty originating from data gaps or conflicting hazard data sources.
4.1.1. Multi-endpoint scoring system Hazard evaluation is based on specific criteria for different hazard endpoints--measurable biological or ecological effects representing a particular kind of hazard. The endpoints and criteria used in this module are based on internationally accepted scientific and regulatory standards. We have adapted and extended a peer-reviewed scientific methodology for translating multi-endpoint hazard assessments into numeric score ranges.3
Figure 4. Overview of Hazard evaluation logic. Each row represents a different level of scoring. From top to bottom: module, component, endpoint group, and endpoint.
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
6
The scoring logic aggregates the endpoint-level scores into successively fewer and broader scores, ultimately producing a single overall hazard score. The scoring system includes decision logic for identifying highly hazardous substances as well as adjustable relative weightings of the different hazard endpoint groups (Figure 4).
For many chemicals, available data are insufficient to assess all endpoint-specific hazard levels. This module is designed to account for uncertainty due to missing or conflicting data sources. First, the hazard scoring system uses uncertainty ranges to provide a measure of the possible range of hazard properties for each endpoint. This avoids the need to make unsubstantiated assumptions of safety or of worst-case hazard in the absence of data. It also enables the module to use any available evidence, including incomplete data, to produce a systematic hazard score. Second, the scoring system also includes a metric of data completeness, which can be used to assess the prevalence of data gaps for each substance. Using this system, it is possible to distinguish between "unknown" chemical hazards and those that are well understood, even if they have similar overall scores.
4.1.2. Relationship to other frameworks We developed these technical criteria and scoring logic based on existing chemical hazard assessment methods and standards--primarily the UN Globally Harmonized System and the GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals by Clean Production Action.4 The most relevant comparison is with the GreenScreen® (GS). The Protocol hazard criteria are adapted directly from the peer-reviewed GS technical criteria. However, we have found that the GS "Benchmark" system (which assigns substances a categorical score of 1, 2, 3, or 4) does not make fine-enough distinctions between substances to be useful for prioritization. Therefore, we have substituted the GS sequential decision logic (testing against thresholds) with a continuous evaluation function (aggregating scores). Nevertheless, we based aspects of the Protocol's scoring logic for identifying high-priority hazard properties on the GS benchmark criteria.
To compare the results of our methodology with those of the GS methodology, we calculated hazard scores for approximately 100 substances for which Apple has sponsored full GS assessments. The Hazard module score was generally consistent with the GS Benchmark. Variability between GS and our hazard score was consistent with rational expectations based on differences between the systems.
4.2. Presence Presence indicates the likelihood that a substance might be found in electronic products and supply chains or the global environment. The Presence module evaluates the following facets of a substance's presence in systems of production.
· Use as a manufacturing input, meaning that the substance is either present in products or packaging materials, or is used in manufacturing processes even if it doesn't end up in a finished product. The Protocol prioritizes those substances that are used in the highest quantities and in the most relevant scope of analysis: Chemical use by the company conducting the prioritization is the most relevant, but broader use by the electronics industry also affects prioritization.
· Release into the environment. The Protocol prioritizes substances that are the most prevalent in industrial pollution and waste. This means substances emitted or transferred as waste in the highest quantities, with added emphasis on electronics-related sectors.
· Intrinsic factors that affect human and environmental exposure. This module evaluates chemical persistence, bioaccumulation and bioavailability, and inhalation exposure potential. The criteria are based on existing frameworks for exposure-based prioritization of chemicals from government and peer-reviewed science (for example, see Mitchell et al.).5
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
7
When evaluating use and environmental release, the Protocol gives greater priority to substances that are associated with the electronics industry and related manufacturing sectors, and even greater emphasis on substances directly used by the company performing the prioritization. The evaluation criteria draw on multiple forms of evidence, ranging from global emissions reporting programs and scientific databases to specialized business knowledge. For example, we leverage Apple's Full Material Disclosure (FMD) program to identify substances used in Apple products and materials. FMD is an Apple initiative that requires suppliers to disclose the entire chemical composition, chemicals intentionally added, and known impurities and residual materials in the parts, components, and materials used in Apple products.
4.3. Focus Focus reflects the level of concern in the public sphere about a substance. While complex and difficult to define, this factor is important because public concerns about chemical substances have the potential to become significant issues with real effects on chemical use in industry. We are not aware of any existing methodology to evaluate public focus on chemicals. We identified the following key indicators:
· The degree to which regulatory agencies are controlling or are likely to control a given substance
· How public-interest advocates and industry groups have evaluated or acted on the substance
· The existence and particular context of public information about the substance
We describe how the Focus module evaluates each of these aspects below. The Focus module draws on a variety of complementary data sources to evaluate government, nongovernmental, industry, and pubic information on substances. The scoring system emphasizes direct links to consumer electronics and relevant product sectors.
4.3.1. Current and future regulations The Focus module prioritizes substances that regulators around the world have identified as being of greatest concern in a wide cross-section of public policies, and substances that are likely to be significantly affected by upcoming developments in regulatory programs. The Current Regulation component evaluates how substances are currently regulated: The criteria reference examples of regulated substance lists and categorize them into broad levels of priority that are internally consistent. The score for each substance is determined by which types of regulations affect it. For example, we consider total restriction of a chemical to reflect a greater degree of focus than a notification requirement. Relevant policy contexts for Current Regulation include consumer productfocused laws, workplace safety regulations, and general chemicals policies.
The Future Regulation component includes a scoring matrix that evaluates upcoming regulatory initiatives on three independent factors: the risk of disrupting business operations (regulatory impact), the status and likelihood of the initiative being implemented, and the time horizon for the regulation coming into force. Substance scores are determined by these factors, if the substance falls into the scope of any emerging initiatives. This assumes that the Protocol user has access to resources for tracking emerging regulatory initiatives worldwide and is able to evaluate regulatory risks to its own operations.
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
8
4.3.2. Industry and NGO focus To evaluate nongovernmental stakeholders' level of attention to a chemical, this component of the Protocol considers a number of different kinds of public actions that reflect those concerns. Substances score highly if there are several kinds of evidence of public concern. These include voluntary industry efforts to restrict or phase out a substance (RSLs), environmental or public healthoriented NGO campaign communications about chemicals, and expert reviews that identify chemicals of concern based on scientific analysis. Within NGO campaigns, the criteria distinguish between advocacy efforts focused on electronic products or manufacturing (scored higher), on other consumer product sectors, or more broadly on environmental policy analysis.
4.3.3. Public information Criteria for the Public Information component are based on how public information has mentioned a given chemical over a defined period of time. The criteria account for several possible contexts of public information, ranging in specificity from being directly about the company's products, about the electronics industry, or about more general topics. By separating public information, such as media coverage, into a number of different contexts, chemicals with a wide range of public information coverage or highly relevant public information coverage are scored higher. However, the criteria do not account for the affective ("positive" or "negative") nature of the coverage.
5. Conclusion
We have developed the Chemical Prioritization Protocol, a framework for prioritizing chemicals of concern in the electronics industry. The Protocol adapts and extends established methodology for chemical hazard assessment. It also provides novel metrics for electronics industryspecific factors relevant to chemical prioritization, including policy and social factors. It integrates these into an innovative and transparent multi-criteria prioritization model. The Protocol provides three easily understandable independent metrics that can be visualized simultaneously. Combined with the knowledge generated by full material disclosure and toxicological assessment, this Protocol can inform better decision-making in Apple's efforts to develop and use safer materials.
Acknowledgments
Contributors to this paper include Akos Kokai, Environmental Technologies at Apple and the University of California, Berkeley, and Arthur Fong, Environmental Technologies at Apple. We thank Dr. Margaret H. Whittaker for her critical reading of the first draft of the manuscript.
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
9
Appendix A
Criteria Summary, Evaluation Methods, and Data Sources for Module Components
Component
Human Health Hazard
Criteria Summary
Criteria for 14 human toxicological endpoints
Environmental Hazard
Ecotoxicity endpoints, ozone depletion, and global warming potential
Environmental Fate Persistence and bioaccumulation
Physical Hazard
Reactivity and flammability
Evaluation Methods
Numeric scoring system based on criteria from GreenScreen® 1.3 and GHS
Numeric scoring system based on criteria from GreenScreen® 1.3 and GHS
Numeric scoring system based on criteria from GreenScreen® 1.3
Numeric scoring system based on criteria from GreenScreen® 1.3 and GHS
Data Sources
GreenScreen® and Scivera assessments, scientific literature, GHS classifications
GreenScreen® and Scivera assessments, scientific literature, GHS classifications
Chemical assessments, measured and computed molecular properties
GreenScreen® and Scivera assessments, scientific literature, GHS classifications
Component Apple Use
Industry Use Environmental Release Fate and Intake
Criteria Summary Use in Apple products and materials
Use in Apple manufacturing processes
Use in electronics manufacturing industry
Known environmental releases, especially from electronics manufacturing Characteristics that affect human intake and environmental fate
Evaluation Methods Tiered scoring based on Apple product, material, and chemical data
Tiered scoring based on quantified chemical use in Apple manufacturing
Screening against lists of known industry product and process chemicals
Screening against nationallevel industrial emissions inventories
Numeric scoring system based on GreenScreen® 1.3 and other frameworks
Data Sources Apple Full Material Disclosure and Life Cycle Assessment Programs
Apple Supplier Social Responsibility Chemical Mapping Program
US EPA Chemical and Product Categories Database
National-level pollutant release and transfer reporting databases, including US TRI
Chemical assessments, measured and computed molecular properties
Component Current Regulation
Future Regulation Industry and NGO Focus Public Interest Focus
Criteria Summary Substances affected by existing regulations focused on consumer products, occupational health, or broad prioritization of chemicals
Potential for future regulatory actions
Substances identified as high-priority in NGO and industry sectors
Public interest, including media coverage, of chemical substance
Evaluation Methods Tiered screening against categorized lists of government-regulated substances
Global knowledge base of tracked regulatory initiatives
Screening against knowledge base of NGO campaigns, assessments, RSLs
Frequency of appearance in public interest and media reports, with more weight given to associations with the electronics industry and Apple in particular
Data Sources Public government documents
Apple Restricted Substances Program Industry and NGO publications and resources
Results compiled from literature database searches (ProQuest Dialog)
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
10
Appendix B
Detailed Data Sources for Hazard, Presence, and Focus Modules
Hazard Component Multi-Endpoint Hazard
Data Source
Data type
Apple-commissioned hazard assessments Full GreenScreen® Assessments
GreenScreen® Store, IC2 Hazard Assessment Database, Pharos, and other sources
Full GreenScreen® Assessments
Scivera Lens
Scivera hazard scores
US EPA CompTox Chemistry Dashboard
ECHA CLP (Reg 1272/2008), Annex VI (Table 3.1)
Chemical identifiers and structures, DSSTox Predicted Property Data (full download)
GHS classifications by substance, legally binding in the EU
New Zealand EPA Chemical Classification HSNO classifications by substance and Information Database
Various government sources
GHS classifications by substance
US EPA ACToR Database
Hazard classification lists
ECHA Information on Chemicals
Curated data for REACH registered substances
OECD QSAR Toolbox
Toxicological data and prediction tools
US EPA Clean Air Act, Ozone-depleting substances
Categorized lists of ozone-depleting substances and global warming potentials
EC Regulation on substances that deplete Categorized lists of ozone-depleting
the ozone layer (Reg 1005/2009)
substances
UNFCCC Global warming potentials
List of gases with known global warming potential
IPCC Third Assessment Report, Ch 6, Table 6.7
US EPA Report on PFC heat transfer fluids
List of halocarbons with known global warming potential
Global warming potentials and physical properties for PFC heat transfer fluids used in the electronics sector
Presence Component Apple Products and Materials
Apple Manufacturing Processes Industry Use
Data Source Apple Full Material Disclosure (FMD) Initiative Environmental Technologies
Apple Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Program Environmental Technologies
Apple Analytical Testing Environmental Technologies
Apple Product Life Cycle Management
Data Type Chemical composition of materials and parts used in Apple products
Material and elemental composition of Apple products on a mass basis
Chemicals identified in products and materials by analytical testing
Product specifications and bills of materials
Apple Supplier Chemical Mapping Supplier Social Responsibility
Chemicals Used in the Electronics Industry, an OECD Emission Scenario Document
US EPA CPCat Database and forthcoming "CPDat" resource
Reporting of process chemicals used at FATP sites Expert review of chemical use in the electronics industry
Substance associations with consumer product and industrial sector categories
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
11
Environmental Release Fate and Intake
US EPA Toxics Release Inventory
Japan Ministry of Environment Pollutant Release and Transfer Register Data Page OECD Centre for Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers Data US EPA CompTox Chemistry Dashboard
Other public sources: US NLM PubChem Compound Database; OECD QSAR Toolbox
Reported environmental releases in the USA
Reported and estimated environmental releases in Japan
Reported environmental releases in OECD countries.
Chemical identifiers and structures, DSSTox Predicted Property Data (full download)
Chemical structures, properties, and other information
Focus Component Current Regulation
Future Regulation
Data Source European Commission RoHS Annex II
ECHA Authorisation List (REACH Annex XIV) ECHA Biocidal Active Substances
Japan NITE Chemical Risk Information Platform (CHRIP)
California Safer Consumer Products Program WA Children's Safe Products Act: Chemicals of High Concern to Children Reporting List Maine Safer Chemicals in Children's Products Minnesota Toxic Free Kids Act
Vermont Chemicals Disclosure Program for Children's Products European Commission CosIng Database
List of MAK and BAT Values 2016, Chapter 2 US OSHA Annotated Permissible Exposure Limits (see Table Z-1)
ToxPlanet ListExpert Pharos Chemical and Material Library
Data Type List of restricted substances under the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU List of substances subject to authorization under REACH, Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 Biocidal Active Substances and their approval status under the Biocidal Products Regulation (EU) 528/2012
Web app to retrieve lists of chemicals regulated under the Chemical Substances Control Law (CSCL), Industrial Safety and Health Act (ISHA), and Law for the Control of Household Products Containing Harmful Substances (LCHP)
Candidate Chemicals, Priority Products
Chemicals of High Concern to Children
Chemicals of Concern; Chemicals of High Concern; Priority Chemicals Chemicals of High Concern; Priority Chemicals
Chemicals of High Concern to Children
Lists of substances in Annexes II & III of the Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009
List of substances with MAK values
List of substances with OSHA and Cal/ OSHA PELs, NIOSH RELs, and ACGIH TLVs
Secondary source of regulatory lists
Secondary source of regulatory lists
Apple Restricted Substances Program Environmental Technologies
Assessments of globally emerging laws and policies affecting chemicals in products
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
12
Industry and NGO Focus ChemSec SIN List and The 32 to Leave Behind
Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM Banned List of Chemicals
Substances identified to meet REACH SVHC criteria based on hazard assessment
Substances banned for use in Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM products as intentional inputs above 1000 ppm
HP General Specification for the Environment (GSE): Substances and Material Requirements
Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) Manufacturing Restricted Substances List v1.1+
Greenpeace: Toxic Tech (2005); Green gadgets: Designing the future (2014)
Specification for banned and restricted substances in all HP products
Substances banned from intentional use in facilities that process textile materials and trim parts in apparel and footwear
Reports identifying substances of concern used in the electronics industry
Greenpeace Detox campaign
Recent campaign concerning toxics in apparel industries
Greenpeace China: Chemicals Calling for Priority Action
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics: Chemicals of Concern
An analysis of the Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances in China (2010)
Substances in personal care products, identified by a coalition of NGOs
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families: Hazardous Hundred
Pharos Chemical and Material Library
NGO priority list for interstate regulation Secondary source of industry & NGO RSLs
Public Information Focus Internet news searching
Literature searching
ProQuest DialogTM News & Trade Collection
Advanced literature searching
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
13
References
1 Clean Production Action, GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals Hazard Assessment Criteria. Version 1.3, 2017. http://www.greenscreenchemicals.org/
2 National Research Council (US), A framework to guide selection of chemical alternatives, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2014. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18872/a-framework-to-guide-selection-of-chemical-alternatives
3 Faludi, J., T. Hoang, P. Gorman, and M. Mulvihill, "Aiding alternatives assessment with an uncertainty-tolerant hazard scoring method", Journal of Environmental Management, 182, 111125, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.028
4 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (6th Revised Edition), New York and Geneva, (2015). http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev06/06files_e.htm
5 Mitchell, J., N. Pabon, Z.A. Collier, P.P. Egeghy, E. Cohen-Hubal, et al., "A decision analytic approach to exposure-based chemical prioritization", PLoS ONE, 8(8): e70911, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070911
© 2019 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. Apple and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. Other product and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks of their respective companies. This material is provided for information purposes only; Apple assumes no liability related to its use. March 2019
Chemical Prioritization Protocol
2018
14
macOS Version 10.14.3 (Build 18D109) Quartz PDFContext Pages