Search

Alternatives assessment is gaining traction as a systematic method to support the informed substitution of chemicals of concern. The 2nd International Symposium on Alternatives Assessment, on 1-2 November 2018, convened nearly 150 professionals from government agencies, industry, consultant firms, academia, and advocacy organizations to advance a greater understanding of the evolving methods, practices, and challenges in the use of alternatives assessment. This article reviews highlights and lessons from the symposium, including 1) notable advances in methods, 2) shared insights from practitioners on best practices as well as inherent tensions and challenges, and 3) research and practice needs in the field that can be addressed by organizations such as the newly launched Association for the Advancement of Alternatives Assessment. Being interdisciplinary in nature, the establishment of educational frameworks across disciplines and inclusion of diverse expertise in hazard and exposure assessments, life cycle impacts considerations, design principles, and economic and engineering evaluations will ensure continued growth of the field. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1-8. © 2019 SETAC.

Alternatives assessment has emerged as a science policy field that supports the evaluation and adoption of safer chemistries in manufacturing processes and consumer products. The recent surge in the development and practice of alternatives assessment has revealed notable methodological challenges. Spurred by this need, we convened an informal community of practice comprising industry experts, academics, and scientists within government and nongovernmental organizations to prioritize a research and practice agenda for the next 5 years that, if implemented, would significantly advance the field of alternatives assessment. With input from over 40 experts, the agenda outlines specific needs to advance methods, tools, and guidance in 5 critical areas: hazard assessment, comparative exposure characterization, life cycle considerations, decision making, and professional practice. Fifteen research and practice needs were identified, ranging from relatively simple efforts to define a minimum hazard data set to the development of more complex performance and decision-analytic methods and data integration tools. Some research needs involve adapting existing approaches to the alternatives assessment context, while others will require the development of entirely new methods and tools. The proposed research and practice agenda is ambitious. Implementing it will require expanding the current network of researchers from academia, government, and industry, as well as increased funding for methodological, application, and evaluation research. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;00:000-000. © 2018 SETAC.

The use of alternatives assessment to substitute hazardous chemicals with inherently safer options is gaining momentum worldwide as a legislative and corporate strategy to minimize consumer, occupational, and environmental risks. Engineered nanomaterials represent an interesting case for alternatives assessment approaches, because they can be considered both emerging "chemicals" of concern, as well as potentially safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. However, comparing the hazards of nanomaterials to traditional chemicals or to other nanomaterials is challenging, and critical elements in chemical hazard and exposure assessment may have to be fundamentally altered to sufficiently address nanomaterials. The aim of this paper is to assess the overall applicability of alternatives assessment methods for nanomaterials and to outline recommendations to enhance their use in this context. The present paper focuses on the adaptability of existing hazard and exposure assessment approaches to engineered nanomaterials as well as strategies to design inherently safer nanomaterials. We argue that alternatives assessment for nanomaterials is complicated by the sheer number of nanomaterials possible. As a result, the inclusion of new data tools that can efficiently and effectively evaluate nanomaterials as substitutes is needed to strengthen the alternatives assessment process. However, we conclude that with additional tools to enhance traditional hazard and exposure assessment modules of alternatives assessment, such as the use of mechanistic toxicity screens and control banding tools, alternatives assessment can be adapted to evaluate engineered nanomaterials as potential substitutes for chemicals of concern and to ensure safer nanomaterials are incorporated in the design of new products. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:177-187. © 2016 SETAC.