Advances on a Decision Analytic Approach to Exposure-Based Chemical Prioritization.

The volume and variety of manufactured chemicals is increasing, although little is known about the risks associated with the frequency and extent of human exposure to most chemicals. The EPA and the recent signing of the Lautenberg Act have both signaled the need for high-throughput methods to characterize and screen chemicals based on exposure potential, such that more comprehensive toxicity research can be informed. Prior work of Mitchell et al. using multicriteria decision analysis tools to prioritize chemicals for further research is enhanced here, resulting in a high-level chemical prioritization tool for risk-based screening. Reliable exposure information is a key gap in currently available engineering analytics to support predictive environmental and health risk assessments. An elicitation with 32 experts informed relative prioritization of risks from chemical properties and human use factors, and the values for each chemical associated with each metric were approximated with data from EPA's CP_CAT database. Three different versions of the model were evaluated using distinct weight profiles, resulting in three different ranked chemical prioritizations with only a small degree of variation across weight profiles. Future work will aim to include greater input from human factors experts and better define qualitative metrics.

A Definition and Categorization System for Advanced Materials: The Foundation for Risk-Informed Environmental Health and Safety Testing.

Novel materials with unique or enhanced properties relative to conventional materials are being developed at an increasing rate. These materials are often referred to as advanced materials (AdMs) and they enable technological innovations that can benefit society. Despite their benefits, however, the unique characteristics of many AdMs, including many nanomaterials, are poorly understood and may pose environmental safety and occupational health (ESOH) risks that are not readily determined by traditional risk assessment methods. To assess these risks while keeping up with the pace of development, technology developers and risk assessors frequently employ risk-screening methods that depend on a clear definition for the materials that are to be assessed (e.g., engineered nanomaterial) as well as a method for binning materials into categories for ESOH risk prioritization. The term advanced material lacks a consensus definition and associated categorization or grouping system for risk screening. In this study, we aim to establish a practitioner-driven definition for AdMs and a practitioner-validated framework for categorizing AdMs into conceptual groupings based on material characteristics. Results from multiple workshops and interviews with practitioners provide consistent differentiation between AdMs and conventional materials, offer functional nomenclature for application science, and provide utility for future ESOH risk assessment prioritization. The definition and categorization framework established here serve as a first step in determining if and when there is a need for specific ESOH and regulatory screening for an AdM as well as the type and extent of risk-related information that should be collected or generated for AdMs and AdM-enabled technologies.

Assessing the sustainability of advanced materials using multicriteria decision analysis and the triple bottom line.

Although advanced materials (AdMs) are beneficial in many applications, questions remain as to whether they are more or less sustainable than the conventional materials that they may replace. Currently, there is no available tool to provide clarity to these questions. Traditional approaches for evaluating the sustainability of a chemical or material are usually not standardized, and as a result, the metrics used in sustainability measurements are subjective and often vary from assessor to assessor. Additionally, sustainability characterizations resulting from these approaches are typically presented qualitatively and are often vaguely drawn, making it difficult to confidently and transparently conclude that 1 material is more sustainable than another. This paper aims to address these gaps by enabling stakeholders involved in the production, use, or governance of AdMs to assess the sustainability of AdMs in a consistent, objective, and quantitative way using a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)-based model. The model proposed herein adapts a triple-bottom-line (TBL) framework from the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) and incorporates criteria weights identified through a stakeholder values assessment conducted by surveying AdM practitioners. Results from the stakeholder values assessment show that the perceived importance of the economic component of the TBL varies the most across stakeholders, and that practitioners providing responses from the perspective of a nongovernmental environmental advocacy group or a regulator of AdMs such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency were more likely to score and weigh economic indicators lower and environmental indicators higher compared to when responding from a business owner perspective. The resulting MCDA-based model allows stakeholders to assess the sustainability of an AdM or AdM-enabled product and compare it to product alternatives, predict how other stakeholders might score a product by identifying the extent to which components of the TBL are valued by other stakeholders, and identify which subcriteria contribute most to an improvement in a product's sustainability score. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1-8. © 2019 SETAC.