Are Hazard Assessment\nMethods in the Assessment of\nChemical Alternatives Suitable for REACH?

The assessment of chemical alternatives for hazardous\nsubstances\nis an important prerequisite for avoiding regrettable substitution,\nand several methods have been developed in the past to perform such\na hazard assessment for chemical alternatives. We investigate here\nwhether GreenScreen, Cradle to Cradle, multiple-criteria decision\nanalysis (MCDA), the Pollution Prevention Options Analysis System,\nthe U.S. EPA Safer Choice Standard and Criteria, and the GHS column\nmodel 2020 from IFA use similar criteria for the evaluation of substances\nas Article 57 of the European chemicals regulation, REACH, and how\nsuitable these methods are for assessing per- and polyfluoroalkyl\nsubstances. MCDA and GreenScreen were analyzed in detail using two\ndifferent data sets. The results of the assessments show that none\nof the investigated hazard assessment methods use the same criteria\nas described in Article 57 of REACH. It was also not possible to parametrize\nmulti-attribute value theory (MAVT), a commonly used MCDA method,\nto align with Article 57 of REACH by using the relatively simple objective\nhierarchy that has been proposed in previous publications. There is\ntherefore an urgent need for a modified/new method that can be used\nin the future to assess organic substances that are used within the\nEuropean Economic Area.