Developing Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for shampoos: The basis for comparable life cycle assessment.

In 2013, the European Commission launched the Environmental Footprint Rules pilot phase. This initiative aims at setting specific rules for life cycle assessment (LCA: raw material sourcing, production, logistics, use, and disposal phase) studies within 1 product category, called product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCR), and for organizations, called organizational environmental footprint sector rules (OEFSR). Such specific rules for measuring environmental performance throughout the life cycle should facilitate the comparability between LCA studies and provide principles for communicating environmental performance, such as transparency, reliability, completeness, and clarity. Cosmetics Europe, the association representing the cosmetics industry in the European Union, completed a voluntary study into the development of PEFCR for shampoo, generally following the guidelines and methodology developed by the European Commission for its own pilot projects. The study assessed the feasibility and relevance of establishing PEFCR for shampoo. Specifically, the study defines a large number of modeling assumptions and default values relevant for shampoo (e.g., for the functional unit, the system boundaries, default transport distances, rinsing water volumes, temperature differences, life cycle inventory data sources) that can be modified as appropriate, according to the specificities of individual products, manufacturing companies, and countries. The results of the study may be used to support internal decision making (e.g., to identify "hotspots" with high environmental impact and opportunities for improvement) or to meet information requests from commercial partners, consumers, media, or authorities on product environmental characteristics. In addition, the shampoo study also highlighted many of the challenges and limitations of the current product environmental footprint (PEF) methodology, namely its complexity and resource intensiveness. It highlighted 2 areas where improvements are much needed: (1) data quality and availability, and (2) impact assessment methodologies and robustness. Many of the findings are applicable to other rinse-off cosmetic products, such as shower gels, liquid soaps, bath products, and hair conditioners. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:649-659. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitisation: consideration of a simplified approach for hair dye ingredients.

With the availability of the local lymph node assay, and the ability to evaluate effectively the relative skin sensitizing potency of contact allergens, a model for quantitative-risk-assessment (QRA) has been developed. This QRA process comprises: (a) determination of a no-expected-sensitisation-induction-level (NESIL), (b) incorporation of sensitization-assessment-factors (SAFs) reflecting variations between subjects, product use patterns and matrices, and (c) estimation of consumer-exposure-level (CEL). Based on these elements an acceptable-exposure-level (AEL) can be calculated by dividing the NESIL of the product by individual SAFs. Finally, the AEL is compared with the CEL to judge about risks to human health. We propose a simplified approach to risk assessment of hair dye ingredients by making use of precise experimental product exposure data. This data set provides firmly established dose/unit area concentrations under relevant consumer use conditions referred to as the measured-exposure-level (MEL). For that reason a direct comparison is possible between the NESIL with the MEL as a proof-of-concept quantification of the risk of skin sensitization. This is illustrated here by reference to two specific hair dye ingredients p-phenylenediamine and resorcinol. Comparison of these robust and toxicologically relevant values is therefore considered an improvement versus a hazard-based classification of hair dye ingredients.