Chemical assessment state of the science: Evaluation of 32 decision-support tools used to screen and prioritize chemicals.

The last decade has seen an increased focus on evaluating the safety and sustainability of chemicals in consumer and industrial products. In order to effectively and accurately evaluate safety and sustainability, tools are needed to characterize hazard, exposure, and risk pertaining to products and processes. Because many of these tools will be used to identify problematic chemistries, and because many have potential applications in various steps of an alternatives analysis, the limitations and capabilities of available tools should be understood by users so that, ultimately, potential chemical risk is accurately reflected. In our study, we examined 32 chemical characterization tools from government, industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The tools we studied were diverse, and varied widely in their scope and assessment. As such, they were separated into five categories for comparison: 1) Screening and Prioritization; 2) Database Utilization; 3) Hazard Assessment; 4) Exposure and Risk Assessment; and 5) Certification and Labeling. Each tool was scored based on our weighted set of criteria, and then compared to other tools in the same category. Ten tools received a high score in one or more categories; 24 tools received a medium score in one or more categories, and five tools received a low score in one or more categories. Although some tools were placed into more than one category, no tool encompassed all five of the assessment categories. Though many of the tools evaluated may be useful for providing guidance for hazards - and, in some cases, exposure - few tools characterize risk. To our knowledge, this study is the first to critically evaluate a large set of chemical assessment tools and provide an understanding of their strengths and limitations.

Considerations for the development of health-based surface dust cleanup criteria for beryllium.

The exposure-response patterns with beryllium sensitization (BeS), chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and lung cancer are influenced by a number of biological and physicochemical factors. Recent studies have suggested dermal exposure as a pathway for BeS. In light of the current non-health-based DOE Beryllium Rule surface criteria, the feasibility of deriving a human health-based surface dust cleanup criteria (SDCC) for beryllium was assessed based on toxicology and health risk factors via all potential routes of exposure. Beryllium-specific and general exposure factors were evaluated, including (1) beryllium physicochemical characteristics, bioavailability and influence on disease prevalence, and (2) chemical dissipation, resuspension and transfer. SDCC for non-cancer (SDCC) and cancer (SDCC) endpoints were derived from a combination of modern methods applied for occupational, residential and building reentry surface dust criteria. The most conservative SDCC estimates were derived for dermal exposure (5-379 µg/100 cm for 0.1-1% damaged skin and 17-3337 µg/100 cm for intact skin), whereas the SDCC for inhalation exposure ranged from 51 to 485 µg/100 cm. Considering this analysis, the lowest DOE surface criterion of 0.2 µg/100 cm is conservative for minimizing exposure and potential risks associated with beryllium-contaminated surfaces released for non-beryllium industrial or public sector use. Although methodological challenges exist with sampling and analysis procedures, data variability and interpretation of surface dust information in relation to anthropogenic and natural background concentrations, this evaluation should provide useful guidance with regard to cleanup of manufacturing equipment or remediation of property for transfer to the general public or non-beryllium industrial facilities.