Testing Protocols and Resources

3.0 Testing Protocols

Purpose: This section provides information on testing protocols for the generation of additional data for the assessment of alternatives.

If you are a small/medium company… This section is for informational purposes only, but may be useful for discussions with chemical suppliers or other contractors.

If you are a large company… Internal departments may already exist for the generation of additional chemical information, so this is provided for informational purposes only.

As discussed in Section 2.5.1, it is common that fate and toxicity data are not available for all chemicals assessed or for all categories evaluated. Additionally, if an alternative chemical is not listed on the Domestic Substances List (DSL), then it may be required that testing is conducted before the chemical will be approved for use. As such, it may be necessary to conduct toxicity tests to generate data for the assessment of alternatives. The following references provide examples of testing protocols⁸ that could be used. It is a good idea to select a standardized and validated test protocol (such as those listed below) and to use a testing facility that has been accredited to carry out the tests selected (i.e., accredited by an agency such as the Standards Council of Canada or the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation). Additionally, since testing information often serves to fulfill regulatory requirements, choosing a test protocol that is recognized by the local regulatory authority and/or other jurisdictions would allow the use of the data in several applications. It should be noted that laboratory tests can be resource intensive. Thus, this may represent an area of the assessment where individual companies or industries may pool resources to generate shared data.

• Environment Canada
  • Biological Test Methods and Guidance Documents
• U.S. EPA
  • Harmonized Test Guidelines
  • Catalogue of Standard Toxicity Tests for Ecological Risk Assessment
  • Effluent and receiving water testing
  • Evaluating chemical toxicity
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development)
  • Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals
• ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
  • Standard Guide for Conducting Whole Sediment Toxicity Tests with Amphibians
  • Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids
  • Index of ASTM Standards
• ISO Testing Standards
  • 71.040 Analytical Chemistry
  • 13: Environment, Health Protection, Safety
  • Index of ISO Standards

4.0 Resources

Purpose: This section provides resources for additional information on alternatives assessment.

If you are a small/medium company… This section is provided for informational purposes only.

If you are a large company… This section provides references for further study.

Alternatives assessment is a complex and daunting process. It is also a relatively new phenomenon but is rapidly gaining widespread interest from the public, industry and regulatory bodies. Various resources have been provided throughout the reference tool and further details are included in the Jurisdictional Review of Safer Chemical Alternatives document. Some of the most comprehensive of these resources for further guidance on conducting an alternatives assessment include the following:

• Lowell Center Alternatives Assessment Framework (Rossi et al. 2006)
  • This document provides reference to various evaluation modules that are available. Specific ranking methodologies are not presented, but general guidance is provided for completing an evaluation of alternatives.
• TURI Alternatives Assessment Process Guidance (TURI 2006a)
  • This document defines a consistent process for setting priorities for study and evaluating the alternatives for the five chemicals evaluated by TURI (2006b). This document also includes suggestions for specific types of resources for certain phases of the study.
• TURI Five Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study (TURI 2006b)
  • The alternatives assessment was completed for five chemicals: lead, formaldehyde, perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) (PCE), hexavalent chromium, and Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). The study provides information for users to make informed decisions and design additional research to fill remaining information gaps. Alternatives are not ranked by the study. The assessment aimed to collect all available information so that users can assess the alternatives within the context of their own specific applications, concerns, and needs.
• TURI report summarizing methods and tools for alternatives assessment (Edwards et al. 2005)
  • This document provides a review of methods and tools available for the assessment of alternatives.
• The U.S. EPA DfE CTSA Methodology (DfE 1996) (replaced by the AA Methodology [Lavoie et al. 2010])
  • The CTSA and AA methodologies provide ways of evaluating the comparative human health and environmental risks, competitiveness (e.g., performance, cost) and resource conservation of traditional and alternative chemicals manufacturing methods and technologies. Neither of the processes recommend alternatives, but provide the information for informed business decisions that account for risk, performance, and cost concerns, potentially reducing their regulatory burden or potential liability costs or avoiding regulation altogether. The AA Methodology is more recent; however, more details are provided in the 1996 document.
• MBDC Cradle to Cradle® program (MBDC 2010)
  • MBDC’s Cradle to Cradle® Certification is a multi-attribute eco-label that assesses a product’s safety to humans and the environment and design for future life cycles, and certifies products that create positive environmental, social and economic footprints on the planet. The materials and manufacturing practices of a product are evaluated for their human and environmental health attributes and their potential to safely cycle in closed loops. Complete details on the protocol are not available as the tool is offered as a consulting service from MBDC. However, the MBDC website does provide some information on the criteria that are used in the assessment of a product in each of the five categories.

Additionally, there are various forums and networks in existence which may connect the assessor with experts in the field who may provide additional guidance and insight. Some examples include:

• Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) Chemrank Listserv — electronic forum for discussing issues, methods, and innovations in relative assessments of chemicals;
• Bloom centre — to bring together public and private sector stakeholders to achieve sustainable outcomes that manage risk and deliver economic, environmental and social benefit;
• GreenCentre Canada (GCC) — works with academic institutions and industrial partners in Ontario to identify research breakthroughs in the field of green chemistry. The website provides links to articles related to green chemistry research in Universities;
• Canadian Green Chemistry and Engineering Network (CGCEN) — a network that evaluates the impact of current technologies and assesses alternative routes, promotes development of new green sciences and technology, provides outreach and education to the community, and promotes interaction of policy makers with scientists and engineers to further green chemistry;
• The Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts (Lowell) — develops and pilots concepts of sustainable production, and publishes numerous documents on various subjects relating to sustainability and alternatives assessment;
• The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) at the University of Massachusetts (Lowell) — provides research, training, technical support, laboratory services and grants to industry, community groups and researchers in academia;
• The Green Chemistry Institute of the American Chemical Society (GCI of ACS) — an online community for green chemistry resources, providing conference listings, education, grants, awards, and roundtables;
• Clean Production Action (CPA) — online listing of external and internal publications and resources relevant to green chemistry and the reduction of toxics in homes and the environment;
• Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network (GLGCN) — a network for green chemistry, providing links and resources on the subject (including workshops, conferences and meetings), and free online web seminars (webinars);
• Green Chemistry Network (GCN) — an online community based out of the United Kingdom, providing news and information related to green chemistry, links to other organizations, and educational material for universities and schools; and
• ICIS Green Chemicals — a website that publishes articles and hosts an online green blog pertaining to the development of green chemistry specific to the chemical industry. Archives articles are also indexed.

5.0 References

1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profiles for various chemicals. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia. List last updated October. Profiles downloaded from ATSDR website.
2. Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc. 2010 (published yearly). 2009-210 Aldrich Handbook of Fine Chemicals. Milwaukee, WI. (Free copy can be requested online).
3. Anastas, P.T. and J.C. Warner 1998. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York.
4. BioByte Inc. Bio-Loom Program. Year not provided. Available online.
5. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2010. Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales. Report prepared by William P.L. Carter under contract to CARB. Current version (January 27 2010) accessed August 2010.
6. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) 2003. Cal/EPA – OEHHA Toxicity Criteria Database.
7. Carlson, G.P. 1980. Induction of xenobiotic metabolism in rats by brominated diphenyl ethers administered for 90 days. Toxicol. Lett. 6: 207-212. {cited in U.S. EPA 2010b}.
8. Design for the Environment (DfE) 1996. Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA): A Methodology and Resource Guide. EPA/744-R-95-002. December.
9. Ecobilan Life Cycle Analysis Software, TEAM: Tool for Environmental Analysis and Management.
10. Edwards, S., M. Rossi, and P. Civie 2005. Alternatives Assessment for Toxics Use Reduction: A Survey of Methods and Tools. Prepared for The Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Methods and Policy Report No. 23.
11. Environment Canada (EC), National Pollutant Release Inventory 2009. 2009 Guide for Reporting to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
12. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
13. Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network (GLGCN) 2010. Phone seminar, Richard Engler. March 3, 2010.
14. Green, D.W. and R.H. Perry. 2008. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook (8^th Edition). McGraw-Hill.
15. Guinée, J.B. (Ed.) 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment – Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science, Volume 7. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Chapters available for download in non-printable form.
16. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). Updated Periodically. MEDLARS Online Information Retrieval System, National Library of Medicine. Bethesda, MD. Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET). {cited in DfE 1996}.
17. Health Canada 2004. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. Part 2: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs). Environmental Health Assessment Services. Cat. No.: H46-2/04-368E.
18. Himmelblau, David M. 1990. Basic Principles and Calculations in Chemical Engineering. 4^th Edition. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. {cited in DfE 1996}.
19. Howard, P.H., R.S. Boethling, W.F. Jarvis, W.M. Meylan and E. M. Michalenko. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, MI. {cited in DfE 1996}.
20. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2010. Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1–100.
21. International Standards Organization 2006a. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework ISO 14040.
22. International Standards Organization 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines ISO 14044.
23. Jessop, P.G. 2010. Personal telephone communication. July 2010.
24. Kalberlah, F., N. Frigus-Plessen and M. Hassauer 1995. Toxicological Criteria for the Risk Assessment of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Existing Chemicals. Part I: the Use of Equivalency Factors. Altlasten-Spektrum 5, 231-237. {cited in MOE 2009b}.
25. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Updated Periodically. John Wiley & Sons. New York. {cited in DfE 1996}.
26. Lavoie, E.T., L.G. Heine, H. Holder, M.S. Rossi, R.E. Lee, E.A. connor, M.A. Vrabel, D.M. Difiore and C.L. Davies. 2010. Chemical Alternatives Assessment: Enabling Substitution to Safer Chemicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44: 9244-9249.
27. Luyben, William and L. Wenzel. 1988. Chemical Process Analysis: Mass and Energy Balances. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. {cited in DfE 1996}.
28. Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. American Chemical Society. Washington, D.C. {cited in DfE 1996}.
29. McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, LLC (MBDC) 2010. Certification Overview. Information obtained from the MBDC website. Accessed July 2010.
30. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) 2004. Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous Substances. 3^rd Edition. NOHSC:1008(2004). October.
31. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Office of Pollution Prevention and Permit Coordination 2002. Industrial Pollution Prevention Planning - Meeting Requirements under the New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act.
32. North Atlantic Treaty Organization/Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (NATO/CCMS) 1998. Pilot Study on Internal Information Exchange on Dioxins and Related Compounds, International Toxicity Equivalency Factor (I-TEF), Method of Risk Assessment for Complex Mixtures of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Report No. 176, 26 pp. {cited in EC 2009}.
33. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 2009a. Backgrounder – Development of Lists of Substances Proposed to be Prescribed under the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009: Toxic Substances and Substances of Concern. September.
34. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 2009b. Toxicological Properties of Chemicals listed in Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Prepared by the Standards Development Branch of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. December 2009.
35. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 2008. Summary of Standards and Guidelines to support Ontario Regulation 419: Air Pollution – Local Air quality. Standards Development Branch of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. PIBS # 6569e.
36. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Jurisdictional Review of Safer Chemical Alternatives, 2012.
37. PE International, GaBi 4 Software.
38. PRé Consultants, SimaPro 7.2 LCA Software.
39. Rossi, M. and L. Heine 2007. The Green Screen for Safer Chemicals: Evaluating Flame Retardants for TV Enclosures. Version 1. Clean Production Action.
40. Rossi, M., J. Tickner and K. Geiser. 2006. Alternatives Assessment Framework of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. Version 1.0. July.
41. Snyder, E.M., S.A. Snyder, J.P. Giesy, S.A. Blonde, G.K. Hurlburt, C.L. Summer, R.R. Mitchell and D.M. Bush 2000a. SCRAM: A Scoring and Ranking System for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Substances for the North American Great Lakes. Part I – Structure of the Scoring and Ranking System. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 7.
42. Snyder, E.M., S.A. Snyder, J.P. Giesy, S.A. Blonde, G.K. Hurlburt, C.L. Summer, R.R. Mitchell and D.M. Bush 2000b. SCRAM: A Scoring and Ranking System for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Substances for the North American Great Lakes. Part II – Bioaccumulation Potential and Persistence. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 7.
43. Snyder, E.M., S.A. Snyder, J.P. Giesy, S.A. Blonde, G.K. Hurlburt, C.L. Summer, R.R. Mitchell and D.M. Bush 2000c. SCRAM: A Scoring and Ranking System for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Substances for the North American Great Lakes. Part III – Acute and Subchronic or Chronic Toxicity. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res.., 7.
44. Snyder, E.M., S.A. Snyder, J.P. Giesy, S.A. Blonde, G.K. Hurlburt, C.L. Summer, R.R. Mitchell and D.M. Bush 2000d. SCRAM: A Scoring and Ranking System for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Substances for the North American Great Lakes. Part IV – Results from Representative Chemicals, Sensitivity Analysis, and Discriminatory Power. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 7.
45. State of California 2009. Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) Model.
46. Sustainable Minds LCA Software.
47. Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC). 1994. Environmental Fate Data Base (EFDB©). PC and On-line versions available. Syracuse, NY. {cited in DfE 1996}.
48. Thorpe, B. 2005. The Substitution Principle: How to Really promote safer chemical use. Downloaded July 2010 from the Clean Production Action website.
49. Todd, J.A. and M.A. Curran 1999. Streamlined Life cycle Assessment: A final report from the SETAC North America Streamlined LCA Workgroup. July.
50. Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) 2006a. Five Chemicals Study: Alternatives Assessment Process Guidance. March.
51. Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) 2006b. Five Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study. Prepared by the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell. June.
52. Toxic Use Reduction Institute (TURI), unknown year (website last updated March 2009). Pollution Prevention Option Analysis System, Version 2.08. Information obtained from the tool, downloaded June 2010.
53. Ullmann, Fritz. 1985. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. 5^th Edition. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft. Weinheim, Germany. VCH Publishers. Deerfield Beach, FL. {cited in DfE 1996}.
54. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Ecological Soil Screening Levels Documents. Various years of publications.
55. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2010a. Green Chemistry. Information from the website included in this document was accessed May 2010 when page was updated to April 22, 2010. Current website updated on June 16, 2016.
56. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2010b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) On-line database. Environmental Health Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.
57. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2009a. Ecological Structure Activity Relationships (ECOSAR), v. 1.00a. Available for free download.
58. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2009b. Ozone-Depleting Substances. Information obtained from the U.S. EPA website.
59. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2006a. PBT Profiler, Version 1.203. Developed by the Environmental Science Center, under contract to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics of the U.S. EPA.
60. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-06/060. May.
61. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2005. Furniture Flame Retardancy Partnership: Environmental Profiles of Chemical Flame-Retardant Alternatives for Low-Density Polyurethane Foam, Volumes 1 and 2. U.S. EPA Design for the Environment Report EPA 742-R-05-002A.
62. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2002. PBT Chemical Scoring and Ranking (Download the SCRAM model).
63. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. ECOTOXicology Database., Version 4.0.
64. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1999. 33/50 Program—The Final Record. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics of the U.S. EPA. EPA-745-R-99-004. March.
65. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1995. Guidelines for Assessing the Quality of Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. Office of Solid Waste. EPA/530/R-95/010. {cited in U.S. EPA 2006b}.
66. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1993. Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-92/245. {cited in U.S. EPA 2006b}.
67. Van den Berg, M. , L.S. Birnbaum, M. Denison, M. De Vito, W. Farland, M. Feeley, H. Fiedler, H. Hakansson, A. Hanberg, L. Haws, M. Rose, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, C. Tohyama, A. Tritscher, J. Tuomisto, M. Tysklind, N. Walker and R.E. Peterson. 2006. The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds. ToxSci Advance Access published 7 July 2006.
68. Zero Waste Alliance (ZWA) 2003. CARS: Prioritization Criteria Worksheet.

6.0 Appendix A – Summary of Information From Other Jurisdictions and Programs

Table A.1 Summary of PBT Criteria from Other Jurisdictions and Programs

Jurisdiction/Program	Persistence	Bioaccumulation	Toxicity
Categorization of DSL substances	Persistent: ½ life > or = to: 2 days in air (or subject to long-range transport) 6 months in water 1 year in sediment 6 months in soil.	Bioaccumulative: BAF or BCF > or = 5,000 log Kow of > or = 5	Inherently toxic to non-humans: LC50 or EC50 < or = 1 mg/L for acute exposure NOEC < or = 0.1 mg/L for chronic exposure Inherently toxic to humans (ComHaz Tool (Ng, 2005)): Developmental toxicity: NOAEL ≤ 90 mg/(kg-d) NOAEC ≤ 270 mg/m3 Reproductive toxicity: NOAEL ≤ 10 mg/(kg-d) NOAEC ≤ 30 mg/m3 Longer term toxicity: NOAEL ≤ 10 mg/(kg-d) NOAEC ≤ 30 mg/m3 Short term toxicity: NOAEL ≤ 30 mg/(kg-d) NOAEC ≤ 90 mg/m3 Acute toxicity: LD50 ≤ 500 mg/kg LC50 ≤ 150 mg/m3
PBT Profiler	Persistent: ½ life > or =: 60 days in water, soil, sediment 2 days in air Very Persistent: > life > or =: 6 months in water, soil, sediment.	Bioaccumulative: BCF > or = 1,000 Very Bioaccumulative: BCF > or = 5,000	Fish chronic toxicity (mg/L): <0.1 - High concern 0.1 to 10 - Moderate concern >10 - Low concern
Design for the Environment (DfE)	Persistent: biodegradation > 28 days in water	Bioaccumulative: BCF > or = 1,000	Aquatic toxicity - chronic values ≤0.1 mg/L - High > 0.1 to ≤ 10 mg/L - Moderate >10 mg/L - Low Aquatic toxicity - acute values ≤ 1 mg/L - High > 1 to ≤ 100 mg/L - Moderate > 100 mg/L Low
Scoring and Ranking Assessment Model (SCRAM)	Ranking of ½ life in all environmental media (air, soil, sediment, water, biota): > 100 days Highly Persistent > 50 to 100 days > 20 to 50 days 4 to 20 days < 4 days Not Persistent	Ranking of BAF, BCF, or Kow: > 100,000 High Bioaccumulation > 10,000 to 100,000 > 1,000 to 10,000 > 100 to 1,000 ≤ 100 Low Bioaccumulation	Plant acute toxicity (ED50 or LD50) and chronic toxicity (NOAEL or LOAEL) (kg/ha or lb/acre): ≤ 0.1 - High Toxicity > 0.1 to 1 > 1 to 10 > 10 to 100 > 100 - Low Toxicity Mammals, amphibians and reptiles, birds and invertebrates acute toxicity (ED50 or LD50) (mg/kg-d for all but soil invertebrates mg/kg): ≤ 5 - High Toxicity > 5 to 50 > 50 to 500 > 500 to 5,000 > 5,000 - Low Toxicity Mammals, amphibians and reptiles, birds and invertebrates chronic toxicity (LOAEL) (mg/kg-d for all but soil invertebrates mg/kg): ≤ 10 - High Toxicity > 10 to 100 > 100 to 1,000 > 1,000 to 5,000 > 5,000 - Low Toxicity Mammals, amphibians and reptiles, birds and invertebrates chronic toxicity (> 90-day NOAEL) (mg/kg-d for all but soil invertebrates mg/kg): ≤ 1 - High Toxicity > 1 to 10 > 10 to 100 > 100 to 1,000 > 1,000 - Low Toxicity Aquatic acute toxicity (ED50 or LD50) (mg/L): ≤1 - High Toxicity > 1 to 10 > 10 to 100 > 100 to 1000 > 1000 - Low Toxicity Aquatic chronic toxicity - invertebrates (MATC, NOEC, LOEC) (mg/L): ≤ 0.1 - High Toxicity > 0.1 to 1 > 1 to 10 > 10 to 100 > 100 - Low Toxicity Aquatic chronic toxicity – other species (MATC, NOEC, LOEC) (mg/L): ≤ 10 - High Toxicity > 10 to 100 > 100 to 1,000 > 1,000 to 10,000 > 10,000 - Low Toxicity
Green Screen for Safer Chemicals	Ranking of ½ life (in water): > 60 days Very High > 40 to 60 days High 7 to 40 days Moderate < 7 days Low Ranking of ½ life (in soil and sediment): > 180 days - Very High 60 to 180 days - High 30 to 60 days - Moderate < 30 days - Low High persistence has potential for long range environmental transport. Low persistence is readily biodegradable.	Ranking of BAF or BCF: > 5,000 - Very High > 1,000 to 5,000 - High > 500 to 1,000 - Moderate < 500 - Low Ranking of log Kow: > 5 - Very High > 4.5 to 5 - High > 4 to 4.5 - Moderate < 4 - Low Moderate bioaccumulation suggests evidence of bioaccumulation in humans or wildlife	Aquatic acute toxicity (LC50/EC50/IC50) (mg/L): < 1 - High 1 to 100 - Moderate > 1000 - Low Aquatic chronic toxicity (NOEC) (mg/L): < 0.1 - High 0.1 to 10 - Moderate > 10 - Low Human acute toxicity (oral, dermal, inhalation) - High: LD50 < 50 mg/kg (oral) LD50 < 200 mg/kg (dermal) LC50 < 500 ppm (gas) LC50 < 2.0 mg/L (vapour) LC50 < 0.5 mg/L (dust, mist) U.S. EPA Extremely Hazardous Substance List, GHS Category 1 or 2 Human acute toxicity (oral, dermal, inhalation) - Moderate: LD50 50-2,000 mg/kg (oral) LD50 200-2,000 mg/kg (dermal) LC50 500-5,000 ppm (gas) LC50 2-20 mg/L (vapour) LC50 0.5-5 mg/L (dust, mist) GHS Category 3 or 4 High toxicity: evidence of adverse effects in human populations, or weight of evidence demonstrates potential for adverse effects in humans. Moderate toxicity: suggestive animal studies or chemical class known to produce toxicity. Low toxicity: no basis for concern identified.
MBDC Cradle to Cradle®1	Ranking of ½ life (in water): > 60 days Highly Persistent > 30 to 60 days < 30 days Low Persistence Ranking of ½ life (in soil/sediment): > 180 days Highly Persistent > 90 to 180 days < 90 days Low Persistence	Ranking of BCF: > 1,000 - High > 100 to 1,000 - Moderate < 100 - Low	Aquatic toxicity – fish, invertebrates (daphnia), and aquatic plants (algae) (96-hr LC50) (mg/L): < 10 - High Toxicity > 10 to 100 > 100 - Low Toxicity Human acute toxicity (oral, dermal) (LD50) (mg/kg): < 200 - High Toxicity > 200 to 2,000 > 2,000 - Low Toxicity Human acute toxicity (inhalation) (LC50) (mg/m3): < 400 - High Toxicity > 400 to 4,000 > 4,000 - Low Toxicity Human chronic toxicity (NOAEL) (mg/kg): > 100 - Low Toxicity
Five Step Evaluation Matrix - Very High	Not readily or inherently degradable, unless T1/2 < 60 days	log Kow > 4.5 if BCF ≥ 5,000	Not relevant for very persistent and very bioaccumulative substances
Five Step Evaluation Matrix - Very High	Not readily or inherently degradable, unless T1/2 < 40 days	log Kow > 4.5 if BCF ≥ 2,000	LC50 ≤ 0.1 mg/L (aquatic)3
Five Step Evaluation Matrix - High	Not readily or inherently degradable, unless T1/2 < 40 days	log Kow > 4 if BCF ≥ 2,000	LC50 ≤ 0.1 mg/L (aquatic)3
Five Step Evaluation Matrix - High	Not readily or inherently degradable, unless T1/2 < 40 days	log Kow > 4 if BCF ≥ 500	LC50 ≤ 1 mg/L (aquatic)3
Five Step Evaluation Matrix - Medium	Not readily or inherently degradable	log Kow ≥ 3 if BCF ≥ 100	LC50 ≤ 10 mg/L (aquatic)3
Five Step Evaluation Matrix - Low	Readily degradable	log Kow < 3	LC50 ≤ 100 mg/L (aquatic)3
Five Step Evaluation Matrix - Very Low			LC50> 1003
Quick Scan2	Persistence in water: Very high - Not inherently biodegradable; no fast abiotic degradation High – Inherently biodegradable: slow Moderate – Inherently biodegradable: adaptive or incomplete Low – Readily biodegradable or otherwise rapidly degradable	Very high – BCF ≥ 5,000 log Kow ≥ 5 Very high – BCF ≥ 500 log Kow ≥ 4 Very high – BCF ≥ 100 log Kow ≥ 3 Very high – BCF < 100 log Kow < 3	Very high – NOEC 0.01 mg/L LC50 ≤ 0.1 mg/L Very high – NOEC ≤ 0.1 mg/L LC50 ≤ 1 mg/L Very high – NOEC ≤ 1 mg/L LC50 ≤ 10 mg/L Very high – NOEC > 1 mg/L LC50 > 10 mg/L
PRIO	Persistent: T1/2 > 60 days seawater T1/2 > 40 days freshwater T1/2 > 180 days marine sediment T1/2 > 120 days freshwater sediment T1/2 > 120 days soil Very Persistent: T1/2 > 60 days seawater or freshwater T1/2 > 180 days marine or freshwater sediment T1/2 > 180 days soil	Bioaccumulating - BCF > 2,000 Very Bioaccumulating- BCF > 5,000	Toxic3 - Chronic NOEC < 0.01 mg/L or < 30 mg⁄(kg food)
NICNAS	Not specified.	May cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment: log Kow > 3	Very toxic: LD50 oral, rat < 25 mg/kg LD50 dermal, rat or rabbit: < 50 mg/kg LC50 inhalation, rat, for aerosols or particulates: < 0.25 mg/litre/4hr LC50 inhalation, rat, for gases and vapours: < 0.5 mg/litre/4hr 96 hr LC50 (for fish): ≤ 1 mg/L 48 hr EC50 (for Daphnia): ≤ 1 mg/L 72 hr IC50 (for algae): ≤ 1 mg/L Toxic: LD50 oral, rat: 25 < LD50 < 200 mg/kg LD50 dermal, rat or rabbit: 50 < LD50 < 400 mg/kg LC50 inhalation, rat, for aerosols or particulates: 0.25 < LC50 < 1 mg/litre/4hr LC50 inhalation, rat, for gases and vapours: 0.5 < LC50 < 2 mg/litre/4hr 96 hr LC50 (for fish): 1 < LC50 < 10 mg/L 48 hr EC50 (for Daphnia): 1 < EC50 < 10 mg/L 72 hr IC50 (for algae): 1 < IC50 < 10 mg/L Harmful: LD50 oral, rat: 200 < LD50 < 2,000 mg/kg LD50 dermal, rat or rabbit: 400 < LD50 < 2,000 mg/kg LC50 inhalation, rat, for aerosols or particulates: 1 < LC50 < 5 mg/litre/4hr LC50 inhalation, rat, for gases and vapours: 2 < LC50 < 20 mg/litre/4hr 96 hr LC50 (for fish): 10 < LC50 < 100 mg/L 48 hr EC50 (for Daphnia): 10 < EC50 < 100 mg/L 72 hr IC50 (for algae): 10 < IC50 < 100 mg/L

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Acute Human Effects

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Inhalation LC50	ppm	10,000	1,000	150	15	< 15
PEL/TLV	ppm	20	100	25	5	< 5
PEL/TLV (dusts/particles)	mg/m3	10	5	1	0.1	< 0.1
IDLH	ppm	1,000	500	50	10	< 10
Respiratory irritation	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Oral LD50	mg/kg	5,000	500	50	5	< 5
Dermal irritation	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Skin absorption	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Dermal LD50	mg/kg	5,000	500	50	5	< 5
Ocular irritation	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Chronic Human Effects

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Reference Dose RfD	mg/kg/day	0.10	0.05	0.01	0.001	< 0.001
Carcinogen	IARC/EPA Class	4,E	3,D	2B,C	2A,B	1,A
Mutagen	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Reproductive effects	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Neurotoxicity	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Developmental effects	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Respir. sensitivity/disease	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Other chronic organ effects	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Physical Hazards

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Heat	WBGT, °C	25	27	30	32	> 32
Noise generation	dBA	80	85	85	90	> 90
Ergonomic hazard	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Psychosocial hazard	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Aquatic Hazards

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Water Quality Criteria	mg/L	> 10	6-8	4-6	1-4	< 1
Aquatic LC50	mg/L	1,000	50	1	0.1	< 0.1
Fish NOAEC	mg/L	0.2	0.02	0.002	0.0002	< 0.0002
Plant EC50	mg/L	100	10	1	0.1	< 0.1
Observed ecological effects	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Persistence	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
BOD half-life	days	4	10	100	500	> 500
Hydrolysis half-life	days	4	10	100	500	> 500
Bioconcentration	log Kow	1	2	4	6	> 6
Bioconcentration factor (BCF)	kg/L	10	100	200	1,000	> 1,000

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Atmospheric Hazards

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Greenhouse gas	Y/N	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided
Ozone depletory	ODP units	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided
Acid rain formation	Y/N	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided
NESHAP	Y/N	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Disposal Hazard

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Landfill	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
EPCRA reportable quantity	lbs	5,000	1,000	100	10	1
Incineration	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Recycling	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Chemical Hazard

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Vapour pressure	mm Hg	0.1	1	10	100	> 100
Solubility in water	mg/L	No metrics provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided
Specific gravity	N/A	No metrics provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided	No Metrics Provided
Flammability	0,1,2,3,4	0	1	2	3	4
Flash point	°C	100	75	25	10	< 10
Reactivity	0,1,2,3,4	0	1	2	3	4
pH	pH units	7	6-7, 7-8	5-6, 8-9	3-5, 9-11	1-3, 11-14
Corrosivity	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
High pressure system	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
High temperature system	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Mixture/reaction potential	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Odour threshold	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Volatile organic compound	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Energy And Resource Use

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Non renewable resource	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Water Use	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Energy Use	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Product Hazard

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Upstream effects	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Consumer hazard	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H
Disposal hazard	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Table A.2 P2OASys Standardized Hazard Score Database
Exposure Potential

Category	Units	Score 2.00	Score 4.00	Score 6.00	Score 8.00	Score 10.00
Exposure potential	L/M/H	L	L/M	M	M/H	H

Note: L = low, M = medium, H = high (level of concern)

Obtained from excel spreadsheet tool downloaded from TURI website.

PIBS 8582e