Elsevier

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volume 139, 15 December 2016, Pages 384-395
Journal of Cleaner Production

Comparative occupational risk assessment to support the substitution of Substances of Very High Concern: Alternatives assessment for diarsenic trioxide in Murano artistic glass production

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.025Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Occupational risks of As2O3 and alternative substances in artistic glass production were assessed.

  • High uncertainty can affect the application of occupational exposure models to handcraft production.

  • As2O3 poses higher occupational risks than CeO2 in all phases of Murano glass production.

  • CeO2 and blast furnace slag proved to be safer alternatives to As2O3 in artistic glass production.

Abstract

In the framework of REACH Regulation (1907/2006/EC), the assessment of health and environmental risks posed by chemical substitutes of Substances of Very High Concern requires transparent approaches, suitable to provide all stakeholders with the information needed to select safer chemicals and minimize the potential for unintended consequences. A comparative assessment for diarsenic trioxide (As2O3) and proposed chemical alternatives (cerium dioxide CeO2 and blast furnace slag) in Murano artistic glass production was performed. The assessment followed a structured, stepwise framework including a detailed analysis of production processes, development of occupational exposure scenarios and comparative assessment of occupational health risks. Several occupational exposure models were compared and the most suitable ones (MEASE, TRAw and ART models) were applied to the selected scenarios. The study concluded that, from the perspective of occupational health risks, the use of CeO2 together with blast furnace slag represents a safer alternative to As2O3 and, given the correct implementation of Personal Protection Measures, health risks will be controlled for all production phases. The study demonstrated that, due to similar physico-chemical properties of the considered substances, toxicological factors constitutes the main driver of occupational risks, and at the same time allowed to identify critical issues in the comparative assessment procedure. The proposed approach can guide the evaluation of risks of chemical alternatives with the aim of supporting the decision-making process in the transition towards safer productions.

Introduction

The Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation (1907/2006/EC) identifies Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) as those that may have serious and often irreversible effects on human health and the environment, namely carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxicants, “Persistent/Bioaccumulative/Toxic” and “very Persistent very Bioaccumulative” substances, endocrine disruptors or other substances which give rise to an “equivalent level of concern” (REACH art. 57). These substances have to be included in a Candidate List and may be listed on REACH Annex XIV as subject to authorization, with the aim of assuring that the risks associated with SVHC are adequately controlled and promoting the gradual replacement of these substances with less hazardous chemicals (ECHA, 2011). In this sense, authorization process plays a key role within current EU chemical legislation in supporting the “substitution principle”, which states the importance of phasing out a hazardous chemical in favour of another chemical or non-chemical method that reduces the potential for damages to health or the environment (Hansson et al., 2011). REACH regulation represents an example of how a chemical management policy can promote the informed transition to safer chemicals (Tickner et al., 2013). The assessment of alternatives to substitute hazardous chemicals became a priority issue for industry and research in recent years, not only in Europe, as confirmed by the development of several frameworks for alternatives assessment (NRC, 2014). This interest can be ascribed to the tendency of a broader attention to the application of sustainability principles in product design and manufacturing in order to reduce direct and indirect impacts on the environment and society (Díaz López and Montalvo, 2015). Several approaches and methodologies have been recently proposed to evaluate the performance of products or processes from this perspective, for example by combining regulatory compliance with environmental and economic indicators (Askham et al., 2012), coupling unit process modelling with life cycle inventory techniques (Eastwood and Haapala, 2015) or including a set of criteria into a sustainability compliance index for decision support in product development (Hallstedt, 2015).

In the field of design, production, use and regulation of chemicals, the assessment of chemical alternatives can be a quite complex process, therefore supporting approaches and tools are necessary to provide industry and stakeholders with the required information and expertise to select safer chemicals and minimize the potential for unintended consequences, like those caused from moving to a poorly known substitute (Lavoie et al., 2010). Different tools for supporting chemical alternatives assessment are currently available to evaluate environmental and human health impacts of potential alternatives to dangerous substances. Whittaker and Heine (2013) provided a review of these tools, while the SUBSPORT portal (www.subsport.eu) includes short descriptions and links to some of these tools (some examples are Green Screen (Clean Production Action, 2012), Pollution Prevention Options Analysis System (P2OASys) (Toxic Use Reduction Institute, 2012), PRIO – Priority Setting Guide (Swedish Chemicals Agency, 2010), and QuickScan (The Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2002)). These methods are typically based on common hazard endpoints related to human toxicity, environmental toxicity and environmental fate, evaluated through a set of criteria using measured or predicted data (Whittaker and Heine, 2013). Most of these tools allow for conducting a preliminary comparison of candidate substitutes with the chemical of concern, mostly based on hazard assessment and only in some cases considering also generic exposure scenarios. Once possible alternatives have been screened, a more detailed assessment of the identified substances might be necessary, which should consider several aspects such as performance, costs, risks to ecosystems and human health, and societal impacts (NRC, 2014). For example, within a hazard-based approach, exposure considerations or even detailed exposure quantification can better inform the decision-making process (Howard, 2014). Recently, Bruinen de Bruin et al. (2016) proposed a tiered approach for environmental impact assessment of chemicals and their alternatives within the context of socio-economic assessment (SEA) included in REACH regulation. However, examples of structured approaches to compare human health risks associated with chemicals and alternatives in specific production scenarios are not common in recent literature.

The main objective of this paper is to develop and illustrate a comparative risk assessment to evaluate the risk associated with the use of diarsenic trioxide (As2O3) in the production of Murano artistic glass (Venice, Italy) against the risk associated to possible chemical alternatives, namely cerium dioxide (CeO2) and blast furnace slag, focusing on occupational exposure scenarios. This study is aimed at providing a useful example to support consultants, industry and decision-makers in identifying all factors that can influence the human health risk along all phases of an industrial production process and in adopting the most suitable approaches for their rigorous quantitative assessment, in order to evaluate whether the use of proposed alternatives can determine an overall reduction of occupational risks and support the transition towards safer production.

Section snippets

Case-study: substitution of diarsenic trioxide in artistic glass production

Since centuries the production of decorative glass objects is a unique traditional activity on the island of Murano in the Venice lagoon, represented by a relevant industrial district with more than 100 companies. The basic glassmaking materials are silica, limestone, soda and/or potash, along with a wide variety of other substances used to improve the physical and chemical properties of glass, including several heavy metal oxides, such as As2O3, used as a refining and decolouring agent (ECHA,

Analysis of the production process

A detailed analysis of the entire glass production process was performed (Fig. 2) to describe the process in terms of individual phases and identify which phases may cause significant exposure to the chemicals of interest. The phases identified as dangerous for potential chemical exposure during glass production are six: transport/weighing of powder, mixing of the glass mixture, loading of mixture in the furnace, fusion of glass mixture, processing and finally grinding of glass.

Development of the risk assessment conceptual model

For each

Conclusion

A comparative occupational risk assessment for As2O3 and identified chemical alternatives in Murano artistic glass production was performed, following a structured, stepwise framework which included the application and comparison of different occupational models for exposure assessment. The study concluded that, from the perspective of occupational health risks, the use of CeO2 together with blast furnace slag represents a safer alternative to arsenic trioxide and, considering the correct

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper has been partially developed within the project “Elimination of arsenic compounds from the glass mixture in the Murano artistic glass production and substitution with not hazardous materials” funded by the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea, Ministry of Economic Development, Ministry of Health, Stazione Sperimentale del Vetro, Chamber of Commerce of Venice.

References (51)

  • ChemRisk

    Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for BF, BOF and EAF Slags

    (1998)
  • Clean Production Action

    GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals, Version 1.2

    (2012)
  • EBRC Consulting GmbH, MEASE - Occupational Exposure Assessment Tool for REACH (1.02.01), Available at:...
  • EBRC, Eurofer, Eurometaux and ICMM

    Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Metals (HERAG) - Fact Sheet 1: Assessment of Occupational Dermal Exposure and Dermal Absorption for Metals and Inorganic Metal Compounds

    (2007)
  • ECETOC

    ECETOC Targeted Risk Assessment, Technical Report No. 93

    (2009)
  • ECETOC

    Addendum to ECETOC Targeted Risk Assessment, Technical Report No. 107

    (2009)
  • ECHA

    Appendix R.12–3: descriptor-list for process categories (PROC)

  • ECHA

    Background Document for Diarsenic Trioxide. Document Developed in the Context of ECHA's Second Recommendation for the Inclusion of Substances in Annex XIV

    (2010)
  • ECHA

    Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.12: Use Descriptor System, Version 2

    (2010)
  • ECHA

    Guidance on the Preparation of an Application for Authorisation, Version 1

    (2011)
  • ECHA

    Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.8: Characterisation of Dose [concentration]-response for Human Health, Version 2.1

    (2012)
  • ECHA

    Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.14: Occupational Exposure Estimation, Version 2.1

    (2012)
  • ECHA

    Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Part D: Exposure Scenario Building. Version 1.2

    (2012)
  • ECHA

    Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Part E: Risk Characterization, Version 2.0

    (2012)
  • W. Fransman et al.

    Development of a Mechanistic Model for the Advanced REACH Tool (ART), TNO Report N. V9009, Version 1.0, The Netherlands

    (2010)
  • Cited by (9)

    • Enabling a circular economy for chemicals in plastics

      2021, Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, conducting such toxicity assessments for thousands of different chemicals found in plastic products, including recyclates, is technically challenging and time-consuming. The biggest gap in identifying safe, sustainable, and circular alternatives for substituting and phasing out harmful additives is an incomplete assessment of all relevant life cycle stages, impacts, and exposed receptors, leaving potential trade-offs unaddressed (e.g. various combinations of occupational, consumer, population and ecological exposures and hazards along plastic products’ life cycles) [58–61]. To understand, which aspects to focus on and where emissions and resources use reduction should be prioritized, targets are needed at the level of plastic materials and chemicals.

    • PM<inf>10</inf>-bound arsenic emissions from the artistic glass industry in Murano (Venice, Italy) before and after the enforcement of REACH authorisation

      2021, Journal of Hazardous Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      Before any authorisation, a potential chemical substance was inserted in the so-called “Candidate List” for prioritisation and defined as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). Arsenic was classified as SVHC, thus the As2O3 use was limited while suitable alternatives were proposed and tested (Giubilato et al., 2016). The deadline for the use of arsenic, also legally referred to as the “Sunset Date”, was set on May 21, 2015.

    • Physicochemical and toxicological characterization of hazardous wastes from an old glasswork dump at southeastern part of Sweden

      2019, Chemosphere
      Citation Excerpt :

      These studies have shown increased frequency of these impacts on health among the glassmakers and people living around these glassworks compared to the frequency in the population of each country. Managing wastes from old glassworks in many eminent glass producer countries as Italy (Giubilato et al., 2016) and Sweden (Elert and Höglund, 2012) were poorly handled. The main practice was by disposing the daily wastes including glass and chemicals on a heap or by burying them in a hole in the backyard of the glasswork (Elert and Höglund, 2012).

    • A hazard classification system based on incorporation of REACH regulation thresholds in the USEtox method

      2019, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      This alternative includes not only the combined effect of all properties of the substance but also the environment characteristic that potentially influence its behavior, and consequentially, the hazard on human health. It is important to mention that several frameworks or methodologies that combines results from the hazard classification from REACH with other indicators (e.g. economic, environmental, risk) to create socio-economic scores or exposure scenarios models were proposed (Askham et al., 2012; Bruinen de Bruin et al., 2015; Gramatica et al., 2015; Giubilato et al., 2016). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, any alternatives that focus only on the current REACH classification system were proposed.

    • Goods that are good enough: Introducing an absolute sustainability perspective for managing chemicals in consumer products

      2019, Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry
      Citation Excerpt :

      In this context, it is important to look beyond particular hazards or exposure conditions. When addressing harmful chemicals in products in a regulatory context, occupational, consumer, population and ecological exposures and hazards are separately considered [18,23,24], while potential trade-offs among them and with environmental sustainability impacts along the entire related product life cycle remain unaddressed. However, only when both specific risks and sustainability impacts are addressed together for each product life cycle as illustrated in Figure 1, we are able to avoid shifting the burden from one aspect or region to another in our attempt to identify viable solutions in chemical substitution and alternatives assessment [25].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text