Linking exposure models to regulatory and sustainability driven frameworks
Résumé
The assessment of exposure of chemicals to environment and to human via the environment is of major concern for policy and industry and ultimately benefits all citizens. Currently many different types of exposure models are available. However, not all exposure models are designed for the same goal. Exposure assessment of chemicals depends highly on the context. In order to allow a comparison between and selection of exposure models, a transparent and objective framework based on a comprehensive list of scoring factors was developed. A comprehensive list of criteria was set up to structure the characteristics of the exposure tools. These criteria were divided into two categories: general and framework/context specific criteria. The general criteria were transferred into questions and were scored on importance by an expert panel. The framework specific criteria, which are highly context specific, received a score based on their applicability and importance in a certain type of framework. The following regulatory and sustainability driven frameworks were considered: REACH regulation, Plant Protection Products Regulation, Biocidal Product Regulation, environmental/spatial oriented directives (e.g. Water Framework Directive), Food oriented directives (e.g. Food Supplement Directive), product or process certification, site specific impact assessment and sustainability assessment. After scoring the criteria, a list of exposure models (such as EUSES, CalTOX, QUASI, 4FUN, USETOX, GREATER, PEARL, etc.) were evaluated using the Multi-Criteria Decision analysis (MCDA). The MCDA approach is a decision support tool, which allowed us to rank the different exposure models per framework. In conclusion, this methodology is ideally situated to determine the strengths and weaknesses of exposure models and to determine the suitability of a model towards a certain type of framework.