Brands are increasingly concerned about the chemicals used in their products. Transparency is growing, but knowing something is there doesn't mean you know how it will affect your customers. To fill this void, a number of chemical evaluation tools (e.g. GreenScreen, GoodGuide, GreenWERCS) and product evaluation certifications have emerged. Expert Tony Kingsbury and his team looked at 32 of these tools and certifications to determine how robust their evaluation is, how many hazard endpoints they take into account, how costly they are, how transparent they are, and whether you need a PhD to use them. Find out which tools are right for your organization and what limitations they carry.

1. Comparing and Contrasting Leading Tools for Evaluating
Chemicals
Tony Kingsbury, TKingsbury LLC @kingsburytony

2. Comparing and Contrasting Leading
Tools for Evaluating Chemicals
TONY KINGSBURY
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT,
TONY@TKINGSBURY.COM

3. Speaker Background - Tony Kingsbury
Current: Chemicals & Plastics Sustainability, Consulting Practice
5 years: Executive-in-Residence @ UC Berkeley, taught graduate
level sustainability classes & ran multidisciplinary sustainability
center (Business, Engineering, Chemistry, Natural Resources, etc.)
~ 30 years Dow Chemical: Experience
◦ Production Engineer
◦ Product Development
◦ Public Policy … Wash DC, Brussels, Beijing, etc.
◦ Environmental Affairs
◦ Sustainable Plastics & Chemistry
◦ Global Sustainability
◦ Value Chain Sustainability Engagement Lead… Walmart
◦ Breakthroughs to World Challenges Corp. Goal Lead

4. Open Discussion
I want this to be interactive
Please ask questions as we move through the
presentation

5. Outline
Why are there ‘Tools’ & What Chemical Evaluation
‘Tools’ are in the Marketplace
Categories of ‘Tools’
Evaluation Criteria
Results
Next… Looking at How ‘Tools’ score specific chemicals
How can they be improved?

6. Today’s challenging Landscape
Increasing pressures to find more sustainable, safer alternatives
Regulatory drivers: Replace Chemicals of Concern
◦ REACH Authorization
◦ California Safer Consumer Products Regulation
◦ TSCA reform
Corporate Sustainability Initiatives
◦ Greenhouse gas/ Energy reduction
◦ Increased use of Bio-based materials
◦ Improve Safety
◦ Make Healthier Products
Customer/Consumer Drivers
◦ Banned lists of chemicals
◦ Ecolabel certifications

7. Target Stores Recent Announcement
50 % of a products score comes from a “list based” chemical hazard
scheme administered by the ‘tool’ GoodGuide
Another 20% comes from chemical ingredient transparency

8. Walmart – Announces Chemicals Policy
Walmart, articulates its Chemicals Policy in a move to
improve the sustainability of the products it sells. Program
administered by the WERCs (a UL company)

9. TOOLS

10. Tools Evaluated
List of Tools (see right)
◦ From various industry sectors, for profit
companies, government, academia, non-
profits and NGOs
◦ Some linked to certification
Evaluated the tools based on a variety of
questions regarding the development,
function, and application of the tool
◦ # of hazard endpoints?
◦ Transparency?
◦ Cost?
◦ Structure of the managing organization?
Focused on hazard and exposure assessment
components
ACC Prioritization Tool
BOMcheck
CHAMP
ChemHAT
Chemical Assessment and Ranking System (CARS)
Chemical Data Access Tool
CleanGredients®
Comp Tox
COSHH
Cradle-to-Cradle®
Design for the Environment
DuPont’s chemical Screening Visualization Tool
EcoLogo™
EPEAT
Goodguide
GreenGlobes
GreenGuard
Greenlist™
GreenScreen ™
GreenSeal™
GreenSuite®
GreenWercs™
Healthy Building Network/Pharos
iSUSTAIN™ Green Chemistry Index Tool
Living Building Challenge
Lowell Center for Sustainable Production AA Framework
NSF ACS-GCI Standard 355 Report
RISKOFDERM
Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI)
Stoffenmanager
Substitute it Now (SIN)
Targeted Risk Assessment

11. TOOLS INACTIVE… CHAMP & CARS

12. CHARACTERIZATION CATEGORIES

13. Characterization Categories
Because the tools varied widely with respect to
their intended uses and purpose… we segmented
them into 5 categories:
1. Screening & Prioritization
2. Database
3. Hazard Assessment
4. Exposure & Risk Assessment
5. Certification & Labeling

14. CRITERIA SCORING POTENTIAL

15. Scoring Criteria... 100 pts total
Built up from the NSF/GCI/ANSI 355 Greener Chemicals and Process
• Hazard or Hazard & Exposure
• Hazard Endpoints Considered (15) + Plus Bonus pts
• List based verses Criteria based
• Data Gap Provisions
• Chemicals Available for Assessment
• Review Process
• Transparency
• Ease of Use
• Accessibility / Cost
• Exposure Parameters included
• Rubustness of Exposure Parameters

16. Typical Hazard Endpoints
• Aquatic Toxicity
• Bioaccumulation / Bioconcentration
• Carcinogenicity
• Developmental Toxicity
• Endocrine Activity
• Eye / Skin Irritation
• Mutagenicity
• Neurotoxicity
• Persistence
• Reproductive Toxicity
• Flammability

17. Study Results
 Only 4 tools received the maximum score of 10
for assessing both Hazard and Exposure
 21 tools utilized a criteria based assessment (9
used lists)
 Opportunity exists to add or improve the
exposure portion of all the hazard tools
 Greatest room for improvement existed in how
the tools deal with:
◦ Data gaps
◦ Review Process

18. Results Continued
 High Ranking Screening & Prioritization Tools:
 Targeted Risk Assessment (TRA)
 Stoffenmanager
 Lowell Center (LCSP) Alternative Assessment Framework
 GreenSuite

19. Results Continued
 High Ranking Hazard Assessment Tools
User-Modifiable
GreenWERCS
GreenSuite
Fixed Criteria
Design for the Environment (DfE)
GreenScreen
iSUSTAIN

20. Results Continued
 High Ranking Exposure & Risk Assessment Tools
RISKOFDERM
Stoffenmanager
Targeted Risk Assessment (TRA)

21. Results Continued
 High Ranking Databases
 GreenSuite
 RISKOFDERM
 High Ranking Certification & Labeling Tools
 Design for the Environment (DfE)

22. Look for the Paper Soon
Accepted in Integrated Assessment and
Environmental Management (new SETAC journal)
Title: Chemical Assessment State of the Science:
Evaluation of 32 decision-support tools used to
screen and prioritize chemicals

23. Next: Looking at leading ‘Tools’ using specific chemicals
EXAMPLE: RESULTS OF CHEMICAL SCREENING TOOLS COMPARISON
SCREENING TOOL SCORE
GreenWercs
(Walmart
Scoring Model)
GreenWercs
(GreenScreen
Model)
GreenScreen
(full
assessment)
GreenScreen
(list translator) USEPA DfE*
GreenSuite
(preferred)
GreenSuite
(adjusted*)
CHEMICAL NAME
0-2500
(preferable);
2500-6000
(acceptable);
6000-8500 (avoid)
0-5000
(preferable); 5000-
15000
(acceptable);
15000-20000
(avoid)
BM1 worst;
BM4 best
LT-1 = BM1; LT-
P1 = Possible
BM1; LT-U = BM
Unspecified
(concern - # endpoints
of concern)
0 (most concern) to
100% (no concern)
Natural Chemical A 0 (preferable)
6100
(acceptable)
BM2
Moderate
Group I Human
LT-1
High – reproductive and
developmental toxicity
76.1%
71.55%
Concern-x
Natural Chemical B
0 (preferable) 2200
(preferable)
BM2
High Group II
Human
LT-U
Approved Safer Ingredient
High – Eye irritation
86.75%
78.77%
Concern-x
Industrial Chemical A
0 (preferable) 10700
(acceptable)
BM1
High Group I
Human
LT-P1 No Endpoints of Concern 72.32% 69.01%
Natural Chemical C
0 (preferable) 2200
(preferable)
BM1
High Group I
Human
LT-U
Very High – Eye/Skin
irritation
Moderate to High –
Reproductive and
developmental toxicity
86.22%
75.49%
Concern-x
Industrial Chemical B
1700
(preferable)
12700
(acceptable)
BM1
High Group I
Human/SVHC
List
LT-1
High – Reproductive and
developmental toxicity
Very High – Acute and
chronic aquatic toxicity
73.13%
67.01%
Concern-x
Industrial Chemical C
0 (preferable) 3200
(preferable)
U
Carcinogenicity
LT-U TBD 77.8%
67.55%
Concern-x
Industrial Chemical D
0 (preferable) 2500
(preferable)
BM1
vBT
LT-1
High – Developmental
toxicity and persistence
Very High – Acute and
chronic aquatic toxicity
and bioaccumulation
86.57%
79.05%
Concern-x

24. When it Comes to Chemicals,
What Do Retailers Want?
Retailers want:
◦ Simplicity
◦ The answer
◦ To NOT have to do any calculating themselves
◦ Their customers to trust they are providing safe products
◦ To keep selling products
The challenge… a more sustainable alternative
may not be revealed by a ‘simple’ analysis

25. Why Exposure is Important
• Goal is to provide Safe Products… to Reduce Risk
• Hazard x Exposure = Risk
• Some say if we just get rid of all Hazardous chemicals we
don’t need to worry about exposure…because there is
none.
• The Problem with this approach is that it is easy to make
regrettable substitutions or removals if you don’t think
about the life cycle of the product and what is being used or
not used to provide the needed function.
• Lets look at a couple of examples.

26. Why a Hazard Only Approach to
Chemical Deselection Doesn’t Work
Think Biocides and Preservatives:
◦ By definition they are biologically active
◦ They are designed to keep dangerous organisms from growing
◦ They fail hazard screens… because they are designed to be hazardous to
germs
Without appropriate amounts of Biocides or Preservatives people are
harmed
◦ Case: Infant shampoo with preservative removed… a dozen children sickened
and one died (I can send you the peer review journal article)
We need a greater variety Biocides and Preservatives not less.
With proper tools that take into account exposure and safety factors, you
can balance the desire to minimize hazardous chemistries with
performance needs for products

27. Case 2: Titanium Dioxide (TiO2)
Is TiO2 Hazardous? Yes & No
Health hazard when we are exposed to
nano-sized particles through inhalation
Hazard only screens ask for the CAS#
and don’t ask what is the application.

28. Chemical / Product Evaluation Framework
Safety
Information
Hazard
Analysis
Safety Risk
Assessment
Alternative
Assessment
Life Cycle
Assessment
Simple Robust
Descriptive
Exposure
Information
Qualitative
Exposure
Information
Quantitative
Exposure
Information
Qualitative –
Quantitative
Exposure
Information
Supplemental
Exposure
Information
Vision

29. 29
In Closing
Present
Future Visioning
Hazard-based
Risk-based
Life cycle-based
Sustainable Choices
◦ Continue to move the needle towards sustainable products
◦ Important to identify, develop and promote use of appropriate
information that will inform improved choices not eliminate options.
◦ Tools can help generate key information but are not an end in
themselves... Yet! Useful output relies on quality information.

30. Thanks to my Co-authors
Alison Gauthier
Mai Fung
Julie Panko
Angela Perez
Kristen Hitchcock
Tyler Ferrancini
Jennifer Sahmel
Amber Banducci
Megan Jacobsen
Anders Ablemann
Erin Shay
10/29/2013
30
Also Thanks to Cardno ChemRisk & ACC for funding the research

31. Thank You!
&
Questions
10/29/2013
31
Tony Kingsbury
Chemicals & Plastics Sustainability Consulting
tony@tkingsbury.com

32. www.SustainableBrands.com