Finding essentiality feasible: common questions and misinterpretations concerning the “essential-use” concept

The essential-use concept is a tool that can guide the phase-out of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and potentially other substances of concern. This concept is a novel approach to chemicals management that determines whether using substances of concern, such as PFAS, is truly essential for a given functionality. To assess the essentiality of a particular use case, three considerations need to be addressed: (1) the function (chemical, end use and service) that the chemical provides in the use case, (2) whether the function is necessary for health and safety and critical for the functioning of society and (3) if the function is necessary, whether there are viable alternatives for the chemical for this particular use. A few illustrative examples of the three-step process are provided for use cases of PFAS. The essential-use concept takes chemicals management away from a substance-by-substance approach to a group approach. For PFAS and other substances of concern, it offers a more rapid pathway toward effective management or phase-out. Parts of the concept of essential use have already been widely applied in global treaties and international regulations and it has also been recently used by product manufacturers and retailers to phase out substances of concern from supply chains. Herein some of the common questions and misinterpretations regarding the practical application of the essential-use concept are reviewed, and answers and further clarifications are provided.

[1]  Carla A. Ng,et al.  Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS? , 2020, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Robin E. Dodson,et al.  Flame Retardant Concentrations Are Lower in College Spaces Meeting the New Furniture Flammability Standard TB117-2013 , 2020 .

[3]  Carla A. Ng,et al.  An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). , 2020, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

[4]  Nisha S. Sipes,et al.  Organophosphate Ester Flame Retardants: Are They a Regrettable Substitution for Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers? , 2019, Environmental science & technology letters.

[5]  Zhanyun Wang,et al.  The concept of essential use for determining when uses of PFASs can be phased out. , 2019, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

[6]  P. J. Hill,et al.  Highly fluorinated chemicals in functional textiles can be replaced by re-evaluating liquid repellency and end-user requirements , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[7]  S. Scholz,et al.  Applicability of the fish embryo acute toxicity (FET) test (OECD 236) in the regulatory context of Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) , 2018, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[8]  E. V. Wely.  Current global standards for chemical protective clothing: how to choose the right protection for the right job? , 2017 .

[9]  Elsie M. Sunderland,et al.  Detection of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in U.S. Drinking Water Linked to Industrial Sites, Military Fire Training Areas, and Wastewater Treatment Plants , 2016, Environmental science & technology letters.

[10]  G M Peters,et al.  Properties, performance and associated hazards of state-of-the-art durable water repellent (DWR) chemistry for textile finishing. , 2016, Environment international.

[11]  Joel Tickner,et al.  The Architecture of Chemical Alternatives Assessment , 2015, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Timothy F. Malloy,et al.  Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals , 2015, Environmental health perspectives.

[13]  Marilee K Shelton-Davenport,et al.  Answering the call for improved chemical alternatives assessments (CAA). , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  Catherine Rudisill,et al.  Advancing safer alternatives through functional substitution. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  L. Looper.  Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants , 2014 .

[16]  Mark S Rossi,et al.  Businesses and Advocacy Groups Create a Road Map for Safer Chemicals: The Bizngo Principles for Chemicals Policy , 2011, New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS.

[17]  Kristen N. Taddonio,et al.  Technology Transfer for the Ozone Layer: Lessons for Climate Change , 2007 .

[18]  Myronn Hardy,et al.  South , 1918, Geological Magazine.

[19]  Centre Albert,et al.  Meeting of Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (CARACAL) , 2020 .

[20]  Impacts of REACH restriction and authorisation on substitution in the EU , 2020 .

[21]  I. Cousins,et al.  Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity of Halogen-Free Flame Retardants , 2014 .

[22]  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS , 2009 .

[23]  European Commission. , 2001 .

[24]  managingeditor,et al.  The Journal of , 1998 .

[25]  Paul R. Wyrwoll,et al.  Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer , 1996 .