根据 REACH 法规,确定非必要用途,以逐步淘汰高度关注物质。

IF 3.6 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Frontiers in toxicology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/ftox.2024.1488336
Flora Borchert, Romain Figuière, Ian T Cousins, Christina Rudén, Marlene Ågerstrand
{"title":"根据 REACH 法规,确定非必要用途,以逐步淘汰高度关注物质。","authors":"Flora Borchert, Romain Figuière, Ian T Cousins, Christina Rudén, Marlene Ågerstrand","doi":"10.3389/ftox.2024.1488336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The essential use concept aims to better protect consumers, vulnerable groups, and the environment from the most harmful chemicals by phasing out uses considered non-essential for society. Given the lack of empirical research evaluating this novel approach for chemical management in real-world settings, the aims of the present analysis were to 1) investigate if the information provided in applications for authorisation under REACH allowed for the identification of non-essential uses of substances of very high concern (SVHCs), and 2) identify data gaps, challenges and potential needs for revising the assessment criteria to effectively implement the essential use concept in the REACH authorisation. In total, 100 uses covering 11 SVHCs were analysed. 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (OPnEO) and chromium trioxide were among the most frequently used substances, covering 42% and 35% of the analysed uses. Using the current essential use criteria, 55% of all analysed uses were categorised as essential, while 10% were categorised as non-essential. Potentially, authorisations would not have been granted for the identified non-essential uses under REACH if the concept had been implemented at the time. However, for 35% of the uses it was not possible to assess their essentiality and these uses were therefore categorised as \"complex.\" These challenges were due to the multiple purposes of the technical function, lack of detailed information on the spectrum of end-uses, and difficulties in interpreting the essential use criteria. Consequently, for a successful implementation of the essential use concept, we recommend the European Commission to develop guidance for applicants and refine the essential use criteria to ensure a transparent and resource-efficient authorisation procedure under REACH.</p>","PeriodicalId":73111,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in toxicology","volume":"6 ","pages":"1488336"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11564159/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying non-essential uses to phase out substances of very high concern under REACH.\",\"authors\":\"Flora Borchert, Romain Figuière, Ian T Cousins, Christina Rudén, Marlene Ågerstrand\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/ftox.2024.1488336\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The essential use concept aims to better protect consumers, vulnerable groups, and the environment from the most harmful chemicals by phasing out uses considered non-essential for society. Given the lack of empirical research evaluating this novel approach for chemical management in real-world settings, the aims of the present analysis were to 1) investigate if the information provided in applications for authorisation under REACH allowed for the identification of non-essential uses of substances of very high concern (SVHCs), and 2) identify data gaps, challenges and potential needs for revising the assessment criteria to effectively implement the essential use concept in the REACH authorisation. In total, 100 uses covering 11 SVHCs were analysed. 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (OPnEO) and chromium trioxide were among the most frequently used substances, covering 42% and 35% of the analysed uses. Using the current essential use criteria, 55% of all analysed uses were categorised as essential, while 10% were categorised as non-essential. Potentially, authorisations would not have been granted for the identified non-essential uses under REACH if the concept had been implemented at the time. However, for 35% of the uses it was not possible to assess their essentiality and these uses were therefore categorised as \\\"complex.\\\" These challenges were due to the multiple purposes of the technical function, lack of detailed information on the spectrum of end-uses, and difficulties in interpreting the essential use criteria. Consequently, for a successful implementation of the essential use concept, we recommend the European Commission to develop guidance for applicants and refine the essential use criteria to ensure a transparent and resource-efficient authorisation procedure under REACH.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in toxicology\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"1488336\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11564159/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2024.1488336\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2024.1488336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

必要用途概念旨在通过逐步淘汰被认为对社会非必要的用途,更好地保护消费者、弱势群体和环境免受最有害化学品的危害。鉴于缺乏实证研究来评估这种在现实环境中进行化学品管理的新方法,本分析报告的目的是:1)调查 REACH 法规授权申请中提供的信息是否允许识别高度关注物质(SVHC)的非必要用途;2)确定数据差距、挑战和潜在需求,以修订评估标准,在 REACH 法规授权中有效实施必要用途概念。总共分析了 11 种高关注度物质的 100 种用途。4-(1,1,3,3-四甲基丁基)苯酚 (OPnEO) 和三氧化二铬是使用最频繁的物质,分别占分析用途的 42% 和 35%。根据目前的必要用途标准,所有分析用途中有 55% 被归类为必要用途,10% 被归类为非必要用途。根据 REACH 法规,如果当时实施了这一概念,则可能不会对已确定的非必要用途进行授权。然而,对于 35% 的用途,无法评估其必要性,因此这些用途被归类为 "复杂"。这些挑战是由于技术功能的多种用途、缺乏有关最终用途范围的详细信息以及难以解释必要用途标准造成的。因此,为了成功实施必要用途概念,我们建议欧盟委员会为申请人制定指南,并完善必要用途标准,以确保 REACH 法规下的授权程序透明且资源高效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying non-essential uses to phase out substances of very high concern under REACH.

The essential use concept aims to better protect consumers, vulnerable groups, and the environment from the most harmful chemicals by phasing out uses considered non-essential for society. Given the lack of empirical research evaluating this novel approach for chemical management in real-world settings, the aims of the present analysis were to 1) investigate if the information provided in applications for authorisation under REACH allowed for the identification of non-essential uses of substances of very high concern (SVHCs), and 2) identify data gaps, challenges and potential needs for revising the assessment criteria to effectively implement the essential use concept in the REACH authorisation. In total, 100 uses covering 11 SVHCs were analysed. 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (OPnEO) and chromium trioxide were among the most frequently used substances, covering 42% and 35% of the analysed uses. Using the current essential use criteria, 55% of all analysed uses were categorised as essential, while 10% were categorised as non-essential. Potentially, authorisations would not have been granted for the identified non-essential uses under REACH if the concept had been implemented at the time. However, for 35% of the uses it was not possible to assess their essentiality and these uses were therefore categorised as "complex." These challenges were due to the multiple purposes of the technical function, lack of detailed information on the spectrum of end-uses, and difficulties in interpreting the essential use criteria. Consequently, for a successful implementation of the essential use concept, we recommend the European Commission to develop guidance for applicants and refine the essential use criteria to ensure a transparent and resource-efficient authorisation procedure under REACH.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信