English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Existing methods used to screen chemical inventories for hazardous substances that may pose risks to humans and the environment are evaluated with a holistic mass balance modeling approach. The model integrates persistence (P), bioaccumulation (B), toxicity (T), and quantity (Q) information for a specific substance to assess chemical exposure, hazard, and risk. P and B are combined in an exposure assessment factor (EAF), P, B, and T in a hazard assessment factor (HAF), and P, B, T, and Q in a risk assessment factor (RAF) providing single values for transparent comparisons of exposure, hazard, and risk for priority setting. This holistic approach is illustrated using 200 Canadian Domestic Substances List(DSL) chemicals and 12 United Nations listed Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Priority setting results are evaluated with those of multiple category-based screening methods employed by Environment Canada and applied elsewhere that use cutoff criteria in multiple categories (P, B, and T) to identify hazardous chemicals for more comprehensive evaluations. Existing methods have categorized the DSL chemicals as either higher priority (requiring further assessment; screened in) or lower priority (requiring no further action at this time; screened out). The priority setting results of the cutoff-based categorization are largely inconsistent with the proposed integrated method, and reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. Many chemicals screened out using existing methods have equivalent or greater risk potential than chemicals screened in. Decisions for screening assessments using binary classification on the basis of cutoff criteria can be flawed, and complementary holistic methods for priority setting evaluations such as the one proposed should be considered.

Policies for Chemical Hazard and Risk Priority Setting: Can Persistence, Bioaccumulation, Toxicity, and Quantity Information Be Combined?