. 2015 Sep 4;124(3):265–280. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1409581

Table 2.

Hazard assessment end points (most frequently addressed, not comprehensive) (n = 20).

Framework name (reference)	Physicochemical							Human toxicity													Ecological toxicity				Other workplace hazards
	C–CorrosivityEx–ExplosivityF/FP–Flammability/flash pointO–OxidizingR–ReactivityVP–Vapor pressureWS–Water solubility							AT–Acute mammalian toxicityC–CarcinogenicityD–DevelopmentalED–Endocrine disruption^aE I/C–Eye irritation/corrosivityG–GenotoxicityM–MutagenicityN–NeurotoxicityOEL–Occupational exposure limits R–ReproductiveRSn–Respiratory sensitivitySI–Skin irritationSnS–Skin sensitivity													AqT–Aquatic toxicity B–BioaccumulationP–PersistenceW/T–Wildlife/ terrestrial ecotoxicity				Er–ErgonomicsExC–Excessive coldExH–Excessive heatN–Noise O–OdorR–RadiationS–Stress (demand/control)V–Vibration
	C	Ex	F/FP	O	R	VP	WS	AT	C	D	ED	E I/C	G	M	N	OEL	R	RSn	SI	SnS	AqT	B	P	W/T	Er	ExC	ExH	N	O	R	S	V
Goldschmidt 1993								✓	✓			✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
U.S. EPA CSTA (Kincaid et al. 1996)	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓		✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Rosenberg et al. 2001									✓					✓	✓		✓	✓	✓						✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (Rossi et al. 2006)
MA TURI (Eliason and Morose 2011; MA TURI 2006)	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓		✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
P2OSH (Quinn et al. 2006)	✓		✓			✓		✓	✓			✓					✓	✓	✓	✓			✓		✓				✓
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC 2007)									✓		✓						✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
TRGS 600 (BAuA AGS 2008)	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓		✓	✓			✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
UNEP Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee’s General Guidance on Alternatives (UNEP 2009)									✓	✓	✓			✓	✓		✓					✓	✓
U.S. EPA DFE Program (Lavoie et al. 2010; U.S. EPA 2011a)	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
BizNGO (includes GreenScreen^®) (Rossi et al. 2011)			✓		✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
German Guide on Sustainable Chemicals (Reihlen et al. 2011)		✓	✓	✓		✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
UCLA Sustainable Policy & Technology Program (Malloy et al. 2011, 2013)		✓	✓	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓		✓				✓				✓			✓
REACH (ECHA 2011)^b									✓					✓			✓
U.S. EPA SNAP Program (U.S. EPA 2011b)			✓			✓	✓					✓			✓	✓			✓		✓	^f	^f
European Commission DGE (Gilbert et al. 2012)	✓	✓	✓		✓			✓	✓	✓		✓		✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓			✓				✓
Ontario Toxics Use Reduction Program 2012	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓			✓		✓	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓
OSHA 2013^c	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓					✓			✓				✓
Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2 2013)^d			✓		✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
NAS (NRC 2014)^e	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
These end points reflect those explicitly noted in the sources reviewed above either in lists or in the narrative.^aThe NAS and U.S. EPA DFE frameworks as well as frameworks using the GreenScreen® (CPA 2014), including IC2 and BizNGO include “Endocrine Activity” rather than “Endocrine Disruption” as an end point. ^bThe REACH framework references the use of physicochemical characteristics, although it does not specify which to evaluate. Beyond referencing CMRs (carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxicants) there is not a list of specific health end points to consider in the REACH guidance document. ^cThe OSHA framework includes “use hazards” within the hazard assessment framework, including the physical form of the chemical as well as process/handling characteristics. ^dThe IC2 framework allows for different levels of assessment. End points noted reflect the most comprehensive level. Some occupational hazards (e.g., temperature) are captured in other assessment modules. ^eThe NAS framework includes physicochemical, health hazard, and ecotoxicity end points as different hazard assessment steps; persistence and bioaccumulation are included in the set of physicochemical end points, not ecotoxicity; wildlife toxicity in the NAS framework is broad and includes both terrestrial plants and animals. ^fThese end points captured under exposure characterization.