Background: Given increasing pressures for hazardous chemical replacement, there is growing interest in alternatives assessment to avoid substituting a toxic chemical with another of equal or greater concern. Alternatives assessment is a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those used in materials, processes, or technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability.

Objectives: The purposes of this substantive review of alternatives assessment frameworks are to identify consistencies and differences in methods and to outline needs for research and collaboration to advance science policy practice.

Methods: This review compares methods used in six core components of these frameworks: hazard assessment, exposure characterization, life-cycle impacts, technical feasibility evaluation, economic feasibility assessment, and decision making. Alternatives assessment frameworks published from 1990 to 2014 were included.

Results: Twenty frameworks were reviewed. The frameworks were consistent in terms of general process steps, but some differences were identified in the end points addressed. Methodological gaps were identified in the exposure characterization, life-cycle assessment, and decision–analysis components. Methods for addressing data gaps remain an issue.

Discussion: Greater consistency in methods and evaluation metrics is needed but with sufficient flexibility to allow the process to be adapted to different decision contexts.

Conclusion: Although alternatives assessment is becoming an important science policy field, there is a need for increased cross-disciplinary collaboration to refine methodologies in support of the informed substitution and design of safer chemicals, materials, and products. Case studies can provide concrete lessons to improve alternatives assessment.

Citation: Jacobs MM, Malloy TF, Tickner JA, Edwards S. 2016. Alternatives assessment frameworks: research needs for the informed substitution of hazardous chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 124:265–280; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409581

Address correspondence to M.M. Jacobs, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, 1 University Ave., Lowell, MA 01854 USA. Telephone: (978) 934-4943. E-mail: [email protected]

This review was supported in part by a grant to the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell from the Marisla Foundation ( https://online.foundationsource.com/publ​ic/home/marisla ).

The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.

Received: 10 December 2014 Accepted: 28 August 2015 Advance Publication: 4 September 2015 Final Publication: 1 March 2016

Note to readers with disabilities: EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected] . Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.