Substitution can be accomplished by the use of an alternative, less hazardous substance. In many cases other technologies that do not need hazardous chemicals can be applied. We do not consider the reduction of exposures to dangerous substances, e.g. by means of protective or containment measures like extraction or waste water treatment plants, to be substitution. Case studies are real life situations meant to provide information on possible solutions for safer alternatives to chemicals but also to encourage others to follow the example.
Alternatives matching any of the criteria below will not be published by SUBSPORT. Please check the table before submitting a case story.
|CMR||CLP Regulation categ. 1A, 1B (Dir. 67/548, categ. 1 and 2)
IARC categ. 1, 2A, 2B
|(v)P(v)BT||REACH Regulation – Annex XIII
EC PBT Working Group
OSPAR List of substances of possible concern
|Endocrine disruptors||OECD Report
EU Endocrine disruptors database categ. 1, 2
SIN list database
|Neurotoxicants||Vela, Laborda, Garcia Study, 2003, categ. 2-4|
|Sensitization agents||CLP Regulation for H334, H317 (Dir. 67/548, for R42,R43)|
|Measures reducing the level of exposure||Measures that will only reduce the level of exposure by e.g. lowering the quantity of used substance, containing or extracting the emissions, water treatment, personal protective equipment|
Information published by SUBSPORT has to meet the following criteria.
Relevance: the issue is relevant to substitution as defined by SUBSPORT
Usefulness: the information is useful for the site users
Precision: information is not misleading
Actuality: information reflects current legal, technical situations
Clarity: the text is comprehensible as regarding terminology and concepts.
Completeness: information is sufficient to give an intelligible image on the matter described
Concision: unnecessary details are avoided
Reliability: the information is supported by documents (e.g. MSDS, reports, authorizations etc.), direct contact to information provider etc.