Practical insight into SSbD-guided innovation within plasticizers, flame retardants, surfactants value chains

GA n°101177608 1 This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement n°101177608. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union.Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. SSbD in der Praxis: Projekt PLANETS Clemens Wolf (BNN) Martin Himly (PLUS) Plattform Grüne Chemie - Zukunft:Chemie, SusChem-AT, Vienna Disclaimer: no specific details on the content of the cases can be given GA n°101177608 2 Background https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/fundingopportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizoneurope/eu-missions-horizon-europe_en Some EU policies: •Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability •Zero Pollution Action Plan •Circular Economy Action Plan •Biodiversity strategy •Critical Raw Materials Act •EU Goals for Air, Soil and Water •Farm to Fork strategy •Fit for 55 Package …call for twin green and digital transition to a sustainable, climate-neutral and circular as well as globally competitive and resilient economy GA n°101177608 3  Concrete actions to turn decarbonization into a driver of growth for European industries. FOCUS on: -energy-intensive industries such as steel, metals, and chemicals, that urgently need support to decarbonize, switch to clean energy, and tackle high costs, unfair global competition, and complex regulations -the clean-tech sector which is at the heart of future competitiveness and necessary for industrial transformation, circularity, and decarbonization  “IAMs” -circularity which aims to reduce waste and extend the life of materials by promoting recycling, reuse, and sustainable production. Maximizing EU’s limited resources and reducing overdependencies on third-country suppliers for raw materials is crucial for a competitive and resilient market. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu -competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal EU Clean Industrial Deal GA n°101177608 4 Background on SSbD PLANETS will demonstrate the applicability of the SSbD framework in 3 real-life industrial case studies (plasticizers, flame retardants, surfactants), developing safer & more sustainable alternatives to critical chemical materials! GA n°101177608 5 What is SSbD?  That is the Challenge! Safe & Sustainable by Design Hazard x exposure = risks •Human health effects •Worker/consumer exposure •Environmental exposure Life cycle impacts •Environmental (climate, biodiversity, resources, etc.) •Social (working conditions, human rights, etc.) •Financial (e.g., TCO, LCC) Functionality •Chemical, material, product, process, etc. •Trade-offs between dimensions •End-of-life SSbD holistic view, entire product lifecycle, value chains Exner TE, et al., 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2025.03.019 GA n°101177608 6 Current developments SSbD Framework Revision 2025 –Expected Timeline Expected EC Recommendation 2022 2023 JRC SSbD Case Studies 2024 JRC Methological Guideline 2025 Public survey on revised Framework 15.12.2025 Publication of revised Framework 2026 JRC Review on Safety and Sustainability JRC Framework published EC recommendation EU 2022/2510 SSbD Stakeholder Workshops IRISS SSbD Roadmap Second Feedback Period SSbD Stakeholder Workshop JRC New methodological guideline European Commission published the Communication ‘Advanced Materials for Industrial Leadership GA n°101177608 7 Initial SSbD Framework 2022/23 - Recap GA n°101177608 8 •New scoping analysis introduced: •Defines the SSbD system •Defines innovation goals and (re)design •Determines maturity of innovation and SSbD implementation •Sets decision rules and uncertainty considerations The revision builds on: Experience gained during testing (2023–2024) Methodological guidance improvements Emphasis on innovation as an enabler of EU competitiveness And connects SSbD with: EU Industrial Competitiveness goals Circularity, alternative feedstock, secondary materials markets Main Changes in the Revised 2025 SSbD Framework GA n°101177608 9 NO MORE STEPS 1-5 ?! Main Changes in the Revised 2025 SSbD Framework GA n°101177608 16 Surfactants Case Study •WHAT: Surface-active agents, or surfactants, are natural or synthetic molecules that facilitate the dispersion of substances that do not naturally combine •CHALLENGE: Polyethylene oxide (PEO) based surfactants  Environmental and safety concerns due to possible formation of dioxane in trace amounts •PLANETS APPROACH: Design safer alternative to PEO-based surfactants by replacing polyethylene oxide with polyglycerol based on a natural widely used chemical = safe for humans & environment! Leader: SYENSQO; SSbD lead: CEA GA n°101177608 17 Flame Retardants Case Study Leader: Fraunhofer ICT; SSbD lead: TNO •WHAT: FR are chemicals designed to prevent materials from igniting or to slow down the burning process •CHALLENGE: General health and safety concerns regarding low molecular-weight halogenated FRs for foam application e.g., SR130, FR720, TCPP •PLANETS APPROACH: Flame-retardant thermoplastic and thermoset foams containing new flame retardants developed by the Safe-and-Sustainable-by-Design approach = safe for humans & environment! GA n°101177608 18 Plasticizers Case Study Leader: IPC; SSbD lead: IPC •WHAT: “plasticizer” originates from the Greek word “plastikos” (πλαστικός), meaning “fit for molding” •CHALLENGE: Small molecules leaching from the polymer structure  Health hazards and environmental concerns •PLANETS APPROACH: Development of SSbD-based alternatives = safe for humans & environment! GA n°101177608 19 INTERACTIVE - MENTI SSbD – Impacts, Barriers and Opportunities GA n°101177608 20 GA n°101177608 21 For SSbD you need a plan  Scoping Develop scope Identify alternatives Assess hazards & exposure Assess performance: techn.,economic, social Compare alternatives and make decisions Implement Scoping determines the boundaries and provides focus for the SSbD assessment by answering the questions: •(Re)design definition: WHY (WHAT) •System definition: WHAT •Actors in the life cycle: WHO •The assessment: HOW Gallegos GML, et al., 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2025.07.030 GA n°101177608 22 Decision on acceptable alternatives 22 22 … a process of integrating information; a multi-criteria approach Physiochemical properties Hazard characteristics Intrinsic exposure potential Potential lifecycle trade-offs Technical feasibility Economic feasibility Availability of competences Evaluation criteria Benchmark better worse Gallegos GML, et al., 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2025.07.030 GA n°101177608 23 Assessing trade-offs & considering data gaps and quality 23 23 Data gaps / quality Score Alternative Ranking A1 x x x x x x 1 2 2 0 3 -1 = = = = = = 1 Total 2 A2 x x x x x x 3 1 2 -2 3 2 = = = = = = 31 A3 x x x x x x 2 -2 2 0 0 3 = = = = = = 03 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Weights Evaluation criteria GA n°101177608 24 WHY? WHO? WHAT? How? The PLANETS generic SSbD workflow A two phases approach aiming to guide the CS through SSbD: •Scoping – Formalise the system under study to ensure efficient SSbD assessments •Assessments – Conduct evaluations of the alternatives in comparison to a benchmark Develop scope Identify alternatives Assess hazards & exposure Assess performance: techn.,economic, social Compare alternatives and make decisions Implement GA n°101177608 25 PLANETS‘ Scoping at Zenodo Hofer, S., Hofstätter, N., Alfaro Serrano, B., Caldeira, C., Steck, J., & Himly, M. PLANETS 1st SSbD Training on Scoping. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15020167 GA n°101177608 32 SSbD assessment system Change Eliminate / Substitute Re-Design 32 32 System Use/need for function Product Process Material Substance of concern (SoC) Gallegos GML, et al., 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2025.07.030 GA n°101177608 33 Tier 1 assessment Innovation process Data availability Gate2 Gate3 Gate4 Product Idea & Screening Lab Scale Pilot scale Qualitative assessment Quantitative assessment Tools GA n°101177608 34 Reference Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 1.1 Is the human and/or environmental release of hazardous substances (Substances of very high concern, Equivalent level of concern, Substances of concern, or hazard band C, D, or E) likely at any stage of the product's life cycle? Yes Unknown No No 1.2 Is it likely that the CLP limit for hazardous substances will be exceeded in the final application, with a concentration greater than 0.1% w/w? Unknown No No No 1.3 Are substances which are relevant for upcoming regulations and/or industry/customer specific requirements likely to be present? e.g. SoCs present in ESPR relevant products, substances on Restriction Road Map (https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/49734) or on the chemicals convention list. No Yes No Unknown 2.1 Do you identify the potential use/applicability of the final material/product? No Yes Yes Unknown 2.2 At any life cycle stage, is your material or product in powder form and/or is it possible that dust or aerosols are released? No No Yes No 2.2a If yes, does your material contain rigid, persistent fibres (length > 5 µm and diameter < 3 µm)? Unknown Unknown Unknown No 2.3 Is your material, product multi-component? Yes Unknown No Yes 2.4 At any life cycle stage, is your material or product in a liquid/vapour (with vapour pressure > 1 Pa) and/or is it possible that vapours are released? No Yes No Yes 2.5 Is there a possibility of substantial material breakdown during production, use and/or end of life? No Yes No Yes 2.6 Is there a possibility of (in)direct contact with worker and/or consumer skin? No No Yes Yes 2.7 Are there any exposure prevention measure(s) applied at the workplace? No Yes Yes Unknown 2.8 Is there a possibility of oral consumer exposure? Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 3.1 Are non-sustainable renewable raw materials or conflicting minerals or critical raw materials used during production? No Yes No 3.2 What is the impact of the new material or product compared to the conventional material or product on the following sustainable development category: Climate change mitigation & energy conservation?* (Click on this cell for more information) Equal Equal Positive 3.3 What is the impact of the new material or product compared to the conventional material or product on the following sustainable development category: Circular economy?* (Click on this cell for more information) Negative Unknown Unknown 3.4 What is the impact of the new material or product compared to the conventional material or producton on the following sustainable development category: Resource efficiency?* (Click on this cell for more information) Unknown Unknown Unknown 3.5 What is the impact of the new material or product compared to the conventional material or producton on the following sustainable development category: Pollution reduction?* (Click on this cell for more information) Equal Equal Negative 3.6 What is the impact of the new material or product compared to the conventional material or producton on the following sustainable development category: Water protection?* (Click on this cell for more information) Negative Equal Positive 3.7 What is the impact of the new material or product compared to the conventional material or product on the following sustainable development category: Biodiversity protection?* (Click on this cell for more information) Equal Equal Equal 3.8 What is the impact of the new material or product compared to the conventional material or product on the following sustainable development category: Health safety?* (Click on this cell for more information) Equal Unknown Unknown 4.1 Is the marketability of the new material or product better or equal to the benchmark due to, for instance, improved or new functionality or a clear image advantage? (Click on this cell for more information) Yes No No 4.2 Is the foreseen production tonnage of the new material or product ≥ 1 tonne per year? Calendar year is from 1 Jan to 31 Dec. No Yes No 4.3 Is the foreseen market potential of the new material or product ≥ 1M€ in Europe? Unknown Unknown Yes 4.4 Is the (expected) purchase price per unit of the new material or product lower or equal to the benchmark? No No Yes 4.5 Are the capital expenditures and operational costs (e.g. maintenance, energy use) during the production and/or use phase of the new product or application lower or equal to the benchmark? No Yes No 4.6 What is the aggregated probability of success to manufacture of the new product on a commercial scale? >50% 10% to 50% <10% 5.1 Compared to the benchmark, does the new material or product development lead to the deterioration of basic rights & needs of the workers, consumers, including children, and on the local community? (Click on this cell for more information) No No No 5.2 Compared to the benchmark, does the new material or product development lead to an improvement in creating new jobs, development of new skills, knowledge and employability, society's economic/technologic/sustainable development? Yes No Unknown 5.3 Compared to the benchmark, does the new material or product development allow for fair competition, good supplier relationships and respect of intellectual property rights? No Yes Yes 5.4 What is the impact on the following sustainable development category: zero hunger?* (Click on this cell for more information) Unknown Equal Positive 1: Hazard Dimension 3: Environmental impact 4: Economic performance 5: Social 2: Release and exposure Topic Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Release of hazardous susbtances ?10 10 CLP limit exceeded 10 10 10 Upcoming regulation relevant substances -10 10 ? HAZARD Improvement Improvement Improvement Applicability 10 10 ? Dust or aerosol generation 10 -10 10 Persistent fibers ? ? 10 Multi-component ?10 -10 Vapour release -10 10 -10 Substantial materail breakdown -10 10 -10 Skin (in)direct contact 10 -10 -10 Workplace exposure measures 10 10 ? Oral consumer exposure ??? EXPOSURE and RELEASE Improvement Improvement Degradation Non-sustainable renewable or critical raw materials or conflicting minerals 10 -10 10 Climate change & energy 0 0 10 Circular economy -10 ? ? Resource efficiency ? ? ? Pollution reduction 0 0 -10 Water protection -10 010 Biodiversity 000 Health safety 0?? ENVIRONMENT Degradation Equal No Result Marketability 10 -10 -10 Production tonnage -10 10 -10 Financial market potential ? ? 10 Expected purchase price -10 -10 10 Capital expenditures and operational costs -10 10 -10 Probability of sucess 10 0-10 ECONOMY Degradation Equal Degradation Human basic rights and needs 000 New jobs, knowledge and skills 10 -10 ? Fair competetition and IP rights -10 10 10 Zero hunger ?010 SOCIAL Equal Equal Improvement Corresponding questions SCORE Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 3.1 and 1.2 C-- No strong negative Strong negative No strong negative 1.3 and 5.1 CNegative No negative Maybe Negative 3.2 to 3.8 and 5.4 B No Neutral No Neutral No Neutral 5.2 and 5.3 A+ No positive No positive No positive 5.2 and 5.3 A++ No strong positive No strong positive Maybe strong positive Conclusion to be wirtten by the SSbD expert in charge of the assessment Points of attention!! Human and/or environmental exposure to hazardous substances used or released thr Unknown Uncertain potential exposure to released forms and components of the material, whic Human exposure via inhalation and environmental relase likely Human and environmental exposure to transformed and/or released forms likely Dermal occupational and/or consumer exposure is uncertain Potential economic performance or economic opportunities are uncertain due to unk Economic performance might suffer or limited economic opportunities due to high pu Economic performance might suffer or limited economic opportunities due to high CA Tier 1 assessment tool GA n°101177608 35 PLANETS‘ Tier 1 at Zenodo Shandilya, N., Steck, J., Hofer, S., Hofstätter, N., & Himly, M. PLANETS SSbD Training on Tier 1 Assessment. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15116118 GA n°101177608 36 •1. Confidentiality issues of open access tools for hazard assessment (Vega & OECD QSAR Toolbox can be downloaded, instructions how to use); Diamonds tools, Stoffenmanager, etc. •2. Functionality inclusion to SSbD assessment procedure  HOW TO? •3. Methodology: •Clustering procedure to be defined (in case of many alternatives) •Integration of risk assessment with LCA: comparative vs absolute dilemma •Harmonized data collection (metrics, etc.) •Uncertainty management •Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): transparent decision points, weighting, optimization under uncertainty, stakeholders, etc. Gaps identified & actions prioritized GA n°101177608 37 •4. Simplified (Tier 1) assessment refinement: •Decision tree needs to be made adaptable (CRM, CLP limits, etc.) •The simplified assessment is not suitable for differentiation in narrow design space (applicability domain); it should be done in project teams of a single stakeholder (e.g., innovators and others, incl. business) •Care with showstoppers, because it may kick out the whole preselected design space (how to compensate trade-offs ?) •Need for weighting of aspects carried in from scoping •Need for an intra-tier 1 iterative assessment approach rather than a straightforward strategy to follow more closely the intrinsic learning curve of any innovation •5. Tools: •Issues of by-products to be included in the SSbD assessment (storage, manufacture, etc.) •Tool for hazard prediction of new substances missing (e.g., read-across incl. uncertainty captured; OECD QSAR Toolbox) Gaps identified & actions prioritized GA n°101177608 38 •6. Scoping: •Use phase definition  to be described •Stakeholder perspective depending on the position in the value chain •Concept of exposure scenarios not clear enough •Better goal description/instructions of “Motivation for re-design” •Needs a multi-disciplinary approach •Must capture existing policy hard facts and minimum requirements •Relies on (and should lead to) a common understanding of the system under investigation •Link between scoping phase and assessment phase  essential outcomes from scoping phase have to directly flow into the assessment phase •Shared mindset necessary that scoping has a descriptive function of the existing system (value flow, boundaries, policies, priorities, decision rules, weighting), while tiered assessment is investigative going beyond that and with inclusion of the alternatives. Gaps identified & actions prioritized GA n°101177608 39 Dissemination and science to public To communicate complex topics and their importance to the general public, and to share project results with all stakeholder groups, the PLANETS project is creating leaflets on all three case studies. These leaflets will explain, in an appealing graphical format, why these specific chemicals are needed, what functions they have and the difficulties associated with them, as well as how SSbD is helping to develop new substitutes. GA n°101177608 40 For one of the plasticizers applications, to better understand (parents’) expectations and preferences regarding baby products such as spoons and teethers, PLANETS has created this anonymous survey: Consumer needs for baby products – Have your say! We would be very thankful to get your opinion! https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/b6207bf2-106f-047f-2fa2-5d8c9bd448b5 GA n°101177608 41 Building on ANTHOS’24, this second EU-supported edition unites researchers, SMEs, industry, and policymakers to advance the safe & sustainable development of advanced materials, nanomaterials, chemicals, and related technologies. What to expect: •Needs Sessions & Round Table: Stakeholders voice real-world challenges •Solutions Sessions & Posters: Science responds with methods & tools •Conclusions & Outlook: Action items, future directions, and pathways for impact Register here https://www.bnn.at/ events/anthos26/ Find all information on