essay about avoiding using harmful materials

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Waste Not, if You Want to Help Secure the Future of the Planet

By Tatiana Schlossberg

• May 12, 2019

If there’s one vital, but underappreciated, subject in the conversation about climate change, it’s waste: how to define it, how to create less of it, how to deal with it without adding more pollution to the planet or the atmosphere.

The issue has gained some acceptance, whether in the form of plastic straw bans or anxiety about e-commerce-related cardboard piling up.

But experts say these aren’t necessarily the biggest problems. Reducing the damage from waste might require expanding the traditional definition of waste — not just as old-fashioned garbage, but as a result of wild inefficiency in all kinds of systems, which often results in emissions of greenhouse gases, among other problems.

Companies and organizations around the world are taking on the challenge. Some are using materials traditionally considered waste and making them into something entirely new — and often unrelated — to their original purpose.

Others are avoiding the creation of waste through greater efficiency and new technologies. Here are three examples of efforts underway:

A British company trying to revolutionize the animal feed industry

When Keiran Whitaker was working as a scuba diving instructor, witnessing the destruction of tropical rain forests, often because of industrial food production, he decided he needed to put his environmental design degree to good use.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Net Zero Features
• Conscious Living Essentials
• Geothermal Energy Installers
• Planet Earth
• Climate Policy
• Sustainability

Environmental Problems in Schools and How to Address Them

We are reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn affiliate commission.

Environmental awareness is increasing all around the world. This normalization of green thinking has formed a shift in the education system. Classes that address eco-friendliness are now present in many school curriculums. However, are these establishments practicing what they preach?

Schools affect the environment in four fundamental ways: food waste, general waste management, energy use, and water management. When these areas get neglected, they cause significant environmental issues. However, schools that adopt green practices to improve areas of concern reduce their carbon footprints. 

One can approach these obstacles with practical solutions by evaluating a school’s management of certain features. Informing staff, educators, and students of core environmental problems in schools and solutions enables community efforts to achieve sustainability.

An educational establishment’s inadequate food disposal impacts environmental degradation and significantly eats into a school’s budget. Studies show kids in the United States waste 50% of the food on their plates — primarily fruits and vegetables. This is significantly more than other countries, adding up to 540,000 tons of wasted food annually. 

Of course, food waste is more than simply throwing away a nutritional resource. When you dispose of uneaten products, you contribute to unnecessary transportation waste from carbon emissions. Some of the foods we purchase are outsourced from countries with environmentally destructive practices — these nations over-farm and cause soil depletion. The disposal of adequate food supports these avoidable forms of environmental degradation.

Schools can challenge food waste production by following the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) food recovery hierarchy. This method suggests limiting disposal by reducing the amount of food cooked , donating to soup kitchens, reusing excess for animal feed, donating oils for industrial use, composting, and disposing of food in the garbage as a last resort.

Educational establishments can utilize this EPA method by:

• Creating a menu form for kids to fill out regarding the next day’s lunch
• Developing a shared food table for uneaten goods
• Crafting an on-site compost
• Donating to local soup kitchens biweekly

This waste reduction method also has the potential to teach students about giving back to their community. Donating leftover food and compost ensures low-income households get their next meal. 

General Waste Management

A lack of recycling and waste management education has created a challenge for school sustainability. For instance, out of 2,000 Americans, 62% worry about recycling incorrectly — 68% think they can recycle plastic utensils, while 54% believe a greasy pizza box is recyclable.

Consider the many items students, teachers, and staff throw away daily — plastic bottles, paper, and other materials could instead be donated or reused. Adopting recycling habits can shift awareness of how resources get utilized in the classroom.  

Schools can reduce their waste and dispose of it responsibly in various ways, such as the following:

• Craft material-specific disposal bins to inform everyone proper waste management
• Develop a sustainability club with student presentations
• Create mandatory waste management training for staff
• Reduce paper use by emailing parents important documents
• Avoid printing and routing school memos — email them instead
• Donate extra materials to thrift stores and supply drives
• Prioritize recycling, such as using recycled materials for art projects
• Encourage students to use the fronts and backs of papers
• Create an online classroom portal
• Install motion sensor hand dryers in bathrooms

Educating students on recycling properly is the most crucial way to reduce general waste. However, you can make learning fun by holding contests to see which grades or classrooms recycle the most materials. 

The classroom can become greener by implementing environmental education and sustainable waste practices. Students like to put their knowledge to work in the real world, so including them in these processes will aid learning and community development. Sorting is also a fun practice that keeps students engaged in school.

Schools spend over $6 billion a year on energy — for perspective, they spend more money on energy consumption than textbooks and other teaching materials. Most of this energy use also comes from devices not conducive to learning.

Classroom electronic devices drive excess energy consumption and disrupt students’ focus. Many children retain information more adequately using a pencil and paper than a projector and a laptop. According to one study, writing by hand increased information recall, while students demonstrated a 25% increase in note-taking than those using technology.

Limiting school energy consumption can aid in deep learning, save money, and conserve the environment. To reduce energy use in schools, one should:

• Turn off the lights more or rely on natural lighting
• Set the thermostat to an energy-efficient temperature
• Encourage the school community to wear weather-appropriate clothing
• Install energy-efficient lightbulbs
• Use the school budget to install solar panels
• Plug devices into energy-efficient power strips
• Upgrade cafeteria kitchen appliances for more efficient models
• Hold class outdoors

Get students involved in energy-saving habits by assigning special jobs. These can include someone turning the lights on and off or asking a tech-savvy kid to shut down electronics at the end of the day. Doing this enables students to take ownership of their energy consumption and encourages them to continue their new practices at home.

Water Management

The United States is the third-highest water-consuming country globally, withdrawing 444,300,000,000 liters per year — much of this gets wasted. 

Households account for nearly 10,000 gallons of wasted water each year — now imagine how much water schools consume without sustainability initiatives. Excessive water consumption derives from worn toilet flappers, dripping taps, and leaky valves. To reduce unsustainable water practices, one can:

• Place signs to remind everyone to turn off the faucet and report leaks
• Have cleaning staff conduct weekly toilet checks
• Check hoses and outdoor taps to ensure they’re leak-free
• Evaluate the school’s water bill to track leaks and usage
• Install low-flow toilets in all bathrooms — efficient models save 13,000 gallons more water than standard models
• Install motion sensor sinks

Teachers should incorporate water conservation into classroom lessons. Students will then understand water scarcity and how to improve their water footprint.

Indoor Air Quality

IAQ became a more significant concern during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic because of how easily it spread in places like schools. It made many boards of education realize how old and outdated the HVAC and air monitoring systems were. However, this leads to air pollution indoors that impacts student health, which eventually goes outside to spread.

People spend 90% of their time indoors , meaning air quality is one of the top most influential factors in public health and pollutant control. Taking action to improve IAQ in any school building includes any of the following:

• Hire professionals to perform building envelope and HVAC audits.
• Schedule regular maintenance for equipment, like filters.
• Support funding and initiatives related to healing district IAQ.
• Invest in improved ventilation systems.
• Create strict outdoor smoking policies to prevent secondhand exposure.
• Choose cleaning sprays with no chemicals.

Climate-Specific Educational Resources

Many schools ignore teaching students about the climate crisis when it is one of the most essential science topics in the modern era. Without these lessons as a catalyst, students won’t know about or feel inspired to pursue environmental educational tracks in higher education, such as climate consultancy, renewable energy, or animal conservation.

What can teachers do to encourage science-based climate education? First, they can discuss with board members to obtain the right textbooks. Many glaze over the subject or dismiss anthropogenic climate change as an essential player. Doing due diligence by finding a well-balanced text is crucial.

Additionally, educators must remain fearless. Climate change is scientifically proven, yet it remains a politically contentious topic. Some parents may find it divisive and even immoral to teach these subjects, but this shouldn’t deter schools from relaying the truth about Earth’s well-being.

If students received comprehensive education in schools about the climate, it could mitigate eco-anxiety young people experience as they self-teach themselves about the planet’s health through independent research and social media exposure.

Upcoming generations are digital natives, and schools are embracing this by providing students with more technological opportunities than ever. One of the most disappointing portrayals of this are the mountains of 31 million Chromebooks that schools issued to students that ended up in landfill. E-waste is one of the most pervasive, toxic pollutants on the planet with few regulations guarding soil and waterways from their influence.

Schools must adjust their tech strategy not only to save money but to save the Earth. They must distribute computers and peripherals only when necessary, when it facilitates online learning, or if it helps less-privileged students improve digital literacy and access. Too many devices have been distributed and exploited or thrown away prematurely. Education must institute stronger mandates on proper usage and maintenance to keep them for longer.

Communication Is Key

Reaching out to staff and students can allow for environmental problems in schools to be addressed. Building a community that understands these issues will increase sustainability practices. When a community works together to create these changes, it saves the school money and conserves the environment.

Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Like what you read? Join other Environment.co readers!

Get the latest updates on our planet by subscribing to the Environment.co newsletter!

About the author

Bidet vs. Toilet Paper: Which Is Better for You — and the Environment?

Harvest Hues: 6 Fall Garden Ideas to Elevate Your Yard

10 Top Trends That Are Shaping Sustainability in 2024 

Like or Dislike? Social Media and Sustainability’s Influential Relationship

7 Companies Making Waves with Sustainable Investing 

Accessible Ideas for Self-Sufficient Living

Press Releases

• WVE in the News
• Board + Staff
• Our Business Partners
• Jobs + Internships
• Quit the Quats!
• Health First: A Cleaning Products Industry Roadmap for Selecting Safer Chemicals
• Beyond the Label: Health Impacts of Harmful Ingredients in Cleaning Products
• EXPOSED: Ingredients in Salon Products & Salon Worker Health and Safety
• Brazilian Blowout
• Intimate Care Products
• Johnson and Johnson’s Toxic Talc: A Timeline Toward Victory
• Menstrual Equity
• Fragrance Ingredients
• Fact Sheets
• Non-Toxic DIY Recipes

10 Steps to Avoid Toxic Chemicals

• Green Parent Guide
• Baby Products – Chemicals to Avoid
• Take Action
• Coronavirus

En Español | Share Your Story | Get Involved | Press | Voices News

1. Make Your Own Cleaning Products

• It’s easy, fun, and cheap to make non-toxic cleaners from safe and effective ingredients like vinegar and baking soda. Find recipes here. Or better yet, host a Green Cleaning Party to make these non-toxic cleaners with friends in your community!

1 THE FACTS: Certain chemicals in cleaning products have been linked to reduced fertility, birth defects, increased risk of breast cancer, asthma, and hormone disruption.

2. Avoid Fragrance

• Shop for cleaners, laundry detergents, and personal care products labeled “fragrance-free” Warning: “Unscented” does not always mean fragrance-free!
• Don’t use air fresheners.  Click here  for tips to reduce odors around the home naturally.

2 THE FACTS: Fragrance can be made up hundreds of chemicals, which companies are legally allowed to keep secret. Common fragrance chemicals include phthalates (linked to reproductive and developmental harm) and allergens .

3. Give Your Personal Care Products a Makeover

• Read the label to avoid chemicals like parabens, sodium laureth sulfate, and oxybenzone.
• Check the Skin Deep database at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com to find safer products.
• Use fewer products, and use them less frequently to reduce exposures.

3 THE FACTS: Personal care products contain a wide variety of chemicals, including some known to be of concern, and many that lack research to prove safety for women’s health. These products are applied directly to our skin where they are easily absorbed into our bodies.

4. Go “BPA-Free”

• Ditch the canned foods when possible and opt for fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables instead.
• Look for products packaged in glass or lined cardboard instead of cans.
• Don’t take paper receipts at ATMS, grocery stores, etc. unless you really need them.

4 THE FACTS: Bisphenol-A (BPA) is commonly found in can liners, plastic products  and paper receipts . BPA exposure is linked to a host of hormone-related health impacts such as increased risk of cancer, infertility and obesity. And unfortunately, studies find BPS — BPA’s replacement chemical — isn’t any safer than BPA.  Learn more .

5. Quit the Quats

• Reduce your use of disinfectant products.
• Avoid antibacterial handsoaps, hand sanitizers and cleaning products which contain quaternary ammonium compounds (quats). Check the front label and avoid products which contain ingredients that include “… onium chloride ” in their names, like Benzalk onium chloride.

5 THE FACTS: Quats are skin irritants, can irritate your lungs and have been linked to asthma, fertility issues and reproductive harm. The over use of quats can also lead to the promotion of antibacterial-resistant bacteria (“super-bugs”).

6. Choose Alternatives to Plastics (where possible)

• Use glass jars or ceramic bowls to store food.
• Never microwave plastic. Wash plastics by hand – not in the dishwasher.
• Avoid plastics with recycle symbols #3 (PVC), #6 (polystyrene), and #7 (other) which have greater potential to leach toxics and are difficult to recycle.

6 THE FACTS: Plastic products can contain toxic additives such as phthalates, heavy metals and other compounds which leach out over time. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), known as the poison plastic, is found in plastic products from toys and cookware to shower curtains.

7. Keep Harmful Chemicals Out of the House

• Take of your shoes before entering your house to avoid tracking in oils and chemicals from the street outside.
• Use a door mat to catch dirt at the door.
• Dust with a micro-fiber cloth or wet cloth and vacuum your house regularly (with a HEPA-filter vaccuum if you can).

7 THE FACTS: Shoes can track in toxic chemicals like lawn pesticides, coal tar from a driveway, etc. Dust carries harmful chemicals that shed off of household furniture, electronics, and other household products.

8. Turn Down the Heat on Non-Stick Cookware

• Keep the stove at or below medium heat when using Teflon or non-stick cookware.
• Opt for cast iron or stainless steel pans for cooking when possible.

8 THE FACTS: Teflon releases perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) when heated to 450 degrees. PFOA is linked to developmental harm and cancer.

9. Ditch the Air Fresheners

• Eliminate odor – Identify the smell and eliminate or prevent it. Check out our tips for reducing odors around the home.
• Open a window – Ventilating your home with outdoor air has been shown to reduce symptoms associated with asthma, allergies and infections.
• Set out a bouquet of fresh or dried flowers to add a floral scent to your home.
• Simmer herbs or spices on the stove. Try seasonal alternatives like pine cones, pine needles, or cinnamon.

9 THE FACTS: Air fresheners add unnecessary chemicals to your home including ones that may disrupt your hormones.

10. Join Women’s Voices for the Earth!

• Exercise your power to ensure a healthy future!
• Sign up to receive action alerts, latest news, and tips for reducing toxic exposures.
• Donate to our work to eliminate toxic chemicals that harm women’s health.

Voices’ News

Search Women’s Voices

Sign-up today.

Atlanta Green Recycling +1-404-666-4633

Drop Off @ 1835 South Cobb Ind Blvd SE, GA 30082

What Is Waste Segregation, and Why Is It Important?

We all know it’s important to reduce , reuse , and recycle . But what does that mean? And why is it important to be mindful of our waste?

Reducing waste means using less stuff. It’s about using less paper, plastic , water , and energy. Why? Because using less stuff reduces the amount of pollution that goes into the air, water, and land.

Reusing means using something again. It’s about finding new ways to use old things. Why? Because it takes less energy and resources to reuse something than to make something new.

Recycling means turning something that would be wasted into something that can be used again. Why? Because recycling saves energy and resources, and it helps reduce pollution.

So, why is it important to be mindful of our waste? Because waste reduction , reuse, and recycling are important ways to protect our environment.

In today’s article, let’s explore waste segregation, another essential aspect of being mindful of our waste. Here’s what you need to know :

What Is Waste Segregation?

Waste segregation separates different types of waste so that it can be recycled or disposed of more effectively. By segregating waste, we can reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill and recycle more materials .

There are many types of waste, and each type should be segregated into its bin. The most common types of waste are general, recyclable , and hazardous .

General waste is any waste that cannot be recycled. This includes food waste, packaging, and other household items. Recyclable waste includes paper, plastic, metal, and glass. Hazardous waste includes chemicals, batteries , and electronic waste .

Waste segregation is important because it helps to reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill. It also makes recycling more effective, as different materials can be recycled more easily when separated.

The Benefits of Waste Segregation

Most people are aware of the importance of recycling and the benefits it has for the environment. However, many people are not aware of the benefits of waste segregation. By segregating your waste, you can make a big difference in the amount of waste sent to the landfill.

Waste segregation is the process of separating your waste into different types. This can include separating your organic waste from your recyclable waste. By doing this, you can ensure that your waste is sent to the correct place for disposal.

One of the biggest benefits of waste segregation is that it can help reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills . Landfills are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. By segregating your waste, you can help reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills and therefore help reduce your carbon footprint.

Another benefit of waste segregation is that it can help reduce waste disposal costs. By segregating your waste, you can ensure that your waste is sent to the most appropriate disposal facility. This can help to reduce the overall cost of waste disposal.

Waste segregation can also help to improve the efficiency of waste disposal. By segregating your waste, you can ensure the waste is sent to the correct facility for disposal. This can help to reduce the amount of time and resources that are required for waste disposal.

Overall, waste segregation is a great way to impact the environment positively. By segregating your waste, you can help reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills, reduce the cost of waste disposal, and improve the efficiency of waste disposal.

The Bottom Line

The importance of waste segregation cannot be overstated. By segregating waste, we can ensure that recyclable and non-recyclable materials are disposed of properly. This protects our environment and helps to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills.

If you’re looking for an electronic recycling center , we can help you. At Atlanta Green Recycling , we have a convenient and cost-effective e-waste disposal service that will meet your requirements . Our services are tailored to help organizations dispose of their e-waste hassle-free! We provide complete sustainable , cost-effective solutions for recycling and disposal of electronics . Contact us today to learn more and get started!

• Category: Atlanta Recycling Services

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions
• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental law and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

How to reduce the impacts of single-use plastic products

Single-use plastic products (SUPPs) may epitomize convenience, but with the damage they cause through production, distribution and litter, they are a major threat to environmental and human health.

The open burning of plastic waste, consumption of plastic-contaminated seafood and creation of harmful microplastics are just some reasons why SUPPs should be phased out.

Eliminating plastic product pollution is an important component of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration .

The UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP’s) recent report From Pollution to Solution shows there is currently between 75-199 million tons of plastic waste in the ocean, and in 2016 some 9-14 tons of waste entered the aquatic ecosystem. It is estimated that by 2040, this will have almost tripled to 23-37 million tons per year. Plastics are the largest, most harmful and most persistent of marine litter, accounting for at least 85 per cent of all marine waste.

But experts say, simply binning SUPPs and switching to single-use products made of other materials is not the solution.

“It is the single-use nature of products that is the most problematic for the planet, more so than the material that they’re made of,” says Claudia Giacovelli, Programme Officer of the UNEP Life Cycle Unit. “The best solution may not be the same in all societies but taking a life cycle approach can help in setting the base towards the right decision.”

So how can we phase out SUPPs and what are the alternatives?

Here are some recommendations from UNEP and the Life Cycle Initiative’s meta-analyses of life cycle assessment studies on SUPPs :

Opt for reusable alternatives

Prioritizing reusable products is not only critical for environmental health, but it can also be cost-effective. Businesses that allow consumers to bring their own bags, cups or containers can save on SUPP-associated supply and storage expenditure, while customers can avoid potentially paying extra for shopping bags or containers.

Cotton and non-woven polypropylene shopping bags are increasingly common, as are reusable and portable plastic and stainless steel bottles, cups, and tableware. Reusability is also increasingly viable for personal hygiene products, through products like silicone menstrual cups and cloth nappies.

Turn ‘single-use’ into ‘multi-use’

The more any product is reused, the lower its environmental impact. When consumers can’t avoid SUPPs, they should mitigate their environmental impact by reusing them when possible instead of immediately disposing of them. For example, durable single-use plastic bags, bottles, cups, tableware, and take-away food packaging can be reused or repurposed.

Single-use alternatives made of other materials are not intrinsically better, meaning that they should be reused when possible too. Such as, a paper shopping bag may need to be used four to eight times to have a lower environmental impact than one single-use plastic bag.

Design products with circularity and end-of-life consideration

Consumers should not shoulder the entire burden of decreasing the impacts of SUPP. Guided by policymaker and retailer action, products should be designed to be both lightweight and durable to maximize reusability. Production should be sustainable, such as by using renewable energy and recycled materials.

Sourcing locally and avoiding air-freight transported goods is another way to reduce the environmental impact of products over their life cycle. Finally, end-of-life impacts must be considered, so that products can be recycled or discarded in an environmentally friendly manner when they can no longer be reused.

Geographical and social context matters

As more areas propose bans to SUPPs, policymakers must consider geographical and social contexts when identifying appropriate alternatives. Factors such as production requirements, expected use, reusability, likelihood of littering, local waste management infrastructure and education can all impact how environmentally friendly proposed alternatives are.

Shifting to reusable options and bolstering recycling and waste management infrastructure must take priority. In the interim period, areas with littering problems should avoid using lighter products because they are more likely to be littered, even though they are generally less resource-intensive to produce.

Ultimately, eliminating SUPPs is only one way to reduce environmental damage.

As Giacovelli notes, “Countries are encouraged to promote actions that lead to keeping resources at their highest value in the economy, by consuming less and replacing single-use products with fit-for-purpose reusable alternatives for a healthier planet.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v0doLyJyr0

Contact Information: To learn more, please contact Llorenç Milà i Canals, UNEP’s Head of the Secretariat of the Life Cycle Initiative: [email protected] .

Hosted by UNEP, the Life Cycle Initiative is a public-private, multi-stakeholder partnership that enables the global use of credible life cycle knowledge by private and public decision makers.

UNEP’s “ Addressing Single-use plastic products pollution, using a life cycle approach ” summary report, based on the findings of a series of meta-analyses on SUPPs, was produced in response to Resolution  UNEP/EA.4/R.9 . A new report in the series, focused on masks, will be released in December 2021.

• Chemicals & pollution action
• Waste management

Further Resources

• Addressing Single-Use Plastic Products Pollution using a Life Cycle Approach
• Legal limits on single-use plastics and microplastics
• From Pollution to Solution
• Beat Plastic Pollution

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

8 Ways to Avoid Harmful Chemicals

CEO and Chairman of Rodale, Inc. and book author

by guest blogger Robin Dodson, ScD, research scientist at the Silent Spring Institute

It's difficult to avoid all of the potentially harmful chemicals in everyday products, but there are steps you can take to choose safer products and reduce your exposure. At the Silent Spring Institute, we recently did a study, called the Household Exposure Study , and the results, along with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's (CDC's) National Exposure Reports , show that consumer product chemicals are ending up in people's homes and bodies. And everyone is asking, "So, what can I do?"

To answer this question, our first step was to contact manufacturers for information about what's in their products; however, the majority of them would not provide complete information. So we were left with having to test the products ourselves. In total, we analyzed 50 product types, including personal care products (such as shampoo, lotion, and toothpaste), cleaning products (like surface cleaner and laundry detergent), and other household items (shower curtains and cat litter, for instance) for 66 hormone disruptors and chemicals associated with asthma.

We not only wanted to know which consumer products might be contributing most to people's exposure, but we also were interested in whether it was possible to identify products with fewer of those chemicals by reading product labels. The results from our product label analyses were mixed: It's possible to avoid some target chemicals through label reading, but not all.

Based on previous research and the label analyses, we have come up with several tips to help you reduce your exposure .

• Use fewer products. We know that the more products you use, the more chemicals you are potentially exposed to. For example, a person using a typical array of everyday products--surface cleaner, tub-and-tile cleaner, laundry detergent, bar soap, shampoo and conditioner, facial cleanser and lotion, and toothpaste--is potentially exposed to 19 of the harmful chemicals we studied. So, keep it simple and use less.
• Use simple cleaners. Plain water mixed with baking soda or vinegar or castile soap can be used for many cleaning tasks throughout the home. There are a variety of recipes for do-it-yourself cleaners available. Again, keep it simple, and clean like your grandmother .
• Be safe in the sun . Sunscreens contain many problems chemicals. Avoiding the sun during peak hours, wearing wide-brimmed hats, and wearing tightly woven fabric cover-ups and sunglasses can block UV rays without any added chemicals--giving you an excuse to round out your summer wardrobe!
• Fragrances . Fragranced products, such as dryer sheets, air fresheners, and perfume, had the largest number of chemicals detected and some of the highest concentrations of harmful chemicals. Fragrances can trigger asthma, and some synthetic fragrances are hormone disruptors. Avoid products with terms like "fragrance" or "parfum" in the product ingredient list and choose "fragrance-free" when you can.
• Vinyl . Vinyl products, such as pillow protectors and shower curtains, contain more than 10 percent by weight of diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), a phthalate associated hormone disruption and increased respiratory symptoms. Asthmatics seeking to reduce their exposure to dust mites by using these may be exposing themselves to another asthma trigger without realizing it. Alternatives to vinyl exist, such as chemical-free cotton pillow covers and nylon shower curtains.
• Antimicrobials. Triclosan and triclocarban, both hormone disruptors, are broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents commonly added to personal care products . These chemicals should be fairly easy to spot, since labeling requirements mean that these chemicals are often listed in a product ingredients list, especially when they are used as active ingredients. Besides, studies have shown that washing your hands with regular soap and water is just as effective as using antibacterial hand soaps.
• Parabens . Used as preservatives in personal care products, parabens are often included in the list of product ingredients. They are estrogenic, meaning they mimic estrogen . Look for labels saying "paraben-free" and watch out for methylparaben, ethylparaben, and butylparaben among the ingredients.
• Cyclosiloxanes . We found cyclosiloxanes in sunscreens and hair products, as they are often used in products to enhance conditioning and spreading, and to make products water resistant. They've been linked with hormone disruption . Avoid products with "cyclomethicone" on the label.

To learn more about the study, visit our website and watch a short video .

Robin Dodson, Sc.D., is a research scientist at Silent Spring Institute , a not-for-profit scientific organization researching the links between the environment and health. Her expertise is in indoor environmental exposure assessment.

For more from Maria Rodale, go to www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com

Support Free Journalism

Consider supporting HuffPost starting at $2 to help us provide free, quality journalism that puts people first.

Can't afford to contribute? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. We hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

From Our Partner

More in environment.

• Open access
• Published: 21 November 2017

Interested consumers’ awareness of harmful chemicals in everyday products

• Sabrina Hartmann 1 &
• Ursula Klaschka 2  

Environmental Sciences Europe volume  29 , Article number:  29 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

23 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Everyday products can contain a multitude of harmful substances unnoticed by most consumers, because established risk communication channels reach only part of the society. The question is, whether at least interested and informed consumers are able to use risk communication tools and assess harmful chemicals in products.

An online survey investigated the awareness of 1030 consumers on harmful substances in everyday items. Participating consumers’ education level, knowledge in chemistry, and motivation were above society’s average. Although a large number of responses showed that survey participants were familiar with several aspects of the issue, the results revealed that knowledge in chemistry helped, but was not enough. Many participants assumed that products with an eco-label, natural personal care products, products without hazard pictograms or products produced in the European Union would not contain harmful substances. Most participants indicated to use hazard pictograms, information on the packaging, reports in the media, and environmental and consumer organizations as information sources, while information by authorities and manufacturers were not named frequently and did not receive high confidence. Smartphone applications were not indicated by many participants as information sources. The information sources most trusted were environmental and consumer organizations, hazard pictograms, and lists of ingredients on the containers. The declared confidence in certain risk communication instruments did not always correspond to the use frequencies indicated. Nearly all participants considered legislators as responsible for the reduction of harmful substances in consumer products.

Conclusions

Misconceptions about harmful substances in products can be dangerous for the personal health and the environment. The survey indicates that motivation, educational level, and chemical expertise do not automatically provide an appropriate understanding of harmful substances in products. If well-informed consumers are not sufficiently capable to use risk information elements as revealed in this study, then this will be even more the case for the general public. Consumer awareness should be stipulated by an improved information strategy about chemical risks in consumer products with an extensive participation of the target groups and by more efforts by authorities and manufactures to build trust and to provide easily understandable information.

Modern society is experiencing a period of unprecedented consumption with an overwhelming multitude of chemical substances being used in consumer articles and commercial mixtures. Many substances classified as hazardous according to the EU regulation on classification and labeling (CLP Regulation) [ 1 ] are present in everyday products as regular ingredients, like, for example, preservatives in washing and cleaning agents, fragrances in personal care products, per- and polyfluorinated chemicals used in textile finishing, plasticizers in plastic materials, or heavy metals in electronic appliances. Many of these substances remain unnoticed by the average end-user who takes the benefits of the chemical constituents for granted and trusts that unwanted properties for man and the environment are negligible.

Risk communication provisions, such as hazard pictograms on the product containers, are established to aid consumers and workers to be aware of hazards and to implement a suitable risk management behavior so as to minimize exposure and hence risk. The understanding of the risk communication message by the recipients is one of the basic pillars of chemical legislation [ 2 ]. Risk communication is an important first step, but there are various indications that risk communication measures are not always as effective as intended, because they are not always understood in the way expected by the decision makers and are thus not sufficiently protective under the consumer and the environmental perspectives. Previous studies that evaluated the efficiency and effectiveness of risk communication yielded remarkable results: A large number of users in European and non-European countries struggled to understand ingredient lists and labels [ 3 , 4 ]. Other studies analyzed the understanding of hazard pictograms and showed that end-users did not understand the signs correctly [ 5 , 6 ]. Even correctly understood risk information did not necessarily lead to the intended risk reduction behaviors [ 5 ]. It was also described that illiterate persons had great difficulty to understand pictorial label information and safety instructions [ 6 ]. A European survey [ 7 ] where citizens should indicate whether they thought that certain products contained ‘chemical substances’ in general showed that it is also worthwhile to ask very simple and basic questions which do not require any previous knowledge. Participants of this survey were not asked about harmful substances but only about chemical ingredients. For a chemist the results of this survey were shocking because large numbers of participants in some EU member countries assumed that products like cleaning products (up to 9% of the participants in one EU member country), paint (up to 10%), electronic appliances (up to 37%), or furniture (up to 38%) would not contain chemical substances at all. Such results suggest that these citizens might have problems understanding risk communication tools. However, it is not certain that experts judge risks correctly [ 8 , 9 ].

The hypothesis of the present study was, that understanding risk communication tools is a challenge even for interested and informed consumers. If even well-informed consumers were not sufficiently capable to use risk information elements, then this would be even more the case for the average population. A survey was conducted using an on line questionnaire with voluntary participants who represented a ‘best-case’ scenario, as nearly all of them indicated that they were interested in chemicals in everyday products and the majority had a higher education level and good self-reported chemical expertise. Thus, the motivation to observe and the capability to comprehend risk communication elements in this group is assumed to be higher than in the average population.

The questions focused on the following topics:

Interest in and awareness of substances that are harmful for human health or the environment in consumer products.

Knowledge about risk communication tools and confidence in the risk communication information.

Attitude toward the responsibility for harmful substances in consumer products.

Description of own risk-mitigation behavior.

The present survey is much more comprehensive than the two questions posed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on this subject in 2016 [ 10 ]. It can be seen as part of the evaluation and review of risk communication elements as laid down in step 4 of the recommendations set up by the ECHA [ 11 ]. The outcome of this survey contributes to develop improvements for effective risk communication within the European regulatory framework and contributes to the aim of a non-toxic environment by 2018 [ 12 ] and to the fitness check of the EU Chemicals legislation [ 13 , 14 ].

In fact, products made in the European Union contain harmful substances as illustrated in Box 1 .

Box 1: Overview on information sources about harmful substances in products relevant for the present survey

There is a multitude of various provisions and labels for harmful chemicals depending on the types of consumer products. Some of these information sources are legally binding and must be provided by producers whereas other information is voluntary. The multitude of regulations and provisions, the multitude of potential harmful ingredients make hazard information a difficult and complex task (e.g., [ 15 ]), especially as legislation is not always coherent (e.g., [ 16 ]).

For example, single substances and mixtures come under the CLP Regulation [ 1 ] and should be classified and labeled with hazard pictograms if they contain hazardous substances above the respective thresholds for labeling. However, there are many everyday products which may contain harmful substances, and the consumer is not informed about their presence by hazard pictograms. For example, personal care products [ 17 ], food and pharmaceuticals are mixtures that are exempted from the CLP Regulation. Also articles (such as electronic products, textiles or articles of plastic materials) do not need to be labeled with hazard pictograms according to the CLP Regulation. Lists of ingredients are legally required on personal care products [ 18 ], washing and cleaning agents [ 19 ], pharmaceuticals, and prepackaged food. Even experts need time and knowledge to discern which of the ingredients in these lists are harmful for human health or the environment [ 4 ]. Ingredient lists are an important tool for toxicologists and dermatologists. However, patients who need to avoid specific allergens do not rely exclusively on ingredient labels. Surveys with patients suffering from fragrance allergy showed that the majority used the ingredient lists, but followed also ‘trial and error’ to find the products they could tolerate [ 20 , 21 ]. Furthermore, there are various studies showing that the ingredient lists were not always correct [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].

Apart from hazard pictograms or the ingredient lists, legally required information on the packaging are, for example, labels for electric and electronic articles [ 27 ]. The construction products Regulation [ 28 ] foresees an indication of substances of very high concern in the declaration of performance for construction products. Furthermore, harmful chemicals are regulated in the toy safety Directive [ 29 ], in the Directive regarding medical devices [ 30 ], in the Directive regarding active implantable medical devices [ 31 ], in the Directive regarding in vitro diagnostic medical devices [ 32 ], and in the packaging Directive [ 33 ]. Toys for children usually fulfill stricter criteria concerning harmful substances than most other articles, but they are not necessarily free of them [ 29 ]. Products for children like textiles or personal care products are not liable to fulfill stricter standards compared to products for adults, and hence they can contain harmful substances. There are legal provisions for medical devices [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]; however, they might contain harmful substances at higher concentrations compared to everyday products, because their applications are often exempted from the REACH [ 34 ] and CLP provisions.

According to the REACH Regulation [ 34 ] consumers have the right to know whether an article contains the ‘substances of very high concern’, which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic for reproduction, or very critical for the environment. It does not have to be indicated on a product whether it contains these substances, but every end-user has the right to send an inquiry for an article of interest to the manufacturer or the distributor who is liable to respond within 45 days [ 35 , 36 ].

Products which are not compliant with legal requirements and which pose a serious risk to health and safety of consumers are notified in the European rapid alert system for products, called RAPEX. The essential data on products with serious risk are notified weekly in the on line public European rapid alert database [ 37 , 38 ]. Furthermore, there are presumably non-compliant products which were not detected by surveillance activities which can contain higher levels of harmful substances than allowed.

Voluntary national or international product information of high quality standard are eco-labels such as the EU label for organic food [ 39 ], the EU ecolabel for non-food products [ 40 ] or the German Blue Angel [ 41 ]. However, these products are not necessarily free of harmful substances. Organic food produced according to the EU Regulation for organic food [ 39 ] or untreated food taken from the own private garden should not contain contaminations by synthetic pesticides or substantial environmental contaminations. Such food might contain natural harmful substances produced by the crop plants (such as alkaloids in nightshades or hydrogen cyanide in bitter almonds), contaminants resulting from the growth environment, from the production process or from storage (such as mycotoxins). Non-food-products with an ecolabel, for example, the Blue Angel [ 41 ], fulfill strict criteria, but they are not necessarily free of harmful substances.

Most natural personal care products contain natural hazardous substances [ 42 ].

Homeopathic products usually contain active ingredients, which can be highly toxic such as e.g., Atropa belladonna , arsenic or mercury that are more or less diluted in substances like water or sugar. Therefore, homeopathic products of low dilutions (‘low potencies’) can contain considerable and sometimes even lethal amounts of harmful substances [ 43 ], while high dilutions (‘high potencies’) might contain only very few or no molecules of the diluted substance. In addition, they do not need to undergo standardized official drug trials like conventional pharmaceuticals, hence their precise health effects are not always known [ 44 , 45 , 46 ].

Many natural pharmaceuticals are effective because of their content in natural harmful substances, e.g., eucalyptus oil, chamomile oil or peppermint oil.

It must be noted that the declaration of the safety of a product by the producer does not preclude the presence of harmful substances. Producers of personal care products or homeopathic medicine state that their products were safe, knowing that the products can contain harmful ingredients in various amounts.

Private information programs are, for example, the Oekotex standard for textiles [ 47 ], independent product tests [e.g., Oekotest [ 48 ] or information provided by the producer (legally required or as more or less informative voluntary advertisement)]. The smartphone application ToxFox [ 49 ] provides information about the presence of endocrine disruptors in personal care products and about SVHCs in articles. The smartphone application and the homepage CodeCheck [ 50 ] offer information about a multitude of various products based on data entered by consumers. The smell of a product can indicate volatile odorous compounds, such as solvents, fragrances or else, but is not generally an indication of harmful substances. People who indicate ‘own experiences’ as means to find out whether a product contains harmful substances, might run a high risk, because some effects are not reversible and others are long-term effects without immediate warning symptoms.

The online survey was executed using the cloud-based software provided by the service company SurveyMonkey ( http://www.SurveyMonkey.com ). It was accessible in the internet between September 13 and October 31, 2016. The questionnaire was distributed in German language (The English text of the questionnaire is in the “ Appendix ”, the original German version in the Additional file 1 ). The questionnaire was sent to colleagues and friends with the appeal to distribute it further. The following online platforms and institutions got on board: on line newsletter of the German Chemical Society ( http://www.gdch.de ), the homepage of the science magazine Odysso on the German public television channel ( http://www.swr.de/odysso/ ), employees of the German Environment Agency, the staff of the University of Applied Sciences Ulm, the mailing network on sustainability run by the universities of applied sciences in Baden-Wuerttemberg, the regional group of Friends of the Earth in Ulm, and the local nature conservation group GAU ( http://www.gau.neu-ulm.de ). The focus was on the protection of consumers and the environment, while risk communication at the workplace was not addressed. Participants responded to a maximum of 38 questions, with various branch points. Answers given to questions 15–27 will be analyzed in a separate study. All information collected was self-reported by the participants. Several questions offered the option to add free text. These comments were analyzed qualitatively.

In this study, consumer products comprise articles in terms of the European Chemicals Regulation (REACH) [ 34 ], mixtures like washing and cleaning agents or paints in the sense of the Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) [ 1 ], or any other consumer product, like food or pharmaceuticals. A hazard is defined as ‘a possible source of danger’ [ 11 ]. Hazardous substances are defined by standardized classification and labeling according to the criteria of the CLP Regulation [ 1 ]. Harmful substances are hazardous substances or substances of very high concern according to the REACH Regulation [ 34 ].

The data we received from the software provider comprised the numbers of responses and the date of the participants’ online access. The demographic information collected did not allow for the identification of any participant of the survey. The correlations between the responses and the demographic details of the participants were calculated using the software application ‘matrix laboratory’ (MATLAB) ( https://www.mathworks.com ). The age group below 20 years with only 25 respondents was too small for separate statistical analysis. Pearson’s χ 2 test was used to detect correlations for data sets containing nominally scaled variables. p values below 0.05 were considered significant.

Interested survey participants with a high number of chemists and graduates

More than thousand individuals took part in the survey (Table  1 ). Most participants responded to all questions (1030 out of 1321 who had started in the beginning). The objective of the survey was to obtain a picture of the opinions of ‘best-case’ citizens who had a great interest in chemical risk communication and who were to a higher degree experts in this field than the average population. This was achieved by the distribution of the on line questionnaire via the snowball system. The study participants’ demography showed that the study group was far from being average:

Nearly all participants (98%) indicated that they were interested in chemicals which are harmful for human health or the environment and used in everyday products. The answers given indicated that participants took great care when going through the questionnaire. The strong commitment of the participants was also reflected in the large number of annotations made (402 notes in 11 open questions by 232 participants).

In total, 61% of the participants reported that their knowledge of chemistry was good or very good (Additional file 2 : Table S1). Many young people (aged 20–29) in this survey indicated to be very good in chemistry (female: 42.3%, male 24.5%). Women from 60 years up reported most often to have no or little knowledge in chemistry (60–69: 63.8%, > 70: 78.6%). Of all the participants 34.3% declared that they were dealing with chemicals or REACH [ 34 ] at their workplace. These demographic data showed the high number of informed persons representing the intended ‘best-case’ scenario.

The percentage of participants with an academic degree (69.2%) was much larger than average in Germany (16% [ 51 ]). Three quarters (76%, χ 2  = 95.8, p  < 0.0000) of persons with self-reported good and very good knowledge in chemistry have an academic career. More men (78%) had an academic career, compared to 63% of the women ( χ 2  = 40.0, p  < 0.000). Not everybody who is dealing with chemicals or REACH at the workplace (91%, χ 2  = 340.6, p  < 0.0000) indicated to have good or very good knowledge in chemistry.

More than a quarter of the participants (26.2%) were members of an environmental organization. The percentages increased with age (20–29: 13%, 30–39: 25%, 40–49: 28%, 50–59: 34%, 60–69: 35%, ≥ 70: 39%) ( χ 2  = 41.9, p  < 0.0000). The shares of persons who were members in environmental organizations was equal for both sexes. (For comparison: the four important environmental organizations in Germany (Friends of the Earth Germany, Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union, World Wide Fund for Nature, and Greenpeace Germany have more than 500,000 members each [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ], which would be around 0.5% of the German population). A small fraction of the participants in the present survey (3.6%) were members of a consumer organization. (For comparison, the German Allergy and Asthma Organization (DAAB) [ 56 ] has 18,000 members and Foodwatch 35,000 [ 57 ].) There were participants (2.5%) who indicated to be members in consumer organizations as well as in environmental organizations.

The percentage of participants who had minor children (27.7%) was higher than the German average (17.6% [ 51 ]).

Almost a quarter of the participants (24.8%) indicated that they themselves or a family member suffered from chemical intolerance with a slight maximum in the age groups between 50 and 69 (by comparison around 30% of the German population suffer from allergies (e.g., contact allergy, food intolerance or respiratory diseases [ 58 ]).

More women (59.7%) participated in the survey than men (percentage of women in Germany 50.7% [ 51 ]). However, in the age groups above 60 years nearly twice as many men participated than women.

All age group were represented, but people under the age of 20 (2%) and over the age of 70 (5%) were less represented than the other age groups. Nearly every second participant (48%) was up to 40 years old. (The average age in Germany is 44 years [ 51 ].)

Harmful substances unnoticed in consumer products

Participants were asked whether they knew that products can contain chemicals harmful for human health (question 6). Nearly 10% of the survey participants answered that they would not know this. Nearly half of these persons were between 20 and 39 years old or had an academic career. The answers depended on the knowledge in chemistry. More people with no or little chemical expertise (14.2%, χ 2  = 18.8, p  < 0.0000) chose this option, but also 6.2% of persons who indicated to have a good or very good chemical expertise did not know that products can contain chemicals harmful for human health. Interestingly, 11 persons ( χ 2  = 24.9, p  < 0.0000) who are working with chemicals or REACH in their jobs selected this option.

Survey participants were also asked whether they knew that products could contain chemicals that are harmful for the environment (question 7). In all demographic groups, the number of participants who were familiar with this fact was higher than the number of persons who were aware of chemicals that are harmful for human health. Nevertheless, 6.6% responded that they did not know this.

What do participants care about?

Strong interest in human health and environmental effects.

Survey participants could select product groups which were of interest to them for human health reasons (questions 3) or for environmental reasons (questions 4) (Fig.  1 ). Products with direct contact to the human body (food, personal care products, textiles, and toys) were selected more often because of human health interest, while products which are discharged mainly to the environment or are employed outdoor (such as pesticides and car care products) were selected more often for environmental reasons. Also individuals with little or no self-reported chemical expertise had these preferences. Washing and cleansing products, building materials, and furniture were selected as frequently for human health reasons as for environmental reasons. More than a quarter of the respondents (28.8%) were interested in pharmaceuticals for environmental reasons. Interestingly, 29.5% participants decided that all products were interesting for environmental reasons, while only 19.5% of the participants decided that all products were interesting for human health reasons.

Respondents interested in product groups for human health reasons (red) or for environmental reasons (blue)

All women were interested in personal care products for human health reasons (100%) compared to 86.3% of the participating men ( χ 2  = 66.0, p  < 0.0000). Most of the parents with minor children were interested for health reasons in toys (94.0%), compared to only 56.6% of persons without minor children ( χ 2  = 130.3, p  < 0.0000).

Personal health and responsibility for future generations as major motives

Survey participants could choose between seven options as motives for their interest in harmful substances in products (question 5). The motive indicated by most participants (89.5%) was the personal quality of life (‘I care for my health and the health of my family.’), followed closely by the three sustainability reasons which were chosen by 79.3–77.6% of the participants (‘I want that future generations will have a good life on earth.’ ‘I care for plants and animals in our environment.’ ‘I care for the environment as the basis of my life.’). Interestingly, ‘I care for plants and animals in our environment’ which is purely an environmental motive was rated as high as the answers with reference to the human being. Compared to Fig.  1 where the health aspects were rated as more important for eight out of eleven product groups, it is interesting to note, that general sustainability motives were considered almost as important as personal quality of life in this question.

The more practical reasons (‘I am interested in chemistry.’ ‘I am interested in the functional principles of chemicals in products.’ ‘I am interested for job reasons.’) were chosen by 24–22.6% of the survey participants. Several respondents (1.8%) added other reasons in their own words (such as ‘ I want to take action against the chemical flood as ‘ panacea ’.’ ‘ I am concerned about the workers who produce these products. ’ or ‘ The chemical complexity of products is beyond control. ’). Some of them explained their attitude using their own words (such as ‘ I want to minimize unnecessary risks and hazards. ’), while others commented that they would prefer other wordings such as ‘ interested ’ or ‘ curious’ instead of ‘ concerned .’

On average, four answers were selected. People with no or little chemical expertise chose the first four answers four times more often than the last four more practical motives, whereas people with knowledge of chemistry chose them 2.8 times more often than the last four ( χ 2  = 24.9, p  < 0.0000).

Risk communication instruments

Survey participants were asked to select the sources which they use for obtaining information about harmful substances on the products directly and at the point of sale (question 8) or elsewhere (question 9). Furthermore, they could rate their confidence in these information sources (question 10) (Fig.  2 ).

Information sources about harmful substances in products. Red bars show number of information sources indicated to be used by participants directly at the point of sale (above) or elsewhere (below). Blue bars show the confidence in these information sources that the participants reported

Hazard pictograms, information on the packaging, and list of ingredients are preferred information sources on products

Hazard pictograms (86.2%), information on the packaging (76.8%), and list of ingredients (76.0%) were by far the most frequently chosen options for information that can be obtained at the point of sale (Fig.  2 above). It must be noted here that hazard pictograms and list of ingredients are information sources for mixtures, not for articles (see Box 1 ). These results obtained in the present survey of ‘best-case’ participants are higher than in the survey with average European participants (66% use safety instructions, 65% warning symbols, 43% packaging) [ 5 ].

The fourth most important cue selected by 15.8% of the respondents was the smell of a product which they used to find out whether it would contain harmful substances. In comparison, the participants in the Eurobarometer study selected the smell more frequently as information source (21%) [ 5 ].

The smartphone applications were chosen by less than 10% each (ToxFox 7.2%, CodeCheck 5.8%) and twice as frequently by women (16.6%) compared to men (7.7%) (ToxFox χ 2  = 3.7, p  < 0.06; CodeCheck χ 2  = 14.8, p  < 0.0002). Nearly three quarters (72.6%, χ 2  = 25.5, p  < 0.0003) of CodeCheck users are between 20 and 39 years old, while 59.7% ( χ 2  = 20.1, p  < 0.003) of the ToxFox users are in this age class. Only one person below 20 and only five persons above 60 are using one of these smartphone applications.

On average, each participant indicated three information sources at the point of sale.

One out of ten participants (9.5%) did not know how to find out at the point of sale whether a product contains substances harmful for human health or for the environment. Surprisingly, even persons who indicate to have a good or very good chemical expertise (7%, χ 2  = 10.2, p  < 0.002), and persons who work with chemicals or REACH in their job (6.2%, χ 2  = 6.1, p  < 0.02) did not know how where to find out more information.

Several participants made additional suggestions which show a thorough understanding of the matter, such as: ‘ The toxicity depends on the dose applied, this is also true for natural substances.’ ‘Substances of very high concern are not declared, hence information requests by consumers according to REACH, — but does an answer arrive ever?’ ‘There is no safety, as long as there is no labeling requirement, e.g., for PFCs or NPEO.’ Other additional suggestions show a critical attitude: ‘I am afraid that this can be discerned in few cases only.’ ‘Information on the product often cannot be understood by laypersons.’ ‘I am sure that I am not aware of all harmful substances on all products, although I know that this would be very important. ’ ‘ By implication: if the product is not marketed as safe, it must be assumed to be risky. ’ Others show a high self-assessment: ‘ I make my assessments depending on the purchasing price, the product properties and its origin.’ ‘I make my own measurements.’ ‘I have my own expertise to understand interactions. ’

Public media reports and tests are preferred additional information sources

Among the additional information sources which cannot be found at the point of sale, reports and tests in newspapers, radio, and television were the favored options by most participants (80%) (Fig.  2 below). Especially members of environmental organizations preferred test reports in media (85.6%, χ 2  = 10.2, p  < 0.002). Members of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) favored information by NGOs more than the average (members of environmental organizations 75.2%, χ 2  = 21.4, p  < 0.000, members of consumer organizations 91.9%, χ 2  = 13.3, p  < 0.0003, compared to the average of 64.6%). Family members and friends were the third-most important information source named (40.7%), clearly more often than information by manufacturers (26.8%) or information by authorities (13.9%). Students and trainees were the group who indicated friends and family most often (57%, χ 2  = 13.7, p  < 0.0003). Persons who are working with chemicals or REACH at their workplace did not choose information by family and friends (26.3%) as often as the rest of the participants (47.7%, χ 2  = 44, p  < 0.0000). Even 19.2% ( χ 2  = 50.9, p  < 0.0000) of people with very good knowledge of chemistry chose family and friends as information source. Interestingly, only 13% of the participants of the Eurobarometer survey indicated family members and friends [ 5 ] as information sources. Every second person with very good chemical expertise (51.4%) chose the scientific literature as information source, while 14.4% of people without chemical expertise indicated using the scientific literature ( χ 2  = 95.8, p  < 0.0000). Own experiences (26.8%) were named nearly twice as often as authorities (13.9%). Women indicated to use their own experience more often (28.8%) than men (22.7%, χ 2  = 4.7, p  < 0.03). This percentage was higher in the Eurobarometer study (32%) [ 5 ].

Every fifth person (21.8%) who is working with chemicals or REACH at the workplace would ask authorities for more information, compared to only 9.7% of the other respondents ( χ 2  = 28.2, p  < 0.0000). The CodeCheck homepage was not ticked by many respondents (total 56), but seven times more often by women (49) compared to men (seven) ( χ 2  = 19.0, p  < 0.0000). The RAPEX database was not chosen frequently (5.7%). Most of the persons who selected RAPEX (70.5%, χ 2  = 63.6, p  < 0.0000) are working with chemicals or REACH at their workplace and have an academic degree. We had expected that most people who reported to have a chemical intolerance would know where to find out more information about the ingredients of a product, but this was not significant (7.5% of them did not know where to find out more information, χ 2  = 1.4, p  < 0.3). There were even nine (out of 255) persons with chemical intolerance in their families who did not feel that it was necessary to collect further data on products with harmful substances. Some participants (2.8%) chose the option ‘ Dangerous substances are everywhere. I do not need to enquire further’ .

Several respondents (5.9%) indicated additional possibilities where to find more information. Among them were 25 respondents who indicated unspecifically that they would find more information in the ‘ internet ,’ ‘ google ,’ or ‘ in online blogs ’ which left open how they would find trustful information about harmful substances in a specific product. Others gave somewhat more precise information sources such as ‘ Wikipedia ,’ ‘ Safety data sheets ,’ ‘ ECHA ,’ ‘ GIS Code ,’ ‘ Beat the Microbead App ,’ or ‘ http://www.cosmeticanalysis.com ’ while again it remains unclear where the respondents find concrete data for a certain product. (Safety data sheets provide information about mixtures, the GIS Code is for building materials and the ECHA homepage provides information about single substances, but not about particular products.) Other notes show again a high self-assessment: ‘ I use my private literature .’ ‘ I am a chemist .’ or a high trust in friends with expertise: ‘ I ask friends who are medical doctors or pharmacists. ’ One note summarized the actual situation: ‘ It is difficult to find good information that is correct and easy to understand .’

High confidence in consumer and environmental organizations and in hazard pictograms

Around three quarters of the respondents considered information published by consumer and environmental organizations (75.4%) and the hazard pictograms of the CLP Regulation (74.3%) as trustworthy information (Fig.  2 ). More than half of the participants (58.1%) trusted the lists of ingredients, mainly people with very good knowledge of chemistry (69.6%) and less people with little chemical knowledge (47.5%, χ 2  = 31.5, p  < 0.0000). Less than half of the respondents (44.6%) trusted the test reports in the press, preferentially people without chemical knowledge (52.7%) and less people with very good knowledge of chemistry (28%, χ 2  = 34.5, p  < 0.0000). A lot more people with very good knowledge of chemistry (51.9%) indicated to trust the information provided by authorities compared to people without chemical knowledge (27.9%, χ 2  = 35.7, p  < 0.0000). The number of people who trusted the information provided by authorities (37.4%) was only slightly larger than the number of people who trusted their own experiences (34.9%). People with chemical intolerance trusted their own experiences more (40.8%) than people without chemical intolerance (32.9%, χ 2  = 5.2, p  < 0.03). More people with chemical intolerance (20.4%) trusted the smell of products compared to 13.0% of people without chemical intolerance ( χ 2  = 8.2, p  < 0.005). Information by manufacturers was indicated as trustworthy by only 17.3%. Most people who indicated to use the ToxFox smartphone application or CodeCheck considered these information sources as trustworthy.

Eighty respondents made some comments about information sources they would trust: They indicated to trust ‘ scientific literature ’(7), ‘ safety data sheets ’(2), ‘ ECHA ’(2), ‘ independent information in the internet ,’ ‘ the World Wide Fund for Nature ,’ ‘ Labels such as the Blue Angel, TÜV, FSC , etc.,’ ‘ Oekotest ,’ or ‘ my husband .’ Some respondents mentioned information sources which they did not trust, for example, ‘ the media and NGOs .’ Other comments showed the critical attitude in general or in respect of the existing legislation: ‘ I do not trust any information 100 %.’ ‘ Smell is only applicable as information source for a few substances and only above a certain concentration :’ ‘ A residual insecurity remains .’ ‘ Legislation has loopholes .’ ‘ Ingredient lists on food packaging are not complete .’ ‘ I do not always trust authorities or lists of ingredients .’ ‘ I have no trust because of missing labelling obligations .’ ‘ The RAPEX database is always out of date .’ Finally, there were comments by respondents who considered their own expertise to be sufficient: ‘ Due to my profession, I can usually assess this myself .’

Frequently indicated information sources are not always considered to be trustworthy

Consumer and environmental organizations were selected by many (64.6%) and trusted by even more participants (75.4%). In some cases, however, respondents selected information sources, even if they did not trust them (Fig.  2 ). For example, the general information on the packaging, which was ticked by 76.8% of the participants as information source, was considered as trustworthy by only 19%. Four out of ten respondents (40.7%) indicated to use information provided by friends and family members, although only 26.2% trusted this information source. A third of the people without chemical knowledge (33.8%) trusted friends and family, whereas only 7.5% of people with very good knowledge of chemistry trusted them ( χ 2  = 52.0, p  < 0.0000). Interestingly, 34.9% of study participants indicated to trust their own experiences while less (26.8%) actually used them as information source. Own experiences (26.8%) were named nearly twice as often as authorities (13.9%) as information sources, but these two information sources were considered as trustworthy by nearly the same number of persons (34.9% own experience, 37.4% authorities).

Many respondents were not aware of the presence of harmful substances in products

Participants were asked to indicate which product types they considered to be free of harmful substances (question 11). On average, the respondents chose three options.

Many respondents (61.9%) considered untreated food taken from own private gardens and organic food with the EU label (52.8%) as free of harmful substances. More than a third of the respondents (36.1%) assumed that products with an eco-label did not contain harmful substances. Even more (35.7%) believed that natural personal care products were free of harmful substances. Twice as many women believed this (43.7%), compared to men (22.9%) ( χ 2  = 46.8, p  < 0.0000). Even 20.6% of persons with very good knowledge of chemistry assumed that natural personal care products would not contain harmful substances, while 46.3% of people with very little chemical knowledge believed this ( χ 2  = 43.1, p  < 0.0000).

Nearly a third of the respondents (29.6%) believed that homeopathic products were free of harmful substances. Even 15.9% of persons who indicated to have good chemical expertise believed that homeopathic products were free of harmful substances, compared to 36.1% of individuals with little knowledge in chemistry ( χ 2  = 28.1, p  < 0.0000). Nearly every second member in consumer organizations (45.9%, χ 2  = 28.1, p  < 0.0000) thought that homeopathic products were free of harmful substances.

One out of four survey participants (25.5%) assumed that natural pharmaceuticals were free of harmful substances. Even 12.6% of persons with very good knowledge of chemistry assumed that natural pharmaceuticals would not contain any harmful substances, while 34.1% of people with very little chemical knowledge believed this ( χ 2  = 37.4, p  < 0.0000). More than every third student (38.3%) believed that natural pharmaceuticals did not contain any harmful substances, while 21% of people with an academic degree believed this ( χ 2  = 42.8, p  < 0.0000).

There were 11.0% of the survey participants (15.0% of men and 8.1% of women, χ 2  = 12.0, p  < 0.0005) who thought that products without hazard pictograms were free of harmful substances, and 6.7% of the participants assumed that products for children were free of harmful substances.

Furthermore, 4.5% of the respondents assumed that medical devices were free of harmful substances, 7.7% of the men and 2.3% of the women ( χ 2  = 17.2, p  < 0.0000).

There were even a few participants (1.7%) who assumed that products produced in the European Union would be free of harmful substances, surprisingly most of these people indicated to have good or very good expertise in chemistry.

A fifth of the respondents (20.1%) stated that none of the products were free of harmful substances. Twice as many persons with very good knowledge of chemistry (30.8%) selected this answer, compared to persons with very little chemical knowledge (15.2%, χ 2  = 21.3, p  < 0.0000).

Several survey participants (3.6%) made additional suggestions, many of which show that these participants well understood the matter, such as the following: ‘ In general, all products might contain dangerous substances .’ ‘ Minor amounts of substances harmful for human health are present everywhere .’ ‘ The dose makes the poison .’ ‘ Organic does not mean free from… .’ ‘ There is no 100% safety .’ ‘ Natural substances can be dangerous for human health .’ There were again persons who feel very well informed: ‘ I can assess this very well myself due to my profession .’

Avoidance is the favored risk reduction strategy

Risk caused by harmful substances is dependent on exposure. Participants could indicate the measures they use to reduce their personal risks (question 12) or the environmental risk (question 13) (Fig.  3 ).

Risk reduction measures indicated by survey participants (personal risks in red, environmental risks in blue). a I dispose of the product after use according to instructions. (only in question 13). b If possible, I do not buy such products. c I use the product as little as possible. d I read the description on the packaging carefully. e I follow the recommended application and safety instructions on the product and use gloves, for example. f I assume that the amounts that I am using are so small that I do not need to be mindful of anything. g I trust that the substances will not have negative effects on my health. (only in question 12) h Other possibilities:……….. i I do not do anything

There were clearly four preferred options to reduce the personal risk and five to reduce the environmental risks, which were chosen by more than two-thirds of the participants (Fig.  3 a–e), while all the other options were of minor importance and stayed below 6% (Fig.  3 f–i).

Three quarters (74.6%) indicated that they would not buy such products to reduce their personal risk (b). This percentage was even higher among members of environmental organizations (81.5%, χ 2  = 11.2, p  < 0.0000). Slightly less participants (70.8%) indicated that they would not buy such products so as to reduce the environmental risk (b), this is especially true for members of environmental organizations (80%), while 66.6% of non-members chose this option ( χ 2  = 17.1, p  < 0.0000). Two-thirds of all participants (65.4%) indicated to follow the recommended application and safety instructions for reducing the environmental risks (e). More than half of people with little knowledge in chemistry (57%) selected this option, while 71.5% of persons with very good knowledge in chemistry chose this answer ( χ 2  = 16.9, p  < 0.003).

Less foremen/business administrators (51.2%, χ 2  = 13.2, p  < 0.0003) indicated to follow the instructions for reducing their personal risks compared to an average of 63.8% (e).

There were 2.5% respondents who assumed that the amounts that they were using were so small that they did not need to be mindful of any environmental risk (f). However, no member of consumer organizations believed this. Only 0.8% of the participants thought that it is not necessary to take any measures (i), half of them were people with little self-reported knowledge in chemistry.

Legislators, consumers, and manufacturers were considered responsible

Participants were asked about their attitude toward the responsibility for the reduction of harmful substances in consumer products in our society (question 14). Nearly all participants (93.9%) considered legislators as responsible for risk reduction. Three quarters of all participants (74.6%) thought that the consumer carries the responsibility. 80% of members of environmental organizations considered consumers as responsible, compared to 71.7% of non-members ( χ 2  = 7.1, p  < 0.008). Slightly less respondents (71.3%) considered manufacturers and importers as responsible stakeholders. Nearly two-thirds (61.4%) think that environmental and consumer organizations carry the responsibility. Four out of ten (40%) were of the opinion that everybody is responsible, and 35.2% of men and 42.6% of women thought so ( χ 2  = 5.7, p  < 0.02). Only 0.2% indicated that nobody was responsible.

Chemical expertise helps, but is not sufficient

The results suggest that even motivated and interested consumers do not generally conceive the complexity of the matter and several of them do not recognize that some of their responses were not correct (e.g., that natural personal care products would not contain hazardous substances). Many respondents could be considered as ‘chemical experts,’ either because they were working with chemicals or because their self-reported knowledge of chemistry was good or very good, and the large majority of participants had an increased interest in their personal health and a pronounced sense of responsibility for the future. Also, some of the comments given by the respondents in the open questions (see answers to questions 5, 8 and 9) proved how qualified some of the survey participants were. They tended to give more correct answers than people with no self-reported knowledge in chemistry, and apparently, people with a chemical expertise have a higher motivation to learn more than people who lack such a basic knowledge (see answers to question 5). However, even persons with good or very good chemical expertise did not always know the real facts. For example, not all of them were aware of harmful substances in consumer products, and a considerable number of them considered natural pharmaceuticals or natural personal care products as free of harmful substances. There were many individuals who did not know how to find out more information about the ingredients of a product, and among them were also persons who indicated to have a good or very good chemical expertise and persons who work with chemicals or REACH in their job.

The low number of smartphone application users is surprising as the questionnaire used for this study could only be filled out online, and hence the respondents were already a selected group of people who are familiar with the internet, which shows that even motivated informed persons are not using these information sources to a considerable extent. This is an important result because this tool is considered to have great chance to contribute to an improved risk communication, e.g., in the case of the right to know according to REACH [ 36 ]. Although RAPEX is a database set up by the European Union and designed for the general public, it is apparently not widely known among the interested population.

The data of this survey substantiated how difficult it is for the motivated and interested well-informed consumer to make personal risk decisions. Various comments given by participants reflected the great uncertainty consumers have when they are required to make safety decisions. The scientific community is continuously elucidating new findings about the overwhelming number of chemicals, their fates, effects, and interactions. In many cases, there is not even a scientific consensus in the scientific community. This resulting scientific uncertainty is an essential characteristic in risk assessment, which should also be addressed in proper risk communication, but which does not make it easier to understand for the end-user (e.g., [ 59 , 60 ]). Furthermore, some harmful substances improve the overall product performance or help to reduce connected health or environmental impacts, so that cost–benefit analyses of certain chemical applications make the risk assessments even more complicated.

In their meta-study, Rowe and Wright described that ‘expert judgement of risk is unlikely to be more veridical than that of non-experts’ [ 8 ]. This could be confirmed by the present survey. The question, however, is: Who is an expert? The legal framework and scientific knowledge has become so detailed that hardly anybody can be a true expert for more than certain aspects in a topic. More efforts are needed for the transfer of research findings to decision makers who then decide about communication instruments which a lay audience should be able to understand and use [ 61 ].

Dangerous misconceptions: safety or pseudo safety?

Some of the erroneous assumptions and misconceptions of the respondents must be regarded as dangerous as they thwart a decent safety behavior. This is especially true for persons who assumed that products manufactured in the European Union, products without hazard pictograms, natural pharmaceuticals, natural personal care products, homeopathic products or products with an eco-label would be free of harmful substances. There seems to be a lack of awareness of chemical risks even in motivated informed consumers. This results in a subjective feeling of security, which is actually pseudo safety due to insufficient understanding. Given that three out of four respondents postulate that consumers take over the responsibility for minimizing harmful substances in consumer products, this result is rather alarming. It remains unclear how end-users should bear responsibility and reduce the risk posed by harmful substances as long as they do not have the knowledge to make sufficiently informed choices. Avoidance is the favored risk reduction strategy chosen by the majority of the study participants (see answers b and c in Fig.  3 ), which is a useful general strategy for consumers. Reading the description and instructions on the packaging (see Fig.  3 answers d and e) is only helpful if this leads to the recommended safety behavior. Reading alone does not reduce risk. Also small doses of very toxic substances can lead to severe deleterious effects. Disposal of the product after use according to instructions (see Fig.  3 answer a) is certainly a good way of reducing environmental exposure, but this is not sufficient for products which are discharged via the waste water after use such as washing and cleaning agents, rinse off personal care products or products directly discharged into the environment such as pesticides.

Differences between individuals must be taken seriously

The answers given by the participants of this survey show that social and cultural factors like gender, family situation, formation, work experience, or health aspects play important roles for the understanding of and attitudes toward harmful substances in products. Consumers make their personal risk assessments not only on the basis of facts, but their decisions are influenced by ethics, emotions, and social and cultural factors [ 6 ]. There were substantial differences between the answers given by various groups, e.g., between men/women, members/non-members of NGOs, people with/without academic degree, or parents/non-parents. Affected individuals such as parents of minor children or women seem to be more interested in certain products groups such as toys or personal care products than the average (see answers to questions 3 and 4). Clear differences in the answers could be seen between people with high or low self-reported knowledge of chemistry. However, there was not a single group who performed consistently. For example, members of NGOs gave more appropriate answers than the average in some cases: most members of consumer organizations believed that small amounts of harmful substances also matter and most members of environmental organizations would reduce environmental exposure by not buying such products to reduce the environmental risk, but, members of NGOs gave more inappropriate answers than the average in other cases: nearly half of the members in consumer organizations thought that homeopathic products were free of harmful substances.

High confidence in NGOs versus low confidence in manufacturers and authorities

A surprisingly strong bias was observed: Three quarters of the survey participants trusted in information provided by NGOs, while only around a third of them had confidence in authorities and only a sixth trusted manufacturers (Fig.  2 ). Most survey participants did not choose answers where authorities or manufacturers were explicitly named in the offered response options, although these stakeholders should have the best knowledge of harmful substances in products. This might be interpreted by a lack of confidence in authorities and manufacturers. Another possibility is, that persons who provided these answers presumed a higher effort to actively ask these stakeholders for the desired information and assumed a lower chance to receive useful and understandable information (e.g., [ 62 ]). It is also possible that the rather low confidence in authorities and manufacturers is one of the reasons for the high personal interest and private engagement of the study participants. The low appreciation of authorities and manufacturers is in contradiction with the fact, that concrete legally requested information by manufacturers on the products (such as hazard pictograms, ingredient lists, and information on the package) were very welcome by the majority of survey participants as information sources (Fig.  2 ). Apparently, many survey participants were not aware of the roles of manufacturers and did not consider that authorities establish and enforce such obligations.

The media, environmental and consumer organizations, and even family and friends are preferred information sources before authorities or manufacturers (Fig.  2 ). Four out of ten survey participants ask family and friends, and every fourth participant trusts them. It is questionable whether family members and friends are better experts on harmful substances in products than other parties. These results might therefore be interpreted as a sign of dissatisfaction with the available information sources and mirror the personal uncertainty.

These data might indicate that the risk communication provided by authorities or the manufacturers does not fulfill the expectations by consumers, not even the well-informed and interested consumers, while environmental and consumer organizations enjoy generally a very good reputation not only by their members, but also by non-members.

Do legislators and consumers carry the responsibility?

Most interested, informed consumers in the present study considered legislators as responsible for the reduction of harmful substances in products, followed by consumers and in the third place manufacturers. This assignment of responsibility is not in line with the polluter pays principle which is one of the basic principles in environmental policy and which puts the responsibility on the shoulders of manufacturers. The REACH Regulation [ 34 ] demands that producers and importers take responsibility for managing chemical risks and prove that their products are safe before they can be placed on the market. Legally defined responsibilities depend on the legal frameworks and product types. In contrast to the REACH Regulation and the polluter pays principle, consumers bear a large part of the responsibility in the application of personal care products [ 4 ].

Three out of four survey participants considered consumers as responsible for the reduction of harmful substances in consumer products (see answers to question 14). This result might reflect the high motivation of the ‘best-case’ study participants who are prepared to take over responsibility themselves, and it shows again their high commitment to improve the situation. They apparently seem to be aware of every consumer’s contribution to the overall pollution and to the waste of resources, but they do not realize that they would overburden average consumers with the responsibility for the reduction of harmful substances in products. The data in this survey suggest that also informed consumers are overcharged with the responsibility to make informed choices about harmful chemicals in products.

When consumers in the EU member states were asked about their views, who should ensure the safety of chemical substances [ 7 ], 60% responded that manufacturers should have that role, 57% said that the authorities of the European Union and 49% said that the national authorities were responsible. Interestingly, that survey [ 7 ] did not offer ‘consumers’ or ‘environmental and consumer organizations’ as potential answers, two options that were chosen by high percentages of the participants in the present survey.

Study limitations

In this survey, it could not be checked whether persons who selected an information source (Fig.  2 ) are really using this source in everyday practice for the products they purchase and whether they are also understanding the information appropriately. It cannot be ruled out that the term ‘harmful substance’ was not understood correctly by all participants and that some of them confounded it with ‘harmful products,’ not knowing that many ‘safe products’ contain harmful substances. The survey also does not allow deducing whether the respondents apply risk-mitigation strategies in cases where they know that they handle products containing harmful substances. The sampling of the present study participants was not random but represented a ‘best-case’ selection; however, the self-reported demographic data were not verified, and the age classes of the participants were not equally distributed. The demographic question concerning the educational qualification level offered not more than six potential answers so as to allow the authors a pragmatic analysis of this demographic factor. The study participants who indicated to be members in environmental or consumer organizations did not have to name the organization. Study participants could report whether they considered themselves or family members to have a chemical intolerance according to their own criteria, and it was not differentiated between allergic skin reactions, food intolerance, respiratory diseases, or other health problems.

Recommendations

The results of this survey can serve as a motivation for new efforts to reassess present approaches for an improved risk communication.

The best way to reduce risk is to keep the residual risk as small as possible by minimizing potential exposure to chemicals identified as harmful via a reduction of the amounts of these chemicals in consumer products [ 15 ] or via a reduction of the overall consumption. The most frequent risk-mitigation behavior strategies (avoidance and following the use instructions) indicated by the survey participants (Fig.  3 ) should therefore be complemented by minimizing the presence of harmful substances in products to achieve a non-toxic environment in the future as planned in the EU [ 12 ]. As long as this non-toxic environment is not realized, new efforts are prevalent to improve risk communication about harmful substances in consumer products. Only a small fraction of study participants trusted manufacturers and authorities (Fig.  2 ). This is alarming because these stakeholders possess the best knowledge about the substances present in commodities and they carry the responsibility according to the present legislation. They could improve their reputation and hence the outreach of their risk communication by more transparent honest information policy and using a language that is understandable to consumers [ 62 ]. The important roles friends and family play as highly trusted risk communicators (Fig.  2 ) reveal the need that the public have access to information in a non-scientific format [ 61 ]. We suggest that risk communication should be taught at school so that a basic understanding is part of the general education. Such an early contact with this matter would help to fight against the ignorance and the feeling of uncertainty in average consumers. Risk communication may not be considered exclusively as a top-down transmission of information from experts to the target population, but it must respect the recipients’ needs and capacities [ 63 , 64 , 65 ]. For example, according to our study, there does not seem to be a strong need for smartphone applications in this field, while other communication instruments seem to be very useful. Successful risk communication implies a continuous iterative process which analyzes whether and to what extent the intended aims of the measures were reached and what needs to be done to improve the public perception of risk information and the safety behavior [ 3 , 11 ]. Potential information recipients must be involved in the setup of communication tools in a participatory process [ 9 , 61 , 63 , 66 ]. The results in the Eurobarometer study shows the large differences between countries [ 5 ]. We recommend to conduct an international study with average consumers who receive special risk communication training of various forms with a subsequent examination of their knowledge and their safety behavior. Results of such a study could contribute to the improvement of efficient risk communication instruments.

Considering that many consumer products in the EU contain chemicals that are harmful for human health or the environment, it is worrying that even in the present ‘best-case’ subgroups, there are a considerable number of persons who are not aware of this fact and do not have the competence to use the qualified risk communication tools appropriately. Participants in the present study declared to use information sources, even if they do not trust them. Such contradictions compel new efforts to improve risk communication about harmful substances in consumer products. Not only the motivated citizens, but also the general public deserve accurate and accessible information to make the deliberate purchase and handling decisions in their daily routine. They have ‘the right to know’ and ‘the right to comprehend’ [ 61 ]. There is a huge gap between: on one side, the growing scientific knowledge available with the complex legislation mechanisms that evolved in the recent decades and on the other side, the basic reasonable expectations of consumers. On the basis of the results of the present survey, we compiled the presumed essential needs that consumers have in respect of harmful substances in products (Box 2 ).

Consumers have the right to expect that the products they use do not contain chemicals which could pose a threat to the environment and their health and safety. However, before the non-toxic environment becomes real, consumers must be informed and trained to be able to make informed decisions.

Box 2: Condensed proposal of the basic needs motivated consumers have about harmful substances in products

‘I want to use safe products.’

‘I want to know whether there is a risk for me, my family or the environment.’

‘I want to know whether the risk outweighs the benefit.’

‘I want to receive easily accessible, easily understandable and trustworthy information that is relevant for me.’

‘I want to know how to reduce or avoid risk.’

‘I want to be rewarded if I make all these efforts.’

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European parliament and of the council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008R1272:en:NOT . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

ECHA. Communication on the Safe Use of Chemicals: Study on the Communication of Information to the General Public (2012). ECHA-12-A-01-EN. https://echa.europa.eu/-/communication-on-the-safe-use-of-chemicals . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Riley DM, Fischhoff B, Small MJ, Fischbeck P (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of risk-reduction strategies for consumer chemical products. Risk Anal 21(2):357–369

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Klaschka U, Rother H-A (2013) Read this and be safe! Comparison of regulatory processes for communicating risks of personal care products to European and South African consumers. Environ Sci Europe 25:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-25-30

Article   Google Scholar  

ECHA: Special Eurobarometer 360: Consumer Understanding of Labels and the Safe Use of Chemicals (2011). http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Rother H-A (2008) South African farm workers’ interpretation of risk assessment data expressed as pictograms on pesticide labels. Environ Res 108:419–427

ECHA: Flash Eurobarometer 361. Chemicals (2013) http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_361_en.pdf . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Rowe G, Wright G (2001) Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: myth or reality? Risk Anal 21(2):341–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.212116

Rother HA (2011) Challenges in pesticide risk communication. In: Jerome N (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental health. Elsevier, New York, pp 566–575

Chapter   Google Scholar  

ECHA survey in 2016 with the following two questions: Do you have any previous experience of working in the chemical sector? How interested are you in chemical safety in your everyday life? https://www.webropolsurveys.com/Answer/SurveyParticipation.aspx?SDID=Fin1162353&SID=0e89d416-5dc7-43db-bb46-bbd23563196e&dy=287776830 . (no longer accessible because survey is completed)

European Chemicals Agency: Guidance on the communication of information on the risks and safe use of chemicals (2010). ECHA-2010-G-21-EN. Helsinki. http://echa.europa.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/action-programme . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

ECHA fitness check of the EU Chemicals legislation. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8695 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

BEUC (2016) regulatory fitness check of chemicals legislation Except REACH—A consumer view. BEUC-X-2016-048—24/05/2016

Molander L, Breitholtz M, Andersson PL, Rybacka A, Rudén C (2012) Are chemicals in articles an obstacle for reaching environmental goals?—missing links in EU chemical management. Sci Total Environ 435–436:280–289

Pauwels M, Rogiers V (2010) Human health safety evaluation of cosmetics in the EU: a legally imposed challenge to science. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 243:260–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2009.12.007

Klaschka U (2012) Dangerous cosmetics - criteria for classification, labelling and packaging (EC 1272/2008) applied to personal care products. Environ Sci Europe 24:37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-24-37 . http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/37

Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European parliament and the council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0059:0209:en:PDF . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32004R0648 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Noiesen E, Munk MD, Larsen K, Johansen JD, Agner T (2007) Difficulties in avoiding exposure to allergens in cosmetics. Contact Dermat 57:105–109

Lysdal SH, Johansen JD (2009) Fragrance contact allergic patients: strategies for use of cosmetic products and perceived impact on life situation. Contact Dermat 61:320–324

Steinemann AC (2009) Fragranced consumer products and undisclosed ingredients. Environm Impact assess Rev 29(1):32–38

Steinemann AC, MacGregor IC, Gordon SM, Gallagher LG, Davis AL, Ribeiro DS, Wallace LA (2010) Fragranced consumer products: chemicals emitted, ingredients unlisted. Environ Impact Asses Rev 31:328–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.08.002

Rastogi SC (2000) Analytical control of preservative labelling on skin creams. Contact Dermat 43:339–343

Dodson RE, Nishioka M, Standley LJ, Perovich LJ, Brody JG, Rudel RA (2012) Endocrine disruptors and asthma-associated chemicals in consumer products. Environ Health Persp 120(7):935–943

Annual reports by the cantonal laboratory, basel. http://www.kantonslabor.bs.ch/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Directive 2011/65/EU restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances (ROHS) in electrical and electronic equipment. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

European Construction Products Regulation No 305/2011 of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/de/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011R0305 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Toy safety directive 2009/48/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0048 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Directive 93/42/EEC regarding medical devices. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31993L0042 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Directive 90/385/EEC regarding active implantable medical devices. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31990L0385 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Directive 98/79/EC regarding in vitro diagnostic medical devices. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31998L0079 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Packaging Directive (2004/12/EC). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32004L0012 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006R1907 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Reihlen A, Jepsen D, Bunke D (2015) Guidance on Communication on Substances in Articles. UBA-Texte 103/2015. http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/guidance-on-communication-on-substances-in-articles . Accessed 3 Aug 2017

Klaschka U (2017) Where are the SVHCs? 10 years consumer’s ‘right to know’ about substances of very high concern. Environ Sci Europe 29:24, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-017-0122-0 . https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-017-0122-0

http://www.ec.europa.eu/rapex . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Klaschka U (2017) Trust, but verify! Personal Care Products in the Rapid Alert System Database RAPEX. Sust Chem Pharm 5:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2017.01.002

Google Scholar  

Regulation (EC) 889/2008 for organic food. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2008.250.01.0001.01.ENG . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Regulation on the EU ecolabel (EC) 66/2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010R0066 . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

http://www.blauer-engel.de . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Klaschka U (2016) Natural personal care products: analysis of ingredient lists and legal situation. Environ Sci Europe 28:8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-016-0076-7 . http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-016-0076-7.pdf

FDA confirms elevated levels of belladonna in certain homeopathic teething products (2017). https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm538684.htm . Accessed 1 Aug 2017

Schmacke N, Weymayr C, Hontschik B (2015) Der Glaube an die Globuli, suhrkamp 4639 Berlin

Kaplan S (2017) Homeopathic remedies harmed hundreds of babies, families say, as FDA investigated for years. STAT news. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hundreds-of-babies-harmed-by-homeopathic-remedies-families-say . Accessed 1 Aug 2017

Smith K (2012) Homeopathy a utilitarian perspective. Bioethics. 1467-8519 (online). doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01876.x

http://www.oeko-tex.com . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

http://www.oekotest.de . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

https://www.bund.net/themen/chemie/toxfox/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

https://www.codecheck.info/ Accessed 2 Aug 2017

https://www.destatis.de . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

https://www.bund.net/service/publikationen/detail/publication/bund-jahresbericht-2016/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

https://www.nabu-netz.de/verbandsleben/ueber-uns.html . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

http://www.wwf.de/ueber-uns/jahresbericht/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

https://www.greenpeace.de/presse/publikationen/jahresbericht-2015 . Accessed 2 August 2017

http://www.daab.de/ueber-den-deutschen-allergie-und-asthmabund/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

http://www.foodwatch.org/de/ueber-foodwatch/freunde-foerderer/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2017

Langen U, Schmitz R, Steppuhn H (2013) Häufigkeit allergischer Erkrankungen in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland (DEGS1) Bundesgesundheitsbl 56:698–706. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-012-1652-7 (in German)

Ascough JC II, Maier HR, Ravalico JK, Strudley MW (2008) Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making. Ecol Model 219:383–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.07.015

Heidmann I, Milde J (2013) Communication about scientific uncertainty: how scientists and science journalists deal with uncertainties in nanoparticle research. Environ Sci Europe 25:25–29

Rother H-A (2014) Communicating pesticide neurotoxicity research findings and risks to decision-makers and the public. NeuroToxicol 45:327–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2014.03.001

Wieck S (2015) The necessity of disinfected toilet brushes - information policy of companies on disinfectants in private homes. Environ Sci Europe 27:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-015-0038-5

Quandt SA, Doran AM, Rao P, Hoppin JA, Snively BM, Arcury TA (2004) Reporting pesticide assessment results to farmworker families: development, implementation, and evaluation of a risk communication strategy. Environ Health Persp 112(5):636–642

Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

Seiler T‐B, Engwall M, Hollert H (2013) Lost in translation? Ways for environmental sciences to communicate about risk and research. Environ Sci Europe 25:8–12 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2190-4715-25-8

Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and risk communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–145

Download references

Authors’ contributions

SH performed the data calculations. UK made the study design and wrote the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Eva Becker (German Environment Agency) and Angelika Gellrich (German Environment Agency) for fruitful discussions.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

This does not apply to this study.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study did not receive any funding.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081, Ulm, Germany

Sabrina Hartmann

University of Applied Sciences Ulm, Prittwitzstr. 10, 89075, Ulm, Germany

Ursula Klaschka

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ursula Klaschka .

Additional files

Additional file 1. survey questions in german., additional file 2: table s1. age groups of study participants and self-reported knowledge of chemistry., appendix: text of the survey.

Welcome to our survey on chemicals which are harmful for human health or the environment and used in everyday products (such as furniture, electronic appliances, plastic products). Our aim is to make suggestions for improving the legal framework. Your answers are valuable contributions for our work. We would be happy if you could answer the questionnaire and forward it to friends so that we will receive a large number of answers in the short time span. The analysis of the answers will be anonymous. In case you are interested in the results of our study , please send an e-mail to the address indicated at the end of the questionnaire, and we will send them to you. We will cast lots among these addresses and give away three vouchers worth 100 Euros each to be redeemed at the shop of the BUND (friends of the earth Germany) ( http://www.bundladen.de ).

Prof. Dr. Ursula Klaschka ( The University of Applied Sciences Ulm ) is responsible for the survey, which will be conducted until October 31, 2016.

Questions with circular symbols allow only a single answer, whereas questions with rectangular symbols allow several answers.

Thank you for your participation!

Is it of interest to you whether everyday products you are using contain chemicals that are harmful for human health or the environment?

○ Yes, basically always. => 3.

○ This is of interest for me for some products, only. => 3.

○ No. => 2.

Under which circumstances might you get interested?

\(\square \quad\) If I had more time.

\(\square \quad\) If I had fewer other problems.

\(\square \quad\) If one of my family members or myself would suffer from chemical intolerance.

\(\square \quad\) If I knew more about chemistry.

\(\square \quad\) If I would have to know more about it for job reasons.

\(\square \quad\) If my family and my friends would be interested.

\(\square \quad\) I can’t imagine that I would ever be interested.

\(\square \quad\) Other reasons:

Which products are of interest to you for human health reasons ?

\(\square \quad\) Personal care products.

\(\square \quad\) Food.

\(\square \quad\) Pesticides.

\(\square \quad\) Washing and cleansing products.

\(\square \quad\) Electronic appliances.

\(\square \quad\) Furniture.

\(\square \quad\) Textiles.

\(\square \quad\) Toys.

\(\square \quad\) Sports equipment.

\(\square \quad\) Car care products.

\(\square \quad\) Building materials (e.g., insulation boards, flooring, sealings).

\(\square \quad\) All.

\(\square \quad\) Other:

Which products are of interest to you for environmental reasons ?

\(\square \quad\) Pharmaceuticals.

\(\square \quad\) None.

Why are you interested in information on everyday products containing chemicals that are harmful for human health or the environment?

\(\square \quad\) I care for my health and the health of my family.

\(\square \quad\) I care for plants and animals in our environment.

\(\square \quad\) I care for the environment as the basis of my life.

\(\square \quad\) I want that future generations will have a good life on earth.

\(\square \quad\) I am interested in chemistry.

\(\square \quad\) I am interested in the functional principles of chemicals in products.

\(\square \quad\) I am interested for job reasons.

Do you know, that products you can buy in the EU can contain chemicals that are harmful for human health ?

○ I am not sure.

Do you know, that products you can buy in the EU can contain chemicals that are harmful for the environment ?

How do you find out from the product itself whether it contains substances harmful for human health or for the environment?

\(\square \quad\) Information on the packaging.

\(\square \quad\) List of ingredients.

\(\square \quad\) Hazard symbols (pictograms with, for example, a skull, an exclamation mark, or a dead tree and a dead fish) ( http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/chemikalien/einstufung-kennzeichnung-von-chemikalien ).

\(\square \quad\) I am using the app ToxFox ( http://www.bund.net/toxfox ).

\(\square \quad\) I am using the app CodeCheck ( http://www.codecheck.info ).

\(\square \quad\) On the basis of the smell of the product.

\(\square \quad\) I ask the salesperson.

\(\square \quad\) I do not know how I could find out about this.

In addition to the information on the product, where and how do you gain further information on substances that are harmful for human health and the environment?

\(\square \quad\) Information by the manufacturer.

\(\square \quad\) I ask the manufacturer on my own initiative.

\(\square \quad\) Reports and tests in newspapers, radio, and television.

\(\square \quad\) Consumer and environmental organizations.

\(\square \quad\) The European database RAPEX for products which do not comply with the laws ( http://www.rapex.eu ).

\(\square \quad\) Scientific publications.

\(\square \quad\) Homepage CodeCheck ( http://www.codechek.de ).

\(\square \quad\) Authorities.

\(\square \quad\) Family and friends.

\(\square \quad\) Own experiences with the product.

\(\square \quad\) Dangerous substances are everywhere. I do not need to enquire further.

\(\square \quad\) I do not know where to gain further information.

\(\square \quad\) Other:…..

Which information do you trust ?

\(\square \quad\) List of ingredients on the product packaging.

\(\square \quad\) Other information on the product packaging.

\(\square \quad\) Information by the salesperson.

\(\square \quad\) Hazard symbols (pictograms with, for example, a skull, an exclamation mark, or a dead tree and a dead fish).

\(\square \quad\) The European database RAPEX ( http://www.rapex.eu ).

\(\square \quad\) Information by authorities.

\(\square \quad\) App ToxFox ( http://www.bund.net/toxfox ).

\(\square \quad\) App CodeCheck ( http://www.codecheck.info ).

\(\square \quad\) Experiences made by family and friends.

\(\square \quad\) Own experiences.

\(\square \quad\) Smell.

\(\square \quad\) Other:…………..

Which products do you consider free of substances harmful for human health or the environment?

\(\square \quad\) Products without any indication on the packaging that these substances are present (such as hazard pictograms).

\(\square \quad\) Organic food produced according to the EU Regulation for organic food with the EU organic products label.

\(\square \quad\) Untreated food taken from own private garden.

\(\square \quad\) Natural personal care products.

\(\square \quad\) Natural pharmaceuticals.

\(\square \quad\) Homeopathic products.

\(\square \quad\) Medical devices.

\(\square \quad\) Products with an ecolabel, for example. the Blue Angel ( http://www.blauer-engel.de ).

\(\square \quad\) Products for children.

\(\square \quad\) Products which are produced in the EU.

\(\square \quad\) None of these products.

\(\square \quad\) Others:……

How do you reduce your personal risk when you use products that contain or could contain substances harmful for human health?

\(\square \quad\) I read the description on the packaging carefully.

\(\square \quad\) I follow the recommended application and safety instructions on the product and use gloves. for example.

\(\square \quad\) I use the product as little as possible.

\(\square \quad\) I assume that the amounts that I am using are so small that I do not need to be mindful of anything.

\(\square \quad\) I trust that the substances will not have negative effects on my health.

\(\square \quad\) If possible, I do not buy such products.

\(\square \quad\) I do not do anything.

\(\square \quad\) Other possibilities:………..

How do you reduce the risk for the environment when you use products that contain or could contain substances harmful for the environment?

\(\square \quad\) I follow the recommended application and safety instructions on the product.

\(\square \quad\) I dispose of the product after use according to instructions.

Who is responsible to reduce the use of substances harmful for human health and the environment in our society according to your opinion?

\(\square \quad\) Manufacturer and importer.

\(\square \quad\) Legislator who sets the standards.

\(\square \quad\) Consumers.

\(\square \quad\) Nobody.

\(\square \quad\) Everybody

Questions 15.–27. (skipped in this analysis)

General statistical information about your person.

Are you male or female?

What is your age?

○ Below 20.

○ 70 or older.

Do you have children who are less than 18 years old?

What is your highest educational qualification?

○ Presently at school.

○ Presently student or in job training.

○ Completed vocational training/apprenticeship.

○ Foreman/business administrator.

○ University degree/Ph.D.

How do you assess your knowledge of chemistry?

○ None/little.

○ Very good.

Are you dealing with chemicals or REACH at your workplace?

Are you member of an environmental organization?

Are you member of a consumer organization?

Are you an EU citizen?

Do you or does any of your family members suffer from chemical intolerance?

Are you interested in the results of our study ? We are happy to send them to you by e-mail. You can also win one of three vouchers worth 100 Euros each to be redeemed at the shop of the BUND (friends of the earth Germany) ( www.bundladen.de ). We want to guarantee that your answers will stay anonymous, therefore please send us an E-mail with the word ‘Verlosung’ (tombola) in the subject heading to the following address: [email protected].

Do you have any comments or notes?

Do you want to know more? Here are the essentials in brief .

Lots of everyday products contain dangerous substances . The hazard pictograms and safety phrases on the containers of paints, varnishes, and washing and cleansing products depict the dangers of such a mixture of chemicals ( http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/chemikalien/einstufung-kennzeichnung-von-chemikalien ). There are also recommendations for safe handling on the container which help you to reduce your personal risk when dealing with the product and to avoid damage to the environment. Ingredients are listed on the containers/packaging of personal care products and washing and cleansing products. In contrast to that, there is no legal obligation that other products such as electronic appliances, plastic products, or furniture have to be labeled with regard to their content of substances harmful to human health or the environment.

You have the right to ask manufacturers of objects, such as electronic appliances, plastic products, or furniture, whether ‘substances of very high concern’ are present in a specific product above a certain concentration ( REACH right to know ). These substances are, for example, carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic for reproduction, or very critical for the environment. Examples are certain plasticizers for plastic materials (phthalates), cadmium compounds, or arsenic compounds. A list of these ‘substances of very high concern’ is compiled in the framework of the European chemical legislation REACH Regulation ( Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals ). This list is extended regularly and available on the internet under, for example, [ http://www.reach-clp-biozid-helpdesk.de/de/REACH/Kandidatenliste/Kandidatenliste.html ]. It does not need to be written on a product whether it contains these substances. Instead you may send an inquiry for a certain product to the manufacturer or the distributor which he must answer within 45 days, in case such a substance is present in the product above the threshold of 0.1 weight %. You find a sample letter ( http://www.reach-info.de/auskunftsrecht.htm ) and an online form ( http://www.reach-info.de/verbraucheranfrage.htm ) on the homepage of the German Environment Agency (UBA). UBA is currently working on a smartphone app ‘Scan4Chem’ which will facilitate the information request. The app ToxFox by the BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) will consider substances of very high concern in addition to endocrine substances in future.

One of the aims of the right to know by the European Regulation on chemicals (REACH) is that manufacturers replace these substances by less-harmful substances in the long term. Please find further information under ( http://www.reach-info.de/svhc.htm ) or ( http://www.reach-clp-biozid-helpdesk.de/de/REACH/SVHC-Roadmap/Roadmap.html ).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hartmann, S., Klaschka, U. Interested consumers’ awareness of harmful chemicals in everyday products. Environ Sci Eur 29 , 29 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-017-0127-8

Download citation

Received : 21 August 2017

Accepted : 07 November 2017

Published : 21 November 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-017-0127-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Hazardous substances
• Harmful substances
• Risk communication and comprehension
• Consumer products
• Consumers’ attitudes
• Consumers’ awareness

Advertisement

Hazardous wastes, adverse impacts, and management strategies: a way forward to environmental sustainability

• Published: 06 October 2021
• Volume 24 , pages 9731–9756, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Guoqing Qian 1 ,
• Chuansong Duanmu 1 ,
• Nisar Ali   nAff1 ,
• Adnan Khan 2 ,
• Sumeet Malik 2 ,
• Yong Yang 1 &
• Muhammad Bilal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5388-3183 3  

1432 Accesses

12 Citations

Explore all metrics

There has been great concern about producing, converting, or disposing of the waste obtained from different sources. Waste production is a continuous phenomenon that can be minimized by taking certain measures; however, it cannot be eliminated completely. The wastes produced along with various useful processes, such as industrial operations or natural processes, may have hazardous effects on the living organisms. The hazards brought about by natural calamities or man-made operations can affect the integrity of the natural environment and the living entities in the worst possible ways. An insight into the hazardous effects and the associated causes intensifies the need to develop hazard management strategies. Hazard management policies have garnered prodigious attention due to the disastrous effects of hazardous materials. The hazard management policies are being addressed at the government as well as the individual levels benefitting mankind. Worldwide, different countries are working on hazard management in different capacities, depending upon the available resources. Attempts are being made to manage hazardous products obtained from different sources without the natural sources being worn out, ensuring environmental sustainability. The general escalation in world pollution, making it unfit for living organisms, ruining the aesthetic beauty of the environment, etc., has given rise to great concerns about waste management. The control and management of waste products have become the hottest topic being discussed on various platforms like symposia, workshops (both National and International), conferences, and a demanding topic in many journals. Considering the dire need for knowledge and awareness about waste management, this review focuses on the causes and effects of the hazards and measures being taken at different levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A critical review on sustainable hazardous waste management strategies: a step towards a circular economy

Conventional and Emerging Practices in Hazardous Waste Management

Possible Strategies for Hazardous Waste Management and Legality

Data availability.

Not applicable.

Abd-El Monsef, H., & Smith, S. E. (2019). Integrating remote sensing, geographic information system, and analytical hierarchy process for hazardous waste landfill site selection. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12 (5), 1–14.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abdel-Shafy, H. I., & Mansour, M. S. (2018). Solid waste issue: Sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum, 27 (4), 1275–1290.

Adamcová, D., Vaverková, M. D., Stejskal, B., & Břoušková, E. (2016). Household solid waste composition focusing on hazardous waste.  Polish Journal of Environmental Studies ,  25 (2).

AghaKouchak, A., Huning, L. S., Chiang, F., Sadegh, M., Vahedifard, F., Mazdiyasni, O., & Mallakpour, I. (2018). How do natural hazards cascade to cause disasters? 561 (7724), 458–460.

Ahearn, A. (2018). Herders and hazards: Covariate dzud risk and the cost of risk management strategies in a Mongolian subdistrict. Natural Hazards, 92 (1), 165–181.

Akkoyunlu, A., Avşar, Y., & Erguven, G. O. (2017). Hazardous waste management in Turkey. Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste, 21 (4), 04017018.

Akpan, V. E., & Olukanni, D. O. (2020). Hazardous waste management: An African overview. Recycling, 5 (3), 15.

Ali, N., Bilal, M., Khan, A., Ali, F., Yang, Y., Khan, M., ...& Iqbal, H. M. (2020c). Dynamics of oil-water interface demulsification using multifunctional magnetic hybrid and assembly materials.  Journal of Molecular Liquids , 113434.

Ali, N., Khan, A., Malik, S., Badshah, S., Bilal, M., & Iqbal, H. M. (2020d). Chitosan-based green sorbent material for cations removal from an aqueous environment.  Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering , 104064.

Ali, N., Khan, A., Malik, S., Badshah, S., Bilal, M., &Iqbal, H. M. (2020k). Chitosan-based green sorbent material for cations removal from an aqueous environment.  Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering , 104064.

Ali, N., Azeem, S., Khan, A., Khan, H., Kamal, T., &Asiri, A. M. (2020i). Experimental studies on removal of arsenites from industrial effluents using tridodecylamine supported liquid membrane.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 1–12.

Ali, N., Bilal, M., Khan, A., Ali, F., & Iqbal, H. M. (2020j). Design, engineering and analytical perspectives of membrane materials with smart surfaces for efficient oil/water separation.  TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry , 115902.

Ali, N., Bilal, M., Khan, A., Ali, F., Yang, Y., Malik, S., ... & Iqbal, H. M. (2021). Deployment of metal-organic frameworks as robust materials for sustainable catalysis and remediation of pollutants in environmental settings.  Chemosphere , 129605.

Ali, N., Ahmad, S., Khan, A., Khan, S., Bilal, M., Ud Din, S., & Khan, H. (2020a). Selenide-chitosan as high-performance nanophotocatalyst for accelerated degradation of pollutants. Chemistry a– Asian Journal, 15 (17), 2660–2673.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ali, N., Bilal, M., Nazir, M. S., Khan, A., Ali, F., & Iqbal, H. M. (2020e). Thermochemical and electrochemical aspects of carbon dioxide methanation: A sustainable approach to generate fuel via waste to energy theme. Science of the Total Environment, 712 , 136482.

Ali, N., Ismail, M., Khan, A., Khan, H., Haider, S., & Kamal, T. (2018a). Spectrophotometric methods for the determination of urea in real samples using silver nanoparticles by standard addition and 2nd order derivative methods. Spectrochimica Acta Part a: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 189 , 110–115.

Ali, N., Kamal, T., Ul-Islam, M., Khan, A., Shah, S. J., & Zada, A. (2018b). Chitosan-coated cotton cloth supported copper nanoparticles for toxic dye reduction. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 111 , 832–838.

Ali, N., Khan, A., Bilal, M., Malik, S., Badshah, S., & Iqbal, H. (2020f). Chitosan-based bio-composite modified with thiocarbamate moiety for decontamination of cations from the aqueous media. Molecules, 25 (1), 226.

Ali, N., Khan, A., Nawaz, S., Bilal, M., Malik, S., Badshah, S., & Iqbal, H. M. (2020i). Characterization and deployment of surface-engineered chitosan-triethylenetetramine nanocomposite hybrid nano-adsorbent for divalent cations decontamination. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 152 , 663–671.

Ali, N., Naz, N., Shah, Z., Khan, A., & Nawaz, R. (2020j). Selective transportation of molybdenum from model and ore through poly inclusion membrane. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Ethiopia, 34 (1), 93–104.

Ali, N., Uddin, S., Khan, A., Khan, S., Khan, S., Ali, N., & …& Bilal, M. . (2020k). Regenerable chitosan-bismuth cobalt selenide hybrid microspheres for mitigation of organic pollutants in an aqueous environment. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 161 , 1305–1317.

Ali, N., Zada, A., Zahid, M., Ismail, A., Rafiq, M., Riaz, A., & Khan, A. (2019). Enhanced photodegradation of methylene blue with alkaline and transition-metal ferrite nanophotocatalysts under direct sun light irradiation. Journal of the Chinese Chemical Society, 66 (4), 402–408.

Almasi, A., Mohammadi, M., Azizi, A., Berizi, Z., Shamsi, K., Shahbazi, A., & Mosavi, S. A. (2019). Assessing the knowledge, attitude and practice of the kermanshahi women towards reducing, recycling and reusing of municipal solid waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141 , 329–338.

Argyroudis, S. A., Mitoulis, S. Α, Winter, M. G., & Kaynia, A. M. (2019). Fragility of transport assets exposed to multiple hazards: State-of-the-art review toward infrastructural resilience. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 191 , 106567.

Arnold, M. C., de Vargas, A. S., & Bianchini, L. (2017). Study of electric-arc furnace dust (EAFD) in fly ash and rice husk ash-based geopolymers. Advanced Powder Technology, 28 (9), 2023–2034.

Asante, K. A., Amoyaw-Osei, Y., & Agusa, T. (2019). E-waste recycling in Africa: risks and opportunities. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 18 , 109–117.

Asgedom, A. A., Bråtveit, M., & Moen, B. E. (2019). Knowledge, attitude and practice related to chemical hazards and personal protective equipment among particleboard workers in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 19 (1), 1–10.

Aziz, A., Ali, N., Khan, A., Bilal, M., Malik, S., Ali, N., & Khan, H. (2020). Chitosan-zinc sulfide nanoparticles, characterization and their photocatalytic degradation efficiency for azo dyes.  International Journal of Biological Macromolecules .

Borghi, G., Pantini, S., & Rigamonti, L. (2018). Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) management in Lombardy Region (Italy). Journal of Cleaner Production, 184 , 815–825.

Bours, J., Adzima, B., Gladwin, S., Cabral, J., & Mau, S. (2017). Addressing hazardous implications of additive manufacturing: Complementing life cycle assessment with a framework for evaluating direct human health and environmental impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (S1), S25–S36.

Bui, T. D., Tsai, F. M., Tseng, M. L., & Ali, M. H. (2020). Identifying sustainable solid waste management barriers in practice using the fuzzy Delphi method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 154 , 104625.

Burella, G., Moro, L., & Colbourne, B. (2019). Noise sources and hazardous noise levels on fishing vessels: The case of Newfoundland and Labrador’s fleet. Ocean Engineering, 173 , 116–130.

Cardenas, E., Orellana, L. H., Konstantinidis, K. T., & Mohn, W. W. (2018). Effects of timber harvesting on the genetic potential for carbon and nitrogen cycling in five North American forest ecozones. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 1–13.

Carrão, H., Naumann, G., & Barbosa, P. (2018). Global projections of drought hazard in a warming climate: A prime for disaster risk management. Climate Dynamics, 50 (5), 2137–2155.

Carvalho, J. L. N., Nogueirol, R. C., Menandro, L. M. S., Bordonal, R. D. O., Borges, C. D., Cantarella, H., & Franco, H. C. J. (2017). Agronomic and environmental implications of sugarcane straw removal: A major review. Gcb Bioenergy, 9 (7), 1181–1195.

Chan, E. Y. Y., Huang, Z., Lo, E. S. K., Hung, K. K. C., Wong, E. L. Y., & Wong, S. Y. S. (2020). Sociodemographic predictors of health risk perception, attitude and behavior practices associated with health-emergency disaster risk management for biological hazards: The case of COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, SAR China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (11), 3869.

Chavan, P., Singh, A. K., & Kaur, G. (2018). Recent progress in the utilization of industrial waste and by-products of citrus fruits: A review. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 41 (8), e12895.

Chen, Y., Chen, M., Li, Y., Wang, B., Chen, S., & Xu, Z. (2018). Impact of technological innovation and regulation development on e-waste toxicity: A case study of waste mobile phones. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 1–9.

Google Scholar  

Cheng, D., Li, Z., Zhang, X., Feng, Y., & Zhang, S. (2018). Removal of veterinary antibiotics in livestock and poultry manure: A review. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 51 (17), 3335–3352.

Chowdhury, S., Kim, G. H., Bolan, N., & Longhurst, P. (2019). A critical review on risk evaluation and hazardous management in carcass burial. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 123 , 272–288.

Congilosi, J. L., & Aga, D. S. (2021). Review on the fate of antimicrobials, antimicrobial resistance genes, and other micropollutants in manure during enhanced anaerobic digestion and composting. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 405 , 123634.

Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., & Gastaldi, M. (2017). Sustainable waste management: Waste to energy plant as an alternative to landfill. Energy Conversion and Management, 131 , 18–31.

Dai, Y., Zhang, N., Xing, C., Cui, Q., & Sun, Q. (2019). The adsorption, regeneration and engineering applications of biochar for removal organic pollutants: A review. Chemosphere, 223 , 12–27.

Detert, T., Eddine, S. C., Fauroux, J. C., Haschke, T., Becchi, F., Corves, B., & Martin, D. (2017). Bots2ReC: Introducing mobile robotic units on construction sites for asbestos rehabilitation. Construction Robotics, 1 (1), 29–37.

Dinler, E., & Güngör, Z. (2017). Planning decisions for recycling products containing hazardous and explosive substances: A fuzzy multi-objective model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 117 , 93–101.

Dorn, R. I. (2020). Anthropogenic interactions with rock varnish.  Biogeochemical Cycles: Ecological Drivers and Environmental Impact , 267–283.

dos Reis, G. S., Thue, P. S., Cazacliu, B. G., Lima, E. C., Sampaio, C. H., Quattrone, M., & Dotto, G. L. (2020). Effect of concrete carbonation on phosphate removal through adsorption process and its potential application as fertilizer. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256 , 120416.

Du, Z., Zhang, S., Zhou, Q., Yuen, K. F., & Wong, Y. D. (2018). Hazardous materials analysis and disposal procedures during ship recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 131 , 158–171.

Dwivedi, S. P., & Dwivedi, G. (2020). Utilization of recycled hazardous waste bagasse as reinforcement to develop green composite material.  World Journal of Engineering .

Ekpeni, N. M., & Ayeni, A. O. (2018). Global Natural Hazard and Disaster Vulnerability Management. In  Handbook of Research on Environmental Policies for Emergency Management and Public Safety  (pp. 83–104). IGI Global.

Er, A., Oztek, O., &Kayis, S. (2019). Effects of concrete additives on vital tissues of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): A histological examination.

Fang, C., Chu, Y., Jiang, L., Wang, H., Long, Y., & Shen, D. (2018). Removal of phthalic acid diesters through a municipal solid waste landfill leachate treatment process. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 20 (1), 585–591.

Fazzo, L., Minichilli, F., Santoro, M., Ceccarini, A., Della Seta, M., Bianchi, F., & Martuzzi, M. (2017). Hazardous waste and health impact: A systematic review of the scientific literature. Environmental Health, 16 (1), 1–11.

Fuchs, S., Röthlisberger, V., Thaler, T., Zischg, A., & Keiler, M. (2017). Natural hazard management from a coevolutionary perspective: Exposure and policy response in the European Alps. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107 (2), 382–392.

Gautam, P., Kumar, S., & Lokhandwala, S. (2019). Advanced oxidation processes for treatment of leachate from hazardous waste landfill: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237 , 117639.

Ge, X. J., Livesey, P., Wang, J., Huang, S., He, X., & Zhang, C. (2017). Deconstruction waste management through 3d reconstruction and bim: A case study. Visualization in Engineering, 5 (1), 1–15.

Ghimire, K. M. (2020). Natural Disasters and Weak Government Institutions: Creating a Vicious Cycle that Ensnares Developing Countries.  Law and Development Review ,  1 (ahead-of-print).

Giordan, D., Hayakawa, Y., Nex, F., Remondino, F., & Tarolli, P. (2018). The use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPASs) for natural hazards monitoring and management. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18 (4), 1079–1096.

Goel, S. (Ed.). (2017).  Advances in Solid and Hazardous Waste Management . Springer.

Guan, Y., Huang, G., Liu, L., Huang, C. Z., & Zhai, M. (2019). Ecological network analysis for an industrial solid waste metabolism system. Environmental Pollution, 244 , 279–287.

Haniffa, M. A. C. M., Ching, Y. C., Illias, H. A., Munawar, K., Ibrahim, S., Nguyen, D. H., &Chuah, C. H. (2020). Cellulose supported promising magnetic sorbents for magnetic solid-phase extraction: A review.  Carbohydrate Polymers , 117245.

He, K., Zhang, J., & Zeng, Y. (2019). Knowledge domain and emerging trends of agricultural waste management in the field of social science: A scientometric review. Science of the Total Environment, 670 , 236–244.

Hearn, G. J., & Shakya, N. M. (2017). Engineering challenges for sustainable road access in the Himalayas. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 50 (1), 69–80.

Hemingway, R., & Gunawan, O. (2018). The Natural Hazards Partnership: A public-sector collaboration across the UK for natural hazard disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27 , 499–511.

Hölzle, I. (2019). Analysing material flows of landfill mining in a regional context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207 , 317–328.

Hong, J., Han, X., Chen, Y., Wang, M., Ye, L., Qi, C., & Li, X. (2017). Life cycle environmental assessment of industrial hazardous waste incineration and landfilling in China. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22 (7), 1054–1064.

Hong, J., Zhan, S., Yu, Z., Hong, J., & Qi, C. (2018). Life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of medical waste treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174 , 65–73.

Hsu, P. H., Lee, H. H., Peng, S. C., & Yi, L. (2018). Natural disasters, technology diversity, and operating performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100 (4), 619–630.

Hudcová, H., Vymazal, J., & Rozkošný, M. (2019). Present restrictions of sewage sludge application in agriculture within the European Union. Soil and Water Research, 14 (2), 104–120.

Idowu, I. A., Atherton, W., Hashim, K., Kot, P., Alkhaddar, R., Alo, B. I., & Shaw, A. (2019). An analyses of the status of landfill classification systems in developing countries: Sub Saharan Africa landfill experiences. Waste Management, 87 , 761–771.

Ikhlayel, M. (2017). Environmental impacts and benefits of state-of-the-art technologies for E-waste management. Waste Management, 68 , 458–474.

Imtiazuddin, S. M., Tiki, S., & Chemicals, A. V. M. (2018). Impact of textile waste water pollution on the environment. Pakistan Textile Journal, DOI, 10 , 38–39.

Inglezakis, V. J., & Moustakas, K. (2015). Household hazardous waste management: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 150 , 310–321.

Ishchenko, V., Pohrebennyk, V., Borowik, B., Falat, P., &Shaikhanova, A. (2018). Toxic substances in hazardous household waste.

Ismail, H., & Hanafiah, M. M. (2019). Discovering opportunities to meet the challenges of an effective waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling system in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238 , 117927.

Jain, P., Rogers, W. J., Pasman, H. J., & Mannan, M. S. (2018). A resilience-based integrated process systems hazard analysis (RIPSHA) approach: Part II management system layer. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 118 , 115–124.

Jeelani, I., Albert, A., Azevedo, R., & Jaselskis, E. J. (2017). Development and testing of a personalized hazard-recognition training intervention. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143 (5), 04016120.

Johansson, N., Krook, J., & Eklund, M. (2017). The institutional capacity for a resource transition—A critical review of Swedish governmental commissions on landfill mining. Environmental Science & Policy, 70 , 46–53.

Joseph, L., Jun, B. M., Flora, J. R., Park, C. M., & Yoon, Y. (2019). Removal of heavy metals from water sources in the developing world using low-cost materials: A review. Chemosphere, 229 , 142–159.

Kamaruddin, M. A., Yusoff, M. S., Rui, L. M., Isa, A. M., Zawawi, M. H., & Alrozi, R. (2017). An overview of municipal solid waste management and landfill leachate treatment: Malaysia and Asian perspectives. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24 (35), 26988–27020.

Kanagamani, K., Geethamani, P., &Narmatha, M. (2020). Hazardous Waste Management. In  Environmental Change and Sustainability . IntechOpen.

Khan, H., Gul, K., Ara, B., Khan, A., Ali, N., Ali, N., & Bilal, M. (2020). Adsorptive removal of acrylic acid from the aqueous environment using raw and chemically modified alumina: Batch adsorption, kinetic, equilibrium and thermodynamic studies.  Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering , 103927.

Khan, S., Khan, A., Ali, N., Ahmad, S., Ahmad, W., Malik, S., ... & Bilal, M. (2021). Degradation of carcinogenic Congo red dye using ternary metal selenide-chitosan microspheres as robust and reusable catalysts.  Environmental Technology & Innovation , 101402.

Khan, A., Ali, N., Bilal, M., Malik, S., Badshah, S., & Iqbal, H. (2019a). Engineering functionalized chitosan-based sorbent material: Characterization and sorption of toxic elements. Applied Sciences, 9 (23), 5138.

Khan, A., Badshah, S., & Airoldi, C. (2011a). Biosorption of some toxic metal ions by chitosan modified with glycidylmethacrylate and diethylenetriamine. Chemical Engineering Journal, 171 (1), 159–166.

Khan, A., Badshah, S., & Airoldi, C. (2011b). Dithiocarbamated chitosan as a potent biopolymer for toxic cation remediation. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 87 (1), 88–95.

Khan, A., Badshah, S., & Airoldi, C. (2015a). Environmentally benign modified biodegradable chitosan for cation removal. Polymer Bulletin, 72 (2), 353–370.

Khan, A., Begum, S., Ali, N., Khan, S., Hussain, S., & Sotomayor, M. D. P. T. (2017). Preparation of crosslinked chitosan magnetic membrane for cations sorption from aqueous solution. Water Science and Technology, 75 (9), 2034–2046.

Khan, A., Shah, S. J., Mehmood, K., Ali, N., & Khan, H. (2019b). Synthesis of potent chitosan beads a suitable alternative for textile dye reduction in sunlight. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics, 30 (1), 406–414.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Khan, A., Wahid, F., Ali, N., Badshah, S., & Airoldi, C. (2015b). Single-step modification of chitosan for toxic cations remediation from aqueous solution. Desalination and Water Treatment, 56 (4), 1099–1109.

Khan, H., Khalil, A. K., & Khan, A. (2019c). Photocatalytic degradation of alizarin yellow in aqueous medium and real samples using chitosan conjugated tin magnetic nanocomposites. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics, 30 (24), 21332–21342.

Khan, H., Khalil, A. K., Khan, A., Saeed, K., & Ali, N. (2016). Photocatalytic degradation of bromophenol blue in aqueous medium using chitosan conjugated magnetic nanoparticles. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 33 (10), 2802–2807.

Khoo, R. Z., Chow, W. S., & Ismail, H. (2018). Sugarcane bagasse fiber and its cellulose nanocrystals for polymer reinforcement and heavy metal adsorbent: A review. Cellulose, 25 (8), 4303–4330.

Klemeš, J. J., Van Fan, Y., Tan, R. R., & Jiang, P. (2020). Minimising the present and future plastic waste, energy and environmental footprints related to COVID-19. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 127 , 109883.

Koolivand, A., Mazandaranizadeh, H., Binavapoor, M., Mohammadtaheri, A., & Saeedi, R. (2017). Hazardous and industrial waste composition and associated management activities in Caspian industrial park. Iran. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management, 7 , 9–14.

Kruse, S., Abeling, T., Deeming, H., Fordham, M., Forrester, J., Sebastian Jülich, A., Karanci, N., Kuhlicke, C., Pelling, M., Pedoth, L., & Schneiderbauer, S. (2017). Conceptualizing community resilience to natural hazards–the emBRACE framework. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17 (12), 2321–2333.

Kumar, P., & Dwivedi, P. (2020). Lignin estimation in sorghum leaves grown under hazardous waste site. Plant Archives, 20 (2), 2558–2561.

Kumar, V., & Chandra, R. (2020). Metagenomics analysis of rhizospheric bacterial communities of Saccharum arundinaceum growing on organometallic sludge of sugarcane molasses-based distillery. 3 Biotech, 10 (7), 1–18.

Kunal, A., Prashanth, B., Ghosh, A., & Hemanth, G. (2017). A Review on production of Biogas from Slaughterhouse waste and poultry litter. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4 (4), 2188–2192.

Lam, S. S., Yek, P. N. Y., Ok, Y. S., Chong, C. C., Liew, R. K., Tsang, D. C., & Peng, W. (2020). Engineering pyrolysis biochar via single-step microwave steam activation for hazardous landfill leachate treatment. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 390 , 121649.

Lawrence, J., Bell, R., Blackett, P., Stephens, S., & Allan, S. (2018). National guidance for adapting to coastal hazards and sea-level rise: Anticipating change, when and how to change pathway. Environmental Science & Policy, 82 , 100–107.

Letcher, T. M., & Slack, R. (2019, January). Chemicals in Waste: Household Hazardous Waste. In  Waste  (pp. 337–352). Academic Press.

Li, Y. L., Yang, Q., & Chin, K. S. (2019). A decision support model for risk management of hazardous materials road transportation based on quality function deployment. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 74 , 154–173.

Lim-Wavde, K., Kauffman, R. J., & Dawson, G. S. (2017). Household informedness and policy analytics for the collection and recycling of household hazardous waste in California. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120 , 88–107.

Litalien, A., & Zeeb, B. (2020). Curing the earth: A review of anthropogenic soil salinization and plant-based strategies for sustainable mitigation. Science of the Total Environment, 698 , 134235.

Liu, J., Zhou, H., & Sun, H. (2019). A three-dimensional risk management model of port logistics for hazardous goods. Maritime Policy & Management, 46 (6), 715–734.

Liu, R., Chi, L., Wang, X., Sui, Y., Wang, Y., & Arandiyan, H. (2018). Review of metal (hydr) oxide and other adsorptive materials for phosphate removal from water. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 6 (4), 5269–5286.

Ma, D., Duan, H., Liu, J., Li, X., & Zhou, Z. (2019). The role of gangue on the mitigation of mining-induced hazards and environmental pollution: An experimental investigation. Science of the Total Environment, 664 , 436–448.

Mahinroosta, M., & Allahverdi, A. (2018). Hazardous aluminum dross characterization and recycling strategies: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Management, 223 , 452–468.

Makarichi, L., Jutidamrongphan, W., & Techato, K. A. (2018). The evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 91 , 812–821.

Manggali, A. A., & Susanna, D. (2019). Current management of household hazardous waste (HHW) in the Asian region. Reviews on Environmental Health, 34 (4), 415–426.

Márquez, A. J. C., Cassettari Filho, P. C., Rutkowski, E. W., & de Lima Isaac, R. (2019). Landfill mining as a strategic tool towards global sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226 , 1102–1115.

McCaughey, J. W., Daly, P., Mundir, I., Mahdi, S., & Patt, A. (2018). Socio-economic consequences of post-disaster reconstruction in hazard-exposed areas. Nature Sustainability, 1 (1), 38–43.

Meky, N., Fujii, M., & Tawfik, A. (2019). Treatment of hypersaline hazardous landfill leachate using a baffled constructed wetland system: Effect of granular packing media and vegetation. Environmental Technology, 40 (4), 518–528.

Menegaki, M., & Damigos, D. (2018). A review on current situation and challenges of construction and demolition waste management. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 13 , 8–15.

Miller, C. H., & Palenik, C. J. (2018). Infection control and management of hazardous materials for the dental team . Mosby.

Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Mardani, A., Pardasani, K. R., Govindan, K., & Alrasheedi, M. (2020). Healthcare evaluation in hazardous waste recycling using novel interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information based on complex proportional assessment method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 139 , 106140.

Mojtahedi, M., Newton, S., & Von Meding, J. (2017). Predicting the resilience of transport infrastructure to a natural disaster using Cox’s proportional hazards regression model. Natural Hazards, 85 (2), 1119–1133.

Moodley, I., Sheridan, C. M., Kappelmeyer, U., & Akcil, A. (2018). Environmentally sustainable acid mine drainage remediation: Research developments with a focus on waste/by-products. Minerals Engineering, 126 , 207–220.

Moody, C. M., & Townsend, T. G. (2017). A comparison of landfill leachates based on waste composition. Waste Management, 63 , 267–274.

Mulcahy, M. B., Boylan, C., Sigmann, S., & Stuart, R. (2017). Using bowtie methodology to support laboratory hazard identification, risk management, and incident analysis. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 24 (3), 14–20.

Nawaz, A., Khan, A., Ali, N., Ali, N., & Bilal, M. (2020). Fabrication and characterization of new ternary ferrites-chitosan nanocomposite for solar-light driven photocatalytic degradation of a model textile dye. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 20 , 101079.

Neelofar, N., Ali, N., Khan, A., Amir, S., Khan, N. A., & Bilal, M. (2017). Synthesis of Schiff bases derived from 2-hydroxy-1-naphth-aldehyde and their tin (II) complexes for antimicribial and antioxidant activities. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Ethiopia, 31 (3), 445–456.

Obalum, D. C., Ilegbune, T. O., & Stanley-Idum, M. M. (2019). Legal Framework for a Workable and Sustainable Disaster Management: Lessons for Nigeria.  African Journal Of International Energy And Environmental Law ,  3 (3).

Ogundipe, K. E., Ogunde, A., Olaniran, H. F., Ajao, A. M., Ogunbayo, B. F., & Ogundipe, J. A. (2018). Missing gaps in safety education and practices: Academia perspectives. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), 9 (1), 273–289.

Ogunkunle, T. J., Adewumi, A., & Adepoju, A. O. (2019). Biodiversity: Overexploited but underutilized natural resource for human existence and economic development. Environment & Ecosystem Science, 3 (1), 26–34.

Oladipupo Kareem, M., Edathil, A. A., Rambabu, K., Bharath, G., Banat, F., Nirmala, G. S., &Sathiyanarayanan, K. (2019). Extraction, characterization and optimization of high quality bio-oil derived from waste date seeds.  Chemical Engineering Communications , 1–11.

Olewski, T., & Snakard, M. (2017). Challenges in applying process safety management at university laboratories. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 49 , 209–214.

Öncel, M. S., Bektaş, N., Bayar, S., Engin, G., Çalışkan, Y., Salar, L., & Yetiş, Ü. (2017). Hazardous wastes and waste generation factors for plastic products manufacturing industries in Turkey. Sustainable Environment Research, 27 (4), 188–194.

Ouda, O. K. M., Peterson, H. P., Rehan, M., Sadef, Y., Alghazo, J. M., & Nizami, A. S. (2018). A case study of sustainable construction waste management in Saudi Arabia. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 9 (12), 2541–2555.

Pahlevan, S. M., Hosseini, S. M. S., & Goli, A. (2021). Sustainable supply chain network design using products’ life cycle in the aluminum industry.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 1–25.

Pan, H., Lei, H., Liu, X., Wei, H., & Liu, S. (2017). Assessment on the leakage hazard of landfill leachate using three-dimensional excitation-emission fluorescence and parallel factor analysis method. Waste Management, 67 , 214–221.

Pasman, H. J., Rogers, W. J., & Mannan, M. S. (2018). How can we improve process hazard identification? What can accident investigation methods contribute and what other recent developments? A brief historical survey and a sketch of how to advance. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 55 , 80–106.

Patil, C. S., Kadam, A. N., Gunjal, D. B., Naik, V. M., Lee, S. W., Kolekar, G. B., & Gore, A. H. (2020). Sugarcane molasses derived carbon sheet@ sea sand composite for direct removal of methylene blue from textile wastewater: Industrial wastewater remediation through sustainable, greener, and scalable methodology. Separation and Purification Technology, 247 , 116997.

Paton, D. (2019). Disaster risk reduction: Psychological perspectives on preparedness. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71 (4), 327–341.

Pazoki, M., & Hasanidarabadi, B. (2017). Management of toxic and hazardous contents of oil sludge in Siri Island. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 3 (1), 33–42.

Pecorini, I., Baldi, F., Bacchi, D., Carnevale, E. A., & Corti, A. (2017). Leaching behaviour of hazardous waste under the impact of different ambient conditions. Waste Management, 63 , 96–106.

Priyadarshini, P., & Abhilash, P. C. (2020). Circular economy practices within energy and waste management sectors of India: A meta-analysis. Bioresource Technology, 304 , 123018.

Qin, G., Zhang, P., Hou, X., Wu, S., & Wang, Y. (2020). Risk assessment for oil leakage under the common threat of multiple natural hazards. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27 (14), 16507–16520.

Rabbani, M., Heidari, R., Farrokhi-Asl, H., & Rahimi, N. (2018). Using metaheuristic algorithms to solve a multi-objective industrial hazardous waste location-routing problem considering incompatible waste types. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170 , 227–241.

Rabbani, M., Heidari, R., & Yazdanparast, R. (2019). A stochastic multi-period industrial hazardous waste location-routing problem: Integrating NSGA-II and Monte Carlo simulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 272 (3), 945–961.

Ravina, M., Facelli, A., & Zanetti, M. (2020). Halocarbon Emissions from Hazardous Waste Landfills: Analysis of Sources and Risks. Atmosphere, 11 (4), 375.

Rey, F., Bifulco, C., Bischetti, G. B., Bourrier, F., De Cesare, G., Florineth, F., Graf, F., Marden, M., Mickovski, S. B., Phillips, C., Peklo, K., Poesen, J., Polster, D., Preti, F., Rauch, H. P., Raymond, P., Sangalli, P., Tardio, G., & Stokes, A. (2019). Soil and water bioengineering: Practice and research needs for reconciling natural hazard control and ecological restoration. Science of the Total Environment, 648 , 1210–1218.

Saeed, K., Sadiq, M., Khan, I., Ullah, S., Ali, N., & Khan, A. (2018). Synthesis, characterization, and photocatalytic application of Pd/ZrO 2 and Pt/ZrO 2. Applied Water Science, 8 (2), 60.

Saeidi-Mobarakeh, Z., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Navabakhsh, M., & Amoozad-Khalili, H. (2020). A bi-level and robust optimization-based framework for a hazardous waste management problem: A real-world application. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252 , 119830.

Saidan, M. N. (2019). Cross-sectional survey of non-hazardous waste composition and quantities in industrial sector and potential recycling in Jordan. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management, 12 , 100227.

Sarigiannis, D. A. (2017). Assessing the impact of hazardous waste on children’s health: The exposome paradigm. Environmental Research, 158 , 531–541.

Sarker, M. N. I., & Wu, M. (2019). Bureaucracy in Bangladesh: A Disaster Management Perspective.  Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance , 1–5.

Sartaj, S., Ali, N., Khan, A., Malik, S., Bilal, M., Khan, M., & …& Khan, S. . (2020). Performance evaluation of photolytic and electrochemical oxidation processes for enhanced degradation of food dyes laden wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 81 (5), 971–984.

Segundo, I. D. B., Martins, R. J., Boaventura, R. A., Silva, T. F., Moreira, F. C., &Vilar, V. J. (2021). Finding a suitable treatment solution for a leachate from a non-hazardous industrial solid waste landfill.  Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering , 105168.

Sengupta, D., &Agrahari, S. (Eds.). (2017).  Modelling trends in solid and hazardous waste management . Springer Singapore.

Sermet, Y., Demir, I., & Muste, M. (2020). A serious gaming framework for decision support on hydrological hazards. Science of the Total Environment, 728 , 138895.

Setten, G., & Lein, H. (2019). “We draw on what we know anyway”: The meaning and role of local knowledge in natural hazard management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 38 , 101184.

Shah, S., & ud Din, S., Khan, A., & Shah, S. A. . (2018). Green synthesis and antioxidant study of silver nanoparticles of root extract of Sageretiathea and its role in oxidation protection technology. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 26 (6), 2323–2332.

Silva, R. V., de Brito, J., Lynn, C. J., & Dhir, R. K. (2019). Environmental impacts of the use of bottom ashes from municipal solid waste incineration: A review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 140 , 23–35.

Singh, P. D., Salgotra, A. K., &Manhas, A. S. (2019). Causes and consequences of environment degradation in Uttarakhand.  Indian Journal of Economics and Development ,  7 (4).

Sohni, S., Gul, K., Ahmad, F., Ahmad, I., Khan, A., Khan, N., & Bahadar Khan, S. (2018). Highly efficient removal of acid red-17 and bromophenol blue dyes from industrial wastewater using graphene oxide functionalized magnetic chitosan composite. Polymer Composites, 39 (9), 3317–3328.

Stemn, E., & Kumi-Boateng, B. (2019). Hazardous waste landfill site selection in Western Ghana: An integration of multi-criteria decision analysis and geographic information system. Waste Management & Research, 37 (7), 723–736.

Suh, J., Kim, S. M., Yi, H., & Choi, Y. (2017). An overview of GIS-based modeling and assessment of mining-induced hazards: Soil, water, and forest. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 (12), 1463.

Teta, C., & Hikwa, T. (2017). Heavy metal contamination of ground water from an unlined landfill in Bulawayo. Zimbabwe. Journal of Health and Pollution, 7 (15), 18–27.

Thaler, T., Attems, M. S., Bonnefond, M., Clarke, D., Gatien-Tournat, A., Gralepois, M., & Fuchs, S. (2019). Drivers and barriers of adaptation initiatives–How societal transformation affects natural hazard management and risk mitigation in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 650 , 1073–1082.

Thongkamsuk, P., Sudasna, K., & Tondee, T. (2017). Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A current situation in Thailand. Energy Procedia, 138 , 411–416.

Tobiszewski, M., Namieśnik, J., & Pena-Pereira, F. (2017). Environmental risk-based ranking of solvents using the combination of a multimedia model and multi-criteria decision analysis. Green Chemistry, 19 (4), 1034–1042.

Torkashvand, J., & Farzadkia, M. (2019). A systematic review on cigarette butt management as a hazardous waste and prevalent litter: Control and recycling. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26 (12), 11618–11630.

Torkashvand, J., Farzadkia, M., Sobhi, H. R., & Esrafili, A. (2020). Littered cigarette butt as a well-known hazardous waste: A comprehensive systematic review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 383 , 121242.

Tureková, I., Mračková, E., & Marková, I. (2019). Determination of waste industrial dust safety characteristics. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (12), 2103.

Turner, A. (2018). Black plastics: Linear and circular economies, hazardous additives and marine pollution. Environment International, 117 , 308–318.

Wahid, F., Mohammadzai, I. U., Khan, A., Shah, Z., Hassan, W., & Ali, N. (2017). Removal of toxic metals with activated carbon prepared from Salvadora persica. Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 10 , S2205–S2212.

White, I., & Haughton, G. (2017). Risky times: Hazard management and the tyranny of the present. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22 , 412–419.

Wong-Pinto, L. S., Menzies, A., & Ordóñez, J. I. (2020). Bionanomining: Biotechnological synthesis of metal nanoparticles from mining waste—opportunity for sustainable management of mining environmental liabilities. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 104 (5), 1859–1869.

Woźniak, J., & Pactwa, K. (2018). Overview of polish mining wastes with circular economy model and its comparison with other wastes. Sustainability, 10 (11), 3994.

Wu, J., Guo, Y., Li, C., & Qi, H. (2017). The redundancy of an industrial symbiosis network: A case study of a hazardous waste symbiosis network. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149 , 49–59.

Xavier, L. H., Giese, E. C., Ribeiro-Duthie, A. C., &Lins, F. A. F. (2019). Sustainability and the circular economy: A theoretical approach focused on e-waste urban mining.  Resources Policy , 101467.

Xie, W. Y., Shen, Q., & Zhao, F. J. (2018). Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance from animal manures to soil: A review. European Journal of Soil Science, 69 (1), 181–195.

Xu, Y., Xue, X., Dong, L., Nai, C., Liu, Y., & Huang, Q. (2018). Long-term dynamics of leachate production, leakage from hazardous waste landfill sites and the impact on groundwater quality and human health. Waste Management, 82 , 156–166.

Ya, X., Jingcai, L., Lu, D., Yuqiang, L., Weishi, L., Changxing, N., & Qifei, H. (2019). Buffering distance between hazardous waste landfill and water supply wells in a shallow aquifer. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211 , 1180–1189.

Yang, P., Zhang, L. J., Wang, X. J., & Wang, Z. L. (2020). Exploring the management of industrial hazardous waste based on recent accidents. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 67 , 104224.

Yang, Y., Ali, N., Khan, A., Khan, S., Khan, S., Khan, H., & Bilal, M. (2021). Chitosan-capped ternary metal selenide nanocatalysts for efficient degradation of Congo red dye in sunlight irradiation. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 167 , 169–181.

Yilmaz, O., Kara, B. Y., & Yetis, U. (2017). Hazardous waste management system design under population and environmental impact considerations. Journal of Environmental Management, 203 , 720–731.

Yong, Y. S., Lim, Y. A., & Ilankoon, I. M. S. K. (2019). An analysis of electronic waste management strategies and recycling operations in Malaysia: Challenges and future prospects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 224 , 151–166.

Yorkina, N., Cherniak, Y., &Yorkin, V. (2021). Current problems of medical waste disposal in the context of reducing anthropogenic impact on the ecosystem. In  The I International Science Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (January 19–21, 2021, Berlin, Germany)  (pp. 129–131).

Yu, H., Sun, X., Solvang, W. D., Laporte, G., & Lee, C. K. M. (2020). A stochastic network design problem for hazardous waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277 , 123566.

Yuan, P., Wang, J., Pan, Y., Shen, B., & Wu, C. (2019a). Review of biochar for the management of contaminated soil: Preparation, application and prospect. Science of the Total Environment, 659 , 473–490.

Yuan, X., Zheng, J., Jiao, S., Cheng, G., Feng, C., Du, Y., & Liu, H. (2019b). A review on the preparation of chitosan oligosaccharides and application to human health, animal husbandry and agricultural production. Carbohydrate Polymers, 220 , 60–70.

Zhang, H., Duan, H., Zuo, J., Song, M., Zhang, Y., Yang, B., & Niu, Y. (2017). Characterization of post-disaster environmental management for Hazardous Materials Incidents: Lessons learnt from the Tianjin warehouse explosion, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 199 , 21–30.

Zhang, J., Chen, C., Zhang, X., & Liu, S. (2016). Study on the environmental risk assessment of lead-acid batteries. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 31 , 873–879.

Zhang, X., & Li, X. (2018). Analysis of hazardous chemicals transportation accidents and transportation management. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 67 , 745–750.

Zhou, Y., Lu, J., Zhou, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Recent advances for dyes removal using novel adsorbents: A review. Environmental Pollution, 252 , 352–365.

Zhou, Z., Lei, F., Li, P., & Jiang, J. (2018). Lignocellulosic biomass to biofuels and biochemicals: A comprehensive review with a focus on ethanol organosolv pretreatment technology. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 115 (11), 2683–2702.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The listed author(s) are thankful to their representative universities for providing the literature services.

Author information

Present address: Key laboratory of palygorskite Science and Applied Technology of Jiangsu Province, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, National and Local Joint Engineering Research Centre for Deep Utilization Technology of Rock Salt Resources, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huaian, 223003, China

Authors and Affiliations

Key laboratory of palygorskite Science and Applied Technology of Jiangsu Province, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, National and Local Joint Engineering Research Centre for Deep Utilization Technology of Rock Salt Resources, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huaian, 223003, China

Guoqing Qian, Chuansong Duanmu & Yong Yang

Institute of Chemical Sciences, University of Peshawar, Peshawar, 25120, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Adnan Khan & Sumeet Malik

School of Life Science and Food Engineering, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huaian, 223003, China

Muhammad Bilal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Qian Guo Qing, Chuanson Duanmu, Nisar Ali was involved in conception and design of study; Nisar Ali, Adnan Khan, and Sumeet Malik was involved in material preparation, search, and collection of relevant articles/reviews; Yong Yang and Muhammad Bilal were involved in writing—review and editing. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Guoqing Qian , Chuansong Duanmu or Muhammad Bilal .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Qian, G., Duanmu, C., Ali, N. et al. Hazardous wastes, adverse impacts, and management strategies: a way forward to environmental sustainability. Environ Dev Sustain 24 , 9731–9756 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01867-2

Download citation

Received : 31 May 2021

Accepted : 27 September 2021

Published : 06 October 2021

Issue Date : August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01867-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Environmental pollution
• Hazardous waste
• Industrial sources
• Sustainability
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home / Essay Samples / Environment / Waste Management / Against Dumping Toxic Waste And Materials

Against Dumping Toxic Waste And Materials

• Category: Environment
• Topic: Global Warming , Waste Management

Pages: 5 (2264 words)

Views: 1945

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Corn Essays

Environmental Issues Essays

Air Pollution Essays

Water Scarcity Essays

Earth Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->