Ag chemicals under the spotlight
A new software tool will help regulators and manufacturers make sense of chemical data faster and assist them when deciding what chemicals are better for the environment and people, says a Kiwi startup.
Hazel, an internet-based tool developed by Kate Bromfield, chief executive and founder of Hazard Evaluation, can access data on 10,000 chemicals, compare them to each other, and visually display findings about their toxicity in an easy-to-understand manner.
‘‘The tool addresses the problem of knowing what chemicals one should worry about,’’ Bromfield said.
Hazel used chemical data from the European Chemical Agency and the United States environmental protection agency, she said.
‘‘There are hundreds of thousands of chemicals worldwide, but the software has the capacity to add more to its list. It’s a dynamic,’’ Bromfield said.
The software’s functions gave chemical manufacturers and regulators multiple ways of comparing chemicals and could give transparency to processes that historically took a long time.
It could also help groups like the Environmental Protection Authority that had limited resources, Bromfield said.
‘‘Hazel’s unique intellectual property is the way it skips data gaps. For example, the chemical EDN was recently registered as a replacement for methyl bromide in the forestry sector.
‘‘We have some information on methyl bromide, but there are huge gaps, as data on methyl bromide is based on old chemistry.
‘‘The standard for chemical management of new chemistry is much higher than decades ago, and it is hard to compare the two. The new tool jumps data gaps and allows you to compare old chemistry with new chemistry,’’ Bromfield said.
The software also had a scanning component that allowed one to future scan for chemicals of emerging concern or specific risks, she said.
‘‘We’re pivoting into the insurance sector to make sure they protect export markets as a risk assessment tool,’’ she said.
The software allowed users to select specific criteria when making regulatory, research or onfarm chemical decisions.
‘‘You can toggle on and off between specific parameters. For example, Hazel could show you every chemical used as fungicide in grapes that are water-soluble, and have chronic effects on the environment.
‘‘With that knowledge, a manufacturer can then choose [to manufacture] a chemical that is less harmful to aquatic health and can still give economic yield,’’ Bromfield said.
The tool had the ability to show the acute and chronic toxicological effects of chemicals on the aquatic and mammalian environment, with 42 parameters across a range of different effects.
Although it did not as yet have data on the human health impacts, these parameters could be used to make decisions on chemical safety for humans, she said. The tool could also help chemical manufacturers with research and development as they could compare chemicals being developed to what was already on the market, Bromfield said.
On-farm, the software could be used in spray programmes.
‘‘We can split chemicals in categories, like pesticides, fungicides or herbicides, and compare a suite of chemicals when developing a spray programme.
‘‘You can then choose the least harmful chemical options. The tool makes the results visually clear,’’ Bromfield said.
Hazel was fairly complex and targeted for use by ecotoxicologists at organisations such as the Environmental Protection Authority, or at chemical manufacturers, who understood the internal workings of chemicals, she said.
The software also had a media monitoring component that scanned social media in real-time to monitor public sentiment about a specific chemical, Bromfield said.
This was relevant as public sentiment was having a real influence on chemical companies and could have significant financial implications for them, she said.
‘‘Everybody in the chemical supply chain had the responsibility to work towards transparency,’’ Bromfield said.