Challenges and Initiatives to Operationalize the Planetary Boundaries for Novel Entities.

Challenges and Initiatives to Operationalize the Planetary Boundaries for Novel Entities - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Environ Sci Technol . 2026 Apr 1;60(14):10359–10368. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c14324 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Challenges and Initiatives to Operationalize the Planetary Boundaries for Novel Entities Mathijs Smit Mathijs Smit † Shell Global Solutions International BV, Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands Find articles by Mathijs Smit † , Maryam Zare Jeddi Maryam Zare Jeddi † Shell Global Solutions International BV, Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands Find articles by Maryam Zare Jeddi †, * , Johannes Tolls Johannes Tolls ‡ Henkel AG & CoKGaA, 40589 Düsseldorf, Germany Find articles by Johannes Tolls ‡ , Claire Terry Claire Terry § Corteva Agriscience, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland Find articles by Claire Terry § , Peter Fantke Peter Fantke ∥ substitute ApS, Graaspurvevej 55, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark ⊥ Department for Evolutionary Ecology and Environmental Toxicology, Goethe University, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany # Department of Environmental Sciences, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Florida Park 1710, Roodepoort, South Africa Find articles by Peter Fantke ∥, ⊥, #, * Author information Article notes Copyright and License information † Shell Global Solutions International BV, Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands ‡ Henkel AG & CoKGaA, 40589 Düsseldorf, Germany § Corteva Agriscience, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland ∥ substitute ApS, Graaspurvevej 55, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark ⊥ Department for Evolutionary Ecology and Environmental Toxicology, Goethe University, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany # Department of Environmental Sciences, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Florida Park 1710, Roodepoort, South Africa * Email: maryam.zarejeddi@shell.com . * Email: peter@substitute.dk . Received 2025 Oct 10; Accepted 2026 Mar 17; Revised 2026 Mar 16; Collection date 2026 Apr 14. © 2026 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society This article is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13085515  PMID: 41921100 Abstract The planetary boundaries framework offers a science-based perspective on maintaining Earth system stability and safeguarding human well-being. For novel entities, however, monitoring and governance remain fragmented, with no quantitative boundary being defined or operationalized yet due to the high variation and diversity of substance emissions, exposure, and effects. Here, we synthesize progress and key implementation gaps in defining and applying a planetary boundary for novel entities. We propose an action-based framework that embeds DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses) within iterative PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycles and leverages chemical footprint approaches to derive policy-relevant metrics and control variables. This framework aims to translate the planetary boundary for novel entities from an abstract early warning concept into an actionable tool for guiding global chemicals management within a safe and just operating space. Keywords: Earth system boundaries, Chemical pollution, Safe-and-just transition, DPSIR framework, Zero pollution, Chemical footprint 1. Introduction When the planetary boundaries framework was first introduced, it conveyed a striking message: there are finite limits to how much stress Earth’s systems can absorb without destabilization. Today, more than a decade later, multiple boundaries are assessed as transgressed including those defined for climate, biosphere integrity, land-system change, freshwater, biogeochemical flows, ocean acidification, and novel entities. , Among these boundries, the one for novel entities stands out as the least characterized and most difficult to operationalize. What counts as a novel entity? The term includes a wide diversity of anthropogenically produced or mobilized substances and materials that were mostly not previously part of Earth’s systems or not mobil in a way they are today, spanning synthetic chemicals, plastics, metal compounds, pharmaceuticals, synthetic pesticides, nanomaterials, genetically modified organisms, antimicrobial resistance genes, and other persistent and/or bioactive synthetic compounds. This diversity creates a fundamental challenge: even when focusing only on chemical substances, how can one boundary capture such a sprawling set of entities, with widely different properties, pathways and effects? Regardless of these open questions, policy and reporting frameworks for chemicals require urgent progress. In September 2023, a multitude of stakeholders including governments, industry, and NGOs adopted the United Nations Environmental Program’s (UNEP) Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC) with five strategic objectives and 28 targets for safer chemicals management. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) presented in 2024 a roadmap Toward Planet Positive Chemicals: A Chemical Transformation Roadmap Enabled by the Circular Economy. In Europe, as part of the Green Deal and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS), the Zero Pollution Dashboard and the European Environment Agency’s Indicator Framework for Chemicals (25 indicators and 22 “signals”) aim to track emissions, state, exposure, impacts, and policy progress. − These policies and instruments operate alongside existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements like the Stockholm, Montreal, and Minamata Conventions that aim to protect human health and the environment by eliminating or reducing impacts from the use of respectively persistent organic pollutants, ozone-depleting substances, and mercury. In parallel, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), , the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), , and other sectoral regulations (e.g., those related to industrial chemicals, plant protection products, biocides, or pharmaceuticals) are requiring companies to disclose chemical-related environmental impacts. Yet, crucially, there is still no accepted method to benchmark how a company, sector, or nation contributes to staying within a ‘safe operating space for novel entities’ across local-to-global scales. This gap constitutes both a challenge and an opportunity. Scientists recognize the need to move beyond abstract warnings toward operationalization: identifying which chemicals should be phased out immediately, which can be managed under monitoring, and how these decisions can be embedded into governance cycles. , At the same time, policymakers and industries are looking for clear links between planetary-boundary science and practical metrics that can be measured, reported and tracked in dashboards, annual progress overviews, policy strategies, and regulatory processes. In this study, we provide an overview of current challenges, requirements, and initiatives to support the operationalization of the planetary boundary framework for novel entities, with an initial focus on chemicals. Specifically, we summarize the current state of research and practice for defining and assessing a novel-entities boundary, organize the operationalization challenges, and specify requirements for an action-based planetary boundary framework that builds upon environmental management systems. We outline chemical footprint approaches as a possible option for informing policy makers and industry about chemicals management and impact reduction to evaluate progress and to set and assess local-to-global targets. 2. Status Quo for Assessing the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities 2.1. Early Proposals and Current Proxies Initial efforts to define and quantify a planetary boundary for novel entities illustrate both progress and challenges, highlighting the vast number of chemicals with poorly understood impacts and proposing a suite of potential control variables. , Here, a control variable refers to a specific, measurable parameter that directly indicates the state of an Earth system process and whether it is approaching or exceeding safe limits. Cousins et al., for example, focused on four perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAA) and concluded that their environmental concentrations already exceed the relevant regulatory threshold values, implying boundary transgression for this chemical group. More generally, Persson et al. mapped several potential control variables for novel entities along the pathway from production to impact that can potentially be used for reporting progress toward impact reduction. They evaluate potential variables according to criteria related to feasibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness to highlight both the necessity and the difficulty of capturing such a heterogeneous category and its related impacts on Earth’s systems, upon which humanity critically relies on. The recommended, complementary variables, however, have not yet been adopted in formal planetary boundary assessments, as they are currently not quantifiable for the wide range of chemicals, nor for other novel entities. Rather than defining a numeric boundary, the 2023 planetary boundary update conducted by Richardson et al. took a more pragmatic stance. Acknowledging that Earth’s tolerance toward novel entities is still poorly understood; they take the preindustrial Holocene as a reference point to define a “safe space”. They argue that the accelerating rate of chemical production and diversification is an early warning signal, reasoning that continued growth will inevitably breach any defined boundary. Such proxies are valuable for triggering and sharpening discussions; however, they are neither quantitative nor do they assess any actual impact or enable tracking of impact reduction. Hence, they are of little value for operationalizing the planetary boundary for novel entities. This means addressing thousands of substances and materials in multiple environmental compartments and considering various types of environmental health impacts. A one-dimensional measure cannot distinguish between high-volume persistent pollutants, niche-use but highly toxic substances, or emerging materials with uncertain properties. Embedding such a complex topic into governance and industry practice therefore requires metrics that are feasible at the policy level and applicable across local-to-global scale. 2.2. Novel Entities versus Other Boundaries Planetary boundaries such as those defined for climate change or ocean acidification can be tracked with single, globally relevant control variables, such as atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, or pH levels. Chemical pollution, however, is fundamentally different, , due to the following aspects: Heterogeneous agents : hundreds of thousands of substances with distinct hazard profiles and fate/exposure pathways. Spatiotemporal variability : emissions and exposure are often local and vary temporally; some substances disperse globally. Equity dimension : exposures and impacts are unevenly distributed, often affecting vulnerable communities first and disproportionally. This complexity means that unlike for climate, no single global control variable will likely be sufficient to indicate impacts and related impact reduction progress for chemicals or the wider range of novel entities. The combination of multiple control variables expressed by a diversity of metrics, spanning drivers, pressures, states, and impacts, are likely needed to capture the full picture, each with an appropriate resolution and allowing for aggregation across scales and contributing substances. 2.3. Current Policy Initiative Addressing a Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities Initiatives, such as UNEP’s GFC, the roadmap from the WBCSD, Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and the EU’s Zero Pollution Action Plan, present governance infrastructures and strategic targets to address chemical pollution as an important element of novel entity impacts. Consequently, working toward the objectives and targets of such initiatives should implicitly direct society toward staying within a ‘safe operating space’ for novel entities. While many of the targets from the Zero Pollution Monitoring Dashboard aim to inform how to evaluate novel entities’ impact, there is no specific target that explicitly links to metrics selected for the 2023 planetary boundary assessment, which calls for increasing the pace at which chemicals are assessed. Although this objective is indirectly supported through the European Union’s CSS, it illustrates the mismatch between practice through policy implementation and the exercise of defining a relevant planetary boundary and related metrics (similar to targets defined under UNEP’s GFC). Without addressing this mismatch, there is a risk that the planetary boundary assessment remains a theoretical exercise, and that we will not be able to utilize its effectiveness and full potential in chemicals and waste management practices in the context of staying within the related planetary boundary. UNEP’s GFC and the roadmap from the WBCSD are voluntary, but their initiation has strong buy-in from industry, as e.g., demonstrated by the formal statement of support from the International Council of Chemical Associations. However, UNEP acknowledges that greater participation from underrepresented regions remains an ongoing challenge. Ideally, companies should be able to demonstrate improved planetary boundary performance when aligning with these initiatives. Achiving this, however, requires resolving the above-described mismatch. 3. Challenges for Operationalizing Planetary Boundaries for Novel Entities There is a broad agreement that pollution from chemicals and other novel entities, mainly at local or regional scale, is a planetary-level concern. However, moving from concept to implementation to assess a related planetary boundary faces three interconnected key challenges. 3.1. Defining a Boundary and Control Variables That Reflect Impacts The 2023 planetary boundary assessment relied on a governance proxy, “0% of unassessed chemicals released” as a control variable, which captures the regulatory backlog but does not reflect any ecological or human health impacts, nor the heterogeneity in hazard and exposure profiles of chemical agents. Overall, control variables that reflect approximate or potential impact are particularly valuable because they indicate the effectiveness of interventions in reducing impact, and account for relevant differences in emissions, pathways, exposures and effect potencies. Hence, such variables form the basis for targeted management of novel entities. However, most metrics currently used in policy frameworks focus on addressing emissions and information gaps. Emission data provided in e.g., national inventories are easier to collect compared to data related to impact; however, emission data (unless combined with impact factors) are a weak proxy for impacts. 3.2. Addressing Complexity and Impacts Across Scales Chemicals differ profoundly in production volumes, usage patterns, intrinsic hazard properties, persistence, bioaccumulation potential, effect potency and potential to spread. In addition, temporal and spatial patterns in emissions, exposure, sensitivity, and mechanisms of resilience and recovery need to be addressed at appropriate scales that allow actionable solutions by different stakeholders. This makes the impacts of chemical pollution patchy and heterogeneous. Many impacts manifest near points of release, while others (e.g., PFASs, plastics, and legacy POPs) spread globally. Aggregating across scales (e.g., site of use or emission → catchment → region → country → global) might result in overlooking critical local exceedances and differences in vulnerabilities in exposed ecosystems and human populations. With our current state of knowledge, chemical pollution may be too complex to be captured in a single, uniform control variable. Instead, multiple control variables built from an aggregation of multiple metrics, spanning drivers, pressures, states, and impacts, may be more appropriate for indicating impacts and related impact-reduction progress for chemicals and other novel entities. Applying such variables at a regional or global level also requires aggregation of impacts resulting from many spatially and temporally distinct events. While this may not be possible today, effective operationalization in the short term requires metrics that are both scalable and spatially explicit, allowing identification and management of hotspots. While focusing on the chemical sector may offer a pragmatic starting point for defining and assessing a planetary boundary for novel entities, such a focus might exclude critical sources of pollution, most notably plastics, which often fall outside traditional chemical sector classifications despite their pervasive environmental occurrence. A workable boundary definition must therefore be inclusive of all relevant pollutant classes, including e.g., synthetic polymers, and be explicitly linked to quantitative targets and transformation pathways. Besides, a workable boundary not only requires impact-proximal control variables supported by metrics that reflect actual impact on ecosystems and human health but should also consider entire chemical and material life cycles to avoid potential burden shifting across populations, sectors or regions. 3.3. Building Data Pipelines and Governing Structures That Enable Actionable Accountability and Equity Today’s data landscape is scattered and fragmented. It is unclear for many of the existing metrics how their quantities relate to the planetary boundary for novel entities. Furthermore, emission inventories are incomplete; relevant property data are missing for many substances; and monitoring systems are uneven in geographic coverage and level of detail. Confidentiality-related aspects further limit transparency. Even where indicators exist, definitions often vary across frameworks, undermining comparability. A coherent system in which policy metrics, industry reporting data, and impact-oriented planetary boundary control variables are aligned would enable a more integrated environmental management approach with clearly identifiable and actionable accountabilities. Currently, most existing data inventories and dashboards fail to capture equity dimensions, for example, which ecosystems and populations or regions bear disproportionate exposure or impact burdens. Without metrics that reflect these aspects, policies risk improving averages while leaving vulnerable groups unprotected, and prioritize where data are available while leaving potential priorities unaddressed where relevant data are lacking or not accessible. 4. From Science to a Coherent, Action-Based Framework for Novel Entities Turning the novel-entities planetary boundary framework from a warning light into a management tool requires a framework that is scientifically credible, operationally feasible, and compatible with existing policy infrastructures. We highlight three requirements to address the challenges identified in the previous section in support of advancing such an operational framework. 4.1. An Impact-Directed Framework through DPSIR To support an appropriate interpretation of possible metrics, they might be structured around the DPSIR (Driver-Pressures-State-Impact-Response) framework, building on the possible control variables from steps along the impact pathway described by Persson et al. The DPSIR framework enables the clarification of cause–effect chains, is a long-standing tool in environmental assessments, and is widely adopted by UNEP and the European Environment Agency (EEA) for assessing chemicals in the environment and therefore compatible with the EU’s indicator frameworks. It offers a structured way to manage complex relationships between human activities and environmental impacts. A DPSIR-informed assessment of a planetary boundary can effectively prioritize actions based on a gradient of characteristics covered by each metric, allowing the selective targeting of chemicals with highly undesirable combinations of specific aspects and supporting context-specific management options. Moreover, recent methodological work shows that coupling DPSIR with multicriteria decision analysis can prioritize chemical risk more transparently. More specifically, Senathirajah et al. used an extended DPSIR framework with 21 criteria to rank plastic polymers by environmental risk, concluding that such a multicriteria DPSIR tool is effective for guiding specific decisions. In line with promoting integrated assessment frameworks, Ogunseitan discusses using metrics tied to stages of chemical life cycles and impacts (essentially a DPSIR logic), such as trends in chemical production as a driver, or pollutant release inventories as a pressure indicator, as an effective strategy if they meet feasibility criteria. By finally linking socio-economic drivers to pollution impacts, DPSIR helps policymakers see where to intervene. Figure illustrates, as a specific example for ecological impacts, how chemicals and potentially other novel entities move through the causality chain of the DPSIR framework, from resource extraction and chemical production to environmental release, fate and distribution, ecosystem effects, and ultimately Earth system impacts. This mapping highlights where metrics can be embedded to strengthen governance and accountability, with hazard-based metrics appearing early in the DPSIR causality chain and impact and risk-based metrics closer to impacts on Earth systems. 1. Open in a new tab Example for the ecological impact pathway of chemicals within the planetary boundaries framework for Novel Entities. 4.2. Examples of Candidate Metrics Figure highlights four example metrics for each of the Driver, Pressure, State and Impact stages and qualifies them according to their feasibility, comprehensiveness, and relevance. None of these is ideal on its own, while some complement or integrate each other. The metric “hazard assessment coverage” is a driver to close data gaps that currently impede the feasibility of the remaining metrics. The metric “equity in exposure” addresses human and ecological health, takes disparities into account and hence includes the aspect of equity. The metrics “toxic pressure” and “emission of materials” are more strongly focused on environmental aspects. The metric “emission of materials” addresses plastics, polymers and other materials that might complement chemical toxicity with additional types of effects, such as physical impacts (e.g., entanglement) or the creation of microplastic pollution. Hence, regardless of their shortcomings, this set of candidate key performance indicators (KPIs) enables target setting and progress tracking. It thus provides a viable point of departure for addressing the planetary boundary of novel entities, while further linking these examples to a planetary boundary definition for novel entities remains necessary. 2. Open in a new tab Four example candidate metrics for each of the Driver, Pressure, State and Impact stages for novel entities and their qualification according to feasibility, comprehensiveness, and relevance (building on Persson et al.). One of the five objectives from the UNEP GFC explicitly asks for identification and prioritization of issues of concern (Objective C) based on the collective set of data and information on chemical use, distribution, properties, fate and effects (resulting from Objective B). Looking at the EU Zero Pollution Dashboard, it appears that many of the indicators included are the result of such an assessment and prioritization exercise, although the background has not been made explicitly available. In cases where further priority setting is required, Persson et al. discuss that among the four example control variables, toxic pressure stands out as one of the most impact-proximal. It integrates information on chemical usage, emissions and fate or measurable concentrations with ecological effects to estimate the cumulative ecotoxic stress in a given environment or region. By moving closer to the actual impact on ecosystems, toxic pressure hence offers a strong link between planetary boundary science and management decisions as compared to production- or emission-based proxies with respect to reducing and measuring “impact”. Synthesizing requirements from Persson et al., UNEP’s GFC indicator framework, and EU Zero Pollution dashboards, for novel entities, ideal metrics for novel entities should meet four criteria: i. Impact-proximal : linked to ecological or health outcomes, not just activity counts. ii. Measurable : based on existing monitoring or scalable methods. iii. Comparable : harmonized across regions and sectors for aggregation. iv. Action-triggering : clearly linked to sources and thresholds that guide interventions. Let us take a look at how well the metric “toxic pressure” covers these four aspects. Two recent studies showcase that toxic pressure is in principle measurable. , Posthuma et al. investigated more than 12,000 chemicals in over 22,000 European water bodies and found that 15 compounds explained nearly 99.5% of the cumulative ecotoxicity pressure. Similarly, Rodea-Palomares et al. analyzed toxic pressure of chemicals in Europe based on monitoring data for 307 priority chemicals. Upon excluding metals, they find that 15 chemicals dominate the remaining overall toxic pressure. Hence, toxic pressure can be powerful in triggering actions through prioritization. In theory, the metric “toxic pressure” also fulfills the comparability criterion. Despite this promise, toxic pressure faces several constraints that currently prevent it from serving as a sole planetary-boundary metric for novel entities. First, there is a feasibility hurdle which makes toxic pressure applicable only when reliable chemical emission data exist for a defined region, the chemical falls within the domain for which the underlying modeling approaches are validated, and key physical–chemical properties are available and quality assured. Fate and exposure models must be parametrized for the geographic area under study, and sufficient ecotoxicological data must be available for species relevant to that area. Currently, the applicability is constrained to well-characterized chemicals in data-rich geographic regions like the EU and selected other regions, but with significant gaps in low-income countries and for the wider space of chemicals. This, and the choice of assumptions, currently leads to high uncertainty in the estimates of toxic pressure up to 2−3 orders of magnitude. Second, the scope of the metric is limited to direct effects on freshwater ecosystems from parent chemicals (transformation products are usually not considered). This might be too narrow to serve as a sensitive and ecologically meaningful indicator of further negative impacts of chemicals. Materials or chemicals with a relatively low contribution to toxic pressure will not be prioritized and, hence, not be managed based on this metric. This may leave a gap for materials that are of concern primarily due to persistence rather than ecotoxicity effect potency, unless persistence is integrated into toxic pressure metrics. For that reason, emission reduction of persistent materials can be introduced as a complementary metric to ensure that these are managed as well. Currently, toxic pressure follows separate approaches for ecosystem health and human health impacts. Further, this metric does rarely link to effects on biodiversity loss or ecosystem services impairment, which can have multiple causative agents. , In view of the limitations outlined above, we nonetheless see potential for the toxic pressure metric to inform the management of a subset of novel entities, especially in the aquatic environment. Spatially explicit modeling of the chemicals in commerce − following the example of Posthuma et al. can be instrumental in detailing a two-dimensional picture of this metric. It will reveal locations with high toxic pressure and the identity of the agents that have the highest share in this, while allowing to link this metric to field-observable species loss as biodiversity-level metric, at least so far in freshwater bodies in specific regions. Depending on the level of granularity, spatial modeling can also support scenario analysis, for example, to evaluate how varying dilution conditions affect the magnitude and composition of toxic pressure. For regions and chemicals with sufficient data availability, toxic pressure can serve as a practical impact-oriented metric in the short term and guide hotspot identification and targeted management of high-impact substances and locations. For situations with limited data, however, metrics earlier in the DPSIR causality chain (e.g., use and emissions data combined with hazard information) may be required as initial impact proxies. In the long term, improvements in knowledge and data might allow the definition of additional impact-oriented control variables to obtain a broader picture of the planetary impacts of chemicals and other novel entities. From a methodological perspective, the toxic pressure methodology can serve as an example for the development of similar impact-based metrics to increase comprehensiveness. 4.3. Aggregation through Chemical Footprint Approaches Aggregation across different DPSIR stages might be required to capture the full continuum from chemical production and use, through emissions and environmental fate, to exposure and potential impacts on ecosystems and human health. Although a harmonized definition of “chemical footprint” has not yet been established, existing chemical footprint approaches already facilitate such cross-stage integration. Diverse methodological approaches are available, ranging from emission inventories to integrated fate-exposure-effect models. , Chemical footprint approaches integrate different DPSIR-based metrics such as chemical use (driver), emissions (pressure), environmental fate and distribution (state), and potential ecological and human health effects (impact) across regions or catchments. , By combining these approaches, they enable a unified assessment of impact-related chemical footprints. However, the degree to which such integration of different data and modeling steps is feasible is inherently subject to data availability and the domain applicability of underlying models. Data on chemical production volumes, emission factors, physicochemical properties, environmental fate parameters, exposure pathways, and effect information remain incomplete for a large share of chemicals in commerce. Likewise, many fate and exposure models have been validated only for specific chemical classes or environmental contexts, which limits their applicability across all domains. These constraints introduce uncertainty into aggregated assessments and highlight the need for continued efforts in data generation (e.g., high-throughput screening, property prediction models) and harmonization of model domains. Nevertheless, further developing, harmonizing and integrating chemical footprint approaches remains central to establishing one or more robust control variables for the planetary boundary on novel entities. Such control variables must reflect impact-level metrics that fully integrate all relevant aspects along the source-to-impact pathway, including chemical production and use, emissions, fate and distribution, exposure and ecotoxicological and/or human toxicological effects. The combination of different existing chemical footprint approaches is uniquely able to provide these integrative metrics because it can form a quantifiable link between policy indicators and reporting metrics from different stages along the DPSIR chain ( Figure ). Once such links have been established, it becomes clearer how metrics reflecting individual levels of the source-to-impact pathway inform the planetary boundary assessment. Adequate control variables obtained from these approaches help identify hotspots and support more informed decision-making, , for example, the identification and prioritization of effective impact-reduction measures as required under the GFC. 3. Open in a new tab Chemical footprint approaches serving as the connection between DPSIR (Driver-Pressures-State-Impact-Response)-aligned policy indicators and reporting metrics and the planetary boundary assessment for novel entities. 4.4. Coherence to Enable Continuous Improvement through Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle Once one or more quantifiable links between novel entity metrics and indicators and the planetary boundary definition and assessment have been established, traditional environmental management practices can accelerate the uptake and implementation of such a coherent framework. The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle is an established management tool that is widely used in environmental management systems. It represents a core operational model embedded throughout ISO management standards and provides the logic for how organizations plan, implement, monitor, and continually improve their environment, health and safety performance. When businesses set internal targets aligned with UN-GFC goals and the WBCSD roadmap as part of their sustainability programs, PDCA will naturally be applied to achieve those targets. Its iterative approach enables the identification of environmental risks, implementation of targeted actions, monitoring of outcomes, and refinement of strategies based on performance data. PDCA helps both in setting and meeting regulatory obligations in a proactive and cost-effective manner, while also enhancing stakeholder engagement and transparency ( https://www.epa.gov/ems ). UNEP also recognizes PDCA as a key mechanism for integrating sustainability into operational practices, particularly in the context of chemicals and waste management. Applying the PDCA cycle to the planetary boundary assessment for novel entities offers a way of defining appropriate control variables and supporting metrics that can serve as a link between what we aim to protect and what we aim to assess, the actions we take and the data we report. Plan : inventory substances, categorize chemicals using existing hazard, persistence, and mobility data, assess priorities, and set quantitative targets at relevant impact level. Do : implement emission-reduction measures (phase out or restrict high-impact chemicals), apply operational substitution approaches, and support innovation mechanisms. Check : continuously and comprehensively monitor outcomes and evaluate them against targets at appropriate spatiotemporal and population resolution. Report transparently through corporate sustainability reporting and global monitoring. Act : adapt and improve strategies and assessment tools as new evidence or technologies emerge. Note that actors relevant for the steps of the PDCA cycle may differ depending on the scale and objectives of the assessment. Industry might be the sole actor for the whole cycle when evaluating the effectiveness of internal policies and measures to reach targets, but at a larger scale academia, industry, regulators and NGOs will need to operate jointly, making use of existing governance structures. For instance, academia and NGOs contribute to “Plan”, implementing mitigating technologies and evaluating effectiveness falls under industry “Do” and “Check”, and improving legal frameworks and regulations falls under regulators “Act”. Figure provides an example of how current European instruments and targets from the UNEP GFC can be mapped against the PDCA cycle. This figure illustrates that to develop a coherent planetary boundary framework for novel entities clear linkages need to be in place between what we assess (e.g., life cycle assessment based chemical footprints), what we monitor and measure (e.g., indicators and metrics) and what we report (e.g., through sustainability reporting efforts). This alignment illustrates how planetary boundary science can be translated into action-oriented metrics and indicators for policy dashboards, corporate reporting, and regulatory monitoring. 4. Open in a new tab Conceptual visualization of control variables for novel entities incorporated in the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) framework, illustrated with existing sustainability tools and reporting structures as well as a link to the relevant UNEP-GFC strategic objectives. Control variables are centric in each step of the PDCA management cycle to ensure that the effect of each step on planetary boundary performance can be assessed. 5. Next Steps and Perspectives The planetary boundaries framework has succeeded in raising awareness as novel entities are recognized as a global impact already outside the safe operating space, but it has not yet been operationalized. Scientific proposals exist and policy dashboards are advancing, but no agreed suite of control variables yet links the two. As a result, the planetary boundary for novel entities currently serves as an abstract warning light, valuable for raising concern, but not yet useful for guiding governance or benchmarking industry performance. What is needed are aligned metrics and control variables that can be measured, compared, aggregated, and acted on, not only governance proxies (e.g., “percentage assessed”), but impact-proximal metrics that better support prioritization. Without a coherent framework linking actionable control variables to the planetary boundary definition, the boundary assessment risks remaining a symbolic red flag rather than a practical management tool. In this paper we focused on chemical substances, but the work described should be expanded to cover the full range of novel entities. The “safe operating space” for novel entities will not be secured overnight. Developing the science and infrastructures described in this paper will take time and considering the heterogeneity of novel entities, some challenges will not be solved easily. The practical use of the framework can inform further scientific work and targeted data collection, while in the meantime, the precautionary principle will be applied and metrics that are more distal to impacts (such as use, emission, concentration data) can be employed for driving progress. Issues like illegal trade in, for example, mercury and other hazardous substances and the data availability for chemicals covered by confidential business information provisions will continue to challenge the comprehensiveness of the planetary boundary assessment. Until a coherent framework has been developed and implemented, assessing several, often complementary, metrics is relevant and can be used to drive initial action. However, the importance and full consequences of such mitigating measures considering the planetary boundary can only be demonstrated once a coherent framework as described in this paper has been matured. Note that this might require the integration of a variety of methodologies, including the ones described in this paper, to achieve comprehensive views of the safe operating space and the impact of actionable measures. In response to the equity gap, recent developments from the Earth Commission, such as the “safe and just Earth System Boundaries (ESBs)”, advocate explicitly integrating social justice alongside ecological integrity. The Earth Commission’s safe-and-just synthesis argues that no boundary can be considered safe unless it is also socially just. The safe-ESBs set limits to keep the earth stable and resilient, while just-ESBs set limits to protect human health and ensure everyone has basic needs met, now and in the future. However, the first set of quantified safe-and-just boundaries did not explicitly include novel entities due to the complexity and lack of sufficient data. Currently, the Earth Commission 2.0 is continuing the development of safe and just ESBs, which includes (1) improving the understanding of the boundaries for novel entities, and (2) setting actionable targets and pathways to support a sustainability transition. The framework proposed here supports both objectives and, although not described in detail, could likely be extended to cover the just-elements of the ESB framework. Moving forward requires a set of coordinated actions that together aim to create a coherent framework that uses chemical footprint approaches to link policy and reporting metrics ordered along the DPSIR pathway to the planetary boundary definition and assessment for novel entities. Once established, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) may be well positioned to take a lead role, coordinating with all key stakeholders. In the meantime, academia, regulatory bodies, NGOs, and industry should jointly begin laying out the foundations for these developments. The following steps are foreseen: 1. Mapping policy targets, indicators, and reporting metrics onto the DPSIR causal chain. For each of the metrics it should become evident how it links and contributes to the impact-oriented control variables that drive planetary boundary performance. 2. Enhance the comprehensiveness and reliability of current impact-proximal metrics. Toxic pressure for aquatic ecosystems can serve as an example, offering actionable entry points while more comprehensive metrics are under development, e.g. for human health. 3. Develop and apply chemical footprint approaches to integrate metrics across the cause−effect chain and derive impact-proximal control variables directly linked to the planetary boundary assessment. 4. Integrate justice dimensions. Ensure that vulnerable communities are explicitly considered within existing and emerging impact-oriented metrics developed along the lines of toxic pressure. Exposure assessment together with differentiated exposure thresholds across population groups, can more accurately capture risks faced by vulnerable populations. 5. Align and harmonize industry sustainability reporting requirements with inputs for life-cycle assessment techniques as used for chemical footprint or safe and sustainable-by-design (SSbD) assessments. This will link planetary boundary science to actionable metrics for researchers, policymakers, and industry implementers. When alignments between metrics and planetary boundary performance are made clear, science can be directly connected to governance logics already familiar to regulators and industry stakeholders. Such integration is essential for guiding policy, industry innovation, and monitoring progress toward safe and just chemicals production and consumption, enhancing both legitimacy and accountability. We stress the role of (a) increasing financial and human resources capacity to measure and report on metrics for chemical pollution, footprints and reduction efforts, and (b) improving regulatory enforcement strategies, including how enforcement success is monitored. When these advances are achieved, the novel entities boundary will no longer be an abstract concept. Instead, it will provide clear targets for governments and firms that can be jointly achieved through a process of continuous improvement using PDCA cycles and global reporting dashboards. Successful implementation of the PDCA cycle can be supported by incentives arising from well-developed regulatory frameworks with accompanying compliance mechanisms, but it does not rely solely on them. PDCA is also widely applied within general continuous improvement processes, where businesses set internal sustainability or environmental performance targets as part of their environmental management systems. In this context, the cycle is driven by voluntary commitments such as adoption of ambitions set by the UN-GFC, WBCSD, or similar frameworks and by industry actors’ own target-setting aligned with operating within the safe space for chemicals. In addition, respective data collection and generation efforts are needed. Where empirical measurements are lacking, appropriate estimation or modeling methods should be applied to ensure that critical data gaps are adequately addressed. , Bridging global policy agreements with the planetary boundaries framework is both the biggest challenge and the most promising route for successful implementation and may turn the current framework into a system coherent with global policies that enables measurable progress toward the safe operating space. Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the support of the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), who is also organizing a dedicated workshop in May 2026 on Planetary Boundaries for Novel Entities, bringing together stakeholders from the three key pillars, science, policy, and industry, to foster dialogue and cocreate actionable solutions. Biographies Dr. Maryam Zare Jeddi is an exposure scientist at Shell Global Solutions International BV, specializing in health risk assessment of chemicals and their mixtures, the safety and sustainability of chemicals and products, and human biomonitoring. Her research aims to advance methods for assessing chemical impacts across scales, with a particular emphasis on operationalizing planetary boundaries for novel entities. She leverages her experience across academia, regulatory bodies, and industry to integrate science into policy and practice, fostering evidence-based decision-making. Since 2018, she is the global leader of the Human Biomonitoring expert group at ISES Europe and serves as a private councilor on the ISES Board of Directors. She has authored over 50 peer-reviewed publications, underscoring her significant contributions to advancing exposure science and sustainability frameworks. Dr. Peter Fantke is Adjunct Professor at the Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, and Professor Extraordinarius at the University of South Africa. In 2012, he obtained his Ph.D. in technology assessment and environment. His current research focuses on developing quantitative methods for assessing emissions, fate, exposure, and (eco-)­toxicity effects of chemicals and other stressors along the life cycle of products and technologies. At substitute ApS, he additionally provides scientific advice in evaluating environmental life cycle impacts, managing chemicals and plastics, and addressing damage to human health and biodiversity loss. He is director of the USEtox Team, hosting the global reference model for characterizing chemical toxicity and ecotoxicity developed under the auspices of the UNEP Life Cycle Initiative. Together with global leaders in science and technology, he is pioneering the development of methods for assessing chemical pollution in the context of life cycle assessment, planetary boundaries, chemical footprint, and chemical substitution. The authors declare no competing financial interest. Published as part of Environmental Science & Technology special issue “Safe and Just Earth System Boundaries for Novel Entities”. References Rockström, J. ; Steffen, W. ; Noone, K. ; Persson, Å. ; Chapin III, F. S. ; Lambin, E. ; Lenton, T. M. ; Scheffer, M. ; Folke, C. ; Schellnhuber, H. J. . Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and society 2009, 14.1 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sakschewski, B. ; Caesar, L. ; Andersen, L. ; Bechthold, M. ; Bergfeld, L. ; Beusen, A. ; Billing, M. ; Bodirsky, B. L. ; Botsyun, S. ; Dennis, D. ; Donges, J. F. ; Dou, X. ; Eriksson, A. ; Fetzer, I. ; Gerten, D. ; Häyhä, T. ; Hebden, S. ; Heckmann, T. ; Heilemann, A. ; Huiskamp, W. N. ; Jahnke, A. ; Kaiser, J. ; Kitzmann, N. ; Krönke, J. ; Kühnel, D. ; Laureanti, N. C. ; Li, C. ; Liu, Z. ; Loriani, S. ; Ludescher, J. ; Mathesius, S. ; Norström, A. ; Otto, F. ; Paolucci, A. ; Pokhotelov, D. ; Rafiezadeh Shahi, K. ; Raju, E. ; Rostami, M. ; Schaphoff, S. ; Schmidt, C. ; Steinert, N. J. ; Stenzel, F. ; Virkki, V. ; Wendt-Potthoff, K. ; Wunderling, N. ; Rockström, J. . Planetary Health Check 2025: A Scientific Assessment of the State of the Planet. 2025, Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 10.48485/pik.2025.017. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Richardson K., Steffen W., Lucht W., Bendtsen J., Cornell S. E., Donges J. F., Drüke M., Fetzer I., Bala G., Von Bloh W.. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science advances. 2023;9:eadh2458. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adh2458. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Scheringer M., Schulz R.. The State of the World’s Chemical Pollution. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2025;50:381. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-111523-102318. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Persson L., Carney Almroth B. M., Collins C. D., Cornell S., De Wit C. A., Diamond M. L., Fantke P., Hassellov M., MacLeod M., Ryberg M. W.. et al. Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022;56:1510–1521. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] UNEP. Global Framework on Chemicals – For a planet free of harm from chemicals and waste: https://www.unep.org/resources/global-framework-chemicals-planet-free-harm-chemicals-and-waste (accessed 2026-03-13). WBCSD) Towards planet positive chemicals: A chemical transformation roadmap enabled by the circular economy: https://www.wbcsd.org/resources/towards-planet-positive-chemicals/2024 (accessed 2026-03-13). EC. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment Brussels2020.. EEA. EU indicator framework for chemicals: file:///C:/Users/Maryam.ZareJeddi/OneDrive%20-%20Shell/Maryam/SSbD/Planetary%20boundries%202025/EU%20indicator%20framework%20for%20chemicals%20TH-AL-24–004-EN-N.pdf2024. EEA. Zero pollution monitoring and outlook 2025: Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 20252024. [ Google Scholar ] EU. Key Performance Indicators for the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability; Publications Office of the European Union: 2023. [ Google Scholar ] UNEP. A Pilot Project: Enhancing cooperation between Montreal Protocol (OzonAction), the Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions and Minamata Convention at the country level on areas of common interest: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/48635 (accessed 2026-03-13). Martinčević I., Primorac D., Dorić B.. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): Obligations, Challenges and Requirements for Companies. ENTRENOVA-ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion. 2024;10:317–327. doi: 10.54820/entrenova-2024-0026. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Oskarsdottir H., Sigurjonsson T. O., Steinthorsson R. S.. The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive: impact on corporate boards. International Journal of Law and Management. 2025:1. doi: 10.1108/IJLMA-03-2025-0106. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Jakobs, E.

Aligning Business Strategy with Nature: The Role of Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). California Management Review Insights 2025, 1. [ Google Scholar ] Nelson F., Combe M.. What are the task force on nature-related financial disclosures. Equity. 2022;36:20–21. doi: 10.3316/informit.618422648495976. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Ogunseitan O. A.. Planetary boundaries for recalcitrant materials and toxic chemical pollutants: specifications for sustainable safe operating zones. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2025;13:1593947. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1593947. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Ogunseitan O. A.. Chemicals management approach to sustainable development of materials. MRS Bull. 2023;48:368–374. doi: 10.1557/s43577-023-00518-3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Diamond M. L., de Wit C. A., Molander S., Scheringer M., Backhaus T., Lohmann R., Arvidsson R., Bergman Å., Hauschild M., Holoubek I.. et al. Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution. Environ. Int. 2015;78:8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.02.001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Cousins I. T., Johansson J. H., Salter M. E., Sha B., Scheringer M.. Outside the safe operating space of a new planetary boundary for per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022;56:11172–11179. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c02765. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kosnik M. B., Hauschild M. Z., Fantke P.. Toward assessing absolute environmental sustainability of chemical pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022;56:4776–4787. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c06098. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Fantke P., Illner N.. Goods that are good enough: Introducing an absolute sustainability perspective for managing chemicals in consumer products. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry. 2019;15:91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.12.001. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Fantke P., Cinquemani C., Yaseneva P., De Mello J., Schwabe H., Ebeling B., Lapkin A. A.. Transition to sustainable chemistry through digitalization. Chem. 2021;7:2866–2882. doi: 10.1016/j.chempr.2021.09.012. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Senathirajah K., Kemp A., Saaristo M., Ishizuka S., Palanisami T.. Polymer prioritization framework: A novel multi-criteria framework for source mapping and characterizing the environmental risk of plastic polymers. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2022;429:128330. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128330. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zijp M. C., Posthuma L., van de Meent D.. Definition and applications of a versatile chemical pollution footprint methodology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014;48:10588–10597. doi: 10.1021/es500629f. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Posthuma L., van Gils J., Zijp M. C., Van De Meent D., de Zwart D.. Species sensitivity distributions for use in environmental protection, assessment, and management of aquatic ecosystems for 12 386 chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2019;38:905–917. doi: 10.1002/etc.4373. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Rodea-Palomares I., Gao Z., Weyers A., Ebeling M.. Risk from unintentional environmental mixtures in EU surface waters is dominated by a limited number of substances. Sci. Total Environ. 2023;856:159090. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159090. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Li T., Cui L., Xu Z., Liu H., Cui X., Fantke P.. Micro-and nanoplastics in soil: Linking sources to damage on soil ecosystem services in life cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2023;904:166925. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166925. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Oginah S. A., Posthuma L., Maltby L., Hauschild M., Fantke P.. Linking freshwater ecotoxicity to damage on ecosystem services in life cycle assessment. Environ. Int. 2023;171:107705. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107705. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Csiszar S. A., Vitale C. M., Vamshi R., Roush K. S., Kent B., Heisler R., Summers H., Burns E. E., Davies I., Stanton D.. Spatially referenced environmental exposure model for down-the-drain substance emissions across European rivers for aquatic safety assessments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2026;22:247. doi: 10.1093/inteam/vjaf119. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kapo K. E., DeLeo P. C., Vamshi R., Holmes C. M., Ferrer D., Dyer S. D., Wang X., White-Hull C.. iSTREEM®: An approach for broad-scale in-stream exposure assessment of “down-the-drain” chemicals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2016;12:782–792. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1793. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kehrein N., Berlekamp J., Klasmeier J.. Modeling the fate of down-the-drain chemicals in whole watersheds: New version of the GREAT-ER software. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2015;64:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.10.018. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kilgallon J., Franco A., Price O. R., Hodges J. E.. Application of a spatially resolved model to contextualise monitoring data for risk assessment of down-the-drain chemicals over large scales. Environ. Pollut. 2017;230:954–962. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.041. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Wannaz C., Fantke P., Jolliet O.. Multiscale spatial modeling of human exposure from local sources to global intake. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018;52:701–711. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05099. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Oginah S. A., Posthuma L., Slootweg J., Hauschild M., Fantke P.. Calibrating Predicted Mixture Toxic Pressure to Observed Biodiversity Loss in Aquatic Ecosystems. Global Change Biology. 2025;31:e70305. doi: 10.1111/gcb.70305. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Fantke P., Chiu W. A., Aylward L., Judson R., Huang L., Jang S., Gouin T., Rhomberg L., Aurisano N., McKone T.. et al. Exposure and toxicity characterization of chemical emissions and chemicals in products: global recommendations and implementation in USEtox. international journal of life cycle assessment. 2021;26:899–915. doi: 10.1007/s11367-021-01889-y. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sörme L., Palm V., Finnveden G.. Using E-PRTR data on point source emissions to air and waterFirst steps towards a national chemical footprint. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2016;56:102–112. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.09.007. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Sala S., Goralczyk M.. Chemical footprint: A methodological framework for bridging life cycle assessment and planetary boundaries for chemical pollution. Integrated environmental assessment and management. 2013;9:623–632. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1471. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Realyvásquez Vargas, A. ; García Alcaraz, J. L. ; Satapathy, S. ; Coraza, D. A. ; Báez López, Y. : The PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) Cycle. In Lean Manufacturing in Latin America: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications; Springer: 2024; pp 409–437. [ Google Scholar ] UNEP. UNEP Programme and Project Management Manual - 2023 Edition: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/42771 (accessed 2026-03-13). Hader J. D., Wagner M., Arp H. P. H., Groh K. J., Løseth M. E., Monclús L., Muncke J., Zimmermann L., Wang Z.. A hazard-based approach enables the efficient identification of chemicals of concern in plastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025;59:16144–16155. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c02912. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Rockström J., Gupta J., Qin D., Lade S. J., Abrams J. F., Andersen L. S., Armstrong McKay D. I., Bai X., Bala G., Bunn S. E.. et al. Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature. 2023;619:102–111. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gupta J., Bai X., Liverman D. M., Rockström J., Qin D., Stewart-Koster B., Rocha J. C., Jacobson L., Abrams J. F., Andersen L. S.. et al. A just world on a safe planet: a Lancet Planetary Health–Earth Commission report on Earth-system boundaries, translations, and transformations. Lancet Planetary Health. 2024;8:e813–e873. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00042-1. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Posthuma L., Price T., Viljanen M.. Improving the ecotoxicological hazard assessment of chemicals by pairwise learning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025;59:16250–16260. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c01289. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] von Borries K., Beckwith K. V., Goodman J. M., Chiu W. A., Jolliet O., Fantke P.. Uncertainty-aware machine learning to predict non-cancer human toxicity for the global chemicals market. Nat. Commun. 2026:647. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-67374-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] ICCA Statement on the Outcome of the Fifth Session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) - International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA). Articles from Environmental Science & Technology are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (4.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities: Time for a Reboot.#395997
• Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet#6104
• Integrating planetary health and environmental justice into high school construction career education: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the Ecosystem Justice Translator#440268
• A Computational Taxonomy for Distributed Environmental Governance: Object Classes, Required Operations, and the Representation of Absence - A Preliminary Discussion#704855
• Heaven Can't Wait: A Critique of Current Planetary Defence Policy#751153