Hazard property classification of waste according to the recent propositions of the EC using different methods

Hazard classification of waste is a necessity, but the hazard properties (named “H” and soon “HP”) are still not all defined in a practical and operational manner at EU level. Following discussion of subsequent draft proposals from the Commission there is still no final decision. Methods to implement the proposals have recently been proposed: tests methods for physical risks, test batteries for aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity, an analytical package for exhaustive determination of organic substances and mineral elements, surrogate methods for the speciation of mineral elements in mineral substances in waste, and calculation methods for human toxicity and ecotoxicity with M factors.In this paper the different proposed methods have been applied to a large assortment of solid and liquid wastes (>1 0 0).Data for 45 wastes – documented with extensive chemical analysis and flammability test – were assessed in terms of the different HP criteria and results were compared to LoW for lack of an independent classification. For most waste streams the classification matches with the designation provided in the LoW. This indicates that the criteria used by LoW are similar to the HP limit values.This data set showed HP 14 ‘Ecotoxic chronic’ is the most discriminating HP. All wastes classified as acute ecotoxic are also chronic ecotoxic and the assessment of acute ecotoxicity separately is therefore not needed. The high number of HP 14 classified wastes is due to the very low limit values when stringent M factors are applied to total concentrations (worst case method). With M factor set to 1 the classification method is not sufficiently discriminating between hazardous and non-hazardous materials. The second most frequent hazard is HP 7 ‘Carcinogenic’. The third most frequent hazard is HP 10 ‘Toxic for reproduction’ and the fourth most frequent hazard is HP 4 “Irritant – skin irritation and eye damage”. In a stepwise approach, it seems relevant to assess HP 14 first, then, if the waste is not classified as hazardous, to assess subsequently HP 7, HP 10 and HP 4, and then if still not classified as hazardous, to assess the remaining properties.The elements triggering the HP 14 classification in order of importance are Zn, Cu, Pb, Cr, Cd and Hg. Progress in the speciation of Zn and Cu is essential for HP 14. Organics were quantified by the proposed method (AFNOR XP X30-489) and need no speciation. Organics can contribute significantly to intrinsic toxicity in many waste materials, but they are only of minor importance for the assessment of HP 14 as the metal concentrations are the main HP 14 classifiers. Organic compounds are however responsible for other toxicological characteristics (hormone disturbance, genotoxicity, reprotoxicity…) and shall be taken into account when the waste is not HP 14 classified.     

Validation of Microtox as a first screening tool for waste classification

The Waste Framework Directive (WFD; 2008/98/EG) describes how waste materials are to be classified as hazardous or not. For complex waste materials chemical analyses are often not conclusive and the WFD provides the possibility to assess the hazardous properties by testing on the waste materials directly. As a methodology WFD refers to the protocols described in the CLP regulation (regulation on Classification, Labeling and Packaging of chemicals) but the toxicity tests on mammals are not acceptable for waste materials. The DISCRISET project was initiated to investigate the suitability of alternative toxicity tests that are already in use in pharmaceutical applications, for the toxicological hazard assessment of complex waste materials. Results indicated that Microtox was a good candidate as a first screening test in a tiered approached hazard assessment. This is now further validated in the present study. The toxic responses measured in Microtox were compared to biological responses in other bioassays for both organic and inorganic fractions of the wastes. Both fractions contribute to the toxic load of waste samples. Results show that the Microtox test is indeed a good and practical screening tool for the organic fraction. A screening threshold (ST) of 5 geq/l as the EC₅₀ value in Microtox is proposed as this ST allows to recognize highly toxic samples in the screening test. The data presented here show that the Microtox toxicity response at this ST is not only predictive for acute toxicity in other organisms but also for sub lethal toxic effects of the organic fraction. This limit value has to be further validated. For the inorganic fraction no specific biotest can be recommended as a screening test, but the use of direct toxicity assessment is also preferable for this fraction as metal speciation is an important issue to define the toxic load of elutriate fractions. A battery of 3 tests (Microtox, Daphnia and Algae) for direct toxicity assessment of this fraction is recommended in literature, but including tests for mechanistic toxicity might be useful.     

Comparative sensitivity of 20 bioassays for soil quality

Increasing evidence suggests that the use of a single bioassay will never provide a full picture of the quality of the environment. Only a test battery, composed of bioassays of different animal and plant species from different trophic levels will reduce uncertainty, allowing an accurate assessment of the quality of the environment. In the present study, a test battery composed of 20 bioassays of varying biological endpoints has been compared Apart from lethality and reproductive failure in earthworms, springtails, nematoda, algae and vascular plants, these endpoints also included bioavailibility of metals (bacteria), heat-shock induction (nematodes, algae), DNA damage (bacteria, earthworm, vascular plants), β-galactosidase (Daphnia) and esterase activity (algae) and a range of immunological parameters (earthworm). Four chemicals (cadmium, phenol, pentachlorophenol and triflurahn) — each representing a different toxic mode of action — were applied in a dilution series (from 1 mg/kg up to 1000 mg/kg) onto OECD standard soil. The tests have been performed both on these artificially contaminated soil samples and on aqueous extracts subsequently obtained from these soils. The results show that the immunological parameters and the loss of weight in the earthworms were among the most sensitive solid phase assays. Esterase inhibition and heat-shock induction in algae were shown to be extremely sensitive when applied to soil extracts. As previously shown at the species level, no single biological endpoint was shown to be the most sensitive for all four modes of toxic action.     

Screening tests for hazard classification of complex waste materials – Selection of methods

In this study we describe the development of an alternative methodology for hazard characterization of waste materials. Such an alternative methodology for hazard assessment of complex waste materials is urgently needed, because the lack of a validated instrument leads to arbitrary hazard classification of such complex waste materials. False classification can lead to human and environmental health risks and also has important financial consequences for the waste owner. The Hazardous Waste Directive (HWD) describes the methodology for hazard classification of waste materials. For mirror entries the HWD classification is based upon the hazardous properties (H1–15) of the waste which can be assessed from the hazardous properties of individual identified waste compounds or – if not all compounds are identified – from test results of hazard assessment tests performed on the waste material itself. For the latter the HWD recommends toxicity tests that were initially designed for risk assessment of chemicals in consumer products (pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, biocides, food, etc.). These tests (often using mammals) are not designed nor suitable for the hazard characterization of waste materials. With the present study we want to contribute to the development of an alternative and transparent test strategy for hazard assessment of complex wastes that is in line with the HWD principles for waste classification. It is necessary to cope with this important shortcoming in hazardous waste classification and to demonstrate that alternative methods are available that can be used for hazard assessment of waste materials. Next, by describing the pros and cons of the available methods, and by identifying the needs for additional or further development of test methods, we hope to stimulate research efforts and development in this direction. In this paper we describe promising techniques and argument on the test selection for the pilot study that we have performed on different types of waste materials. Test results are presented in a second paper.As the application of many of the proposed test methods is new in the field of waste management, the principles of the tests are described. The selected tests tackle important hazardous properties but refinement of the test battery is needed to fulfil the a priori conditions.     

The relevance of physicochemical and biological parameters for setting emission limit values for plants treating complex industrial wastewaters

The influents of plants treating complex industrial wastewaters from third parties may contain a large variety of often unknown or unidentified potentially harmful substances. The conventional approach of assessing and regulating the effluents of these plants is to set emission limit values for a limited set of physicochemical parameters, such as heavy metals, biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand and adsorbable organic halogen compounds. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relevance of physicochemical parameters for setting emission limit values for such plants based on a comparison of effluent analyses by physicochemical and biological assessment tools. The results show that physicochemical parameters alone are not sufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of the water treatment plants for removing hazardous compounds and to protect the environment. The introduction of toxicity limits and limits for the total bioaccumulation potential should be considered to supplement generic parameters such as chemical oxygen demand and adsorbable organic halogens. A recommendation is made to include toxicity screening as a technique to consider in the determination of best available techniques (BAT) during the upcoming revision of the BAT reference document for the waste treatment industries to provide a more rational basis in decisions on additional treatment steps.     

DISCRISET: A battery of tests for fast waste classification – Application of tests on waste extracts

The Hazardous Waste Directive (HWD, Council Directive 91/689/EC, 1991) provides a framework for classification of hazardous waste, based on 15 Hazard (H)-criteria. For complex wastes the HWD foresees the application of toxicity tests on the waste material itself to assess its toxic properties. However, these proposed test methods often involve mammalian testing, which is not acceptable from an ethical point of view, nor is it feasible economically. The DISCRISET project was initiated to investigate the use of alternative chemical and biological fast screening tests for waste hazard classification. In the first part of the project, different methods were reviewed and a testing strategy was proposed to minimize time and cost of analysis by a tiered approach. This includes as a first tier chemical analysis followed by a general acute toxicity screen as a second tier and as a third tier mechanistic toxicity tests to assess chronic toxicity (genotoxicity, hormone disturbance, teratogenic effects, immunologic activity). In this phase of the project, selected methods were applied to 16 different waste samples from various sources and industries. The first tier chemical tests are recommended for the full characterization of the leachate fraction (inorganics) but not for the organic fraction of samples. Here the chemical characterization is only useful if toxic content is known or suspected. As second tier the fast bacterial test Microtox is validated as a general toxicity screen for the organic fraction (worst case organic extract). Samples that are not classified in tier 1 or 2 are then further investigated in the third tier by the mechanistic toxicity tests and tested for their potential chronic toxicity: immune activity (TNF-α upregulation) is indicative for corrosive, irritating or sensitising effects (H4/H8/H15), reproductive effects (H10) are indicated by hormone disturbance and early life stage abnormalities in fish larvae when exposed to the extracts and mutagenicity and carcinogenicity (H7, H11) are indicated by SOS response induction and increased mutation frequency in the Ames test when exposed to the extracts. Results indicate that the combination of chemical tests and bioassays allows important hazardous properties to be addressed and the tiered approach ensures that the tests are performed quickly and economically. The suggested strategy provides a solid and ethical alternative to the methods described in the HWD and is a vast improvement on the current, arbitrary classification.