INERIS (Institut National de l'Environnement Industriel et des Risques), BP 2, 60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte, France.
Hans van der Sloot Consultancy, Dorpsstraat 216, 1721BV Langedijk, The Netherlands.
Waste Manag. 2014 Oct;34(10):1739-51. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.021. Epub 2014 Jun 30.
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 (>100). 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.
废物危害分类是必要的,但欧盟层面仍未以实用和可操作的方式对危害特性(命名为“ H”,很快将命名为“ HP”)进行全部定义。在对委员会的后续提案草案进行讨论之后,仍未做出最终决定。最近提出了实施这些提案的方法:物理风险测试方法,水生和陆生生态毒性测试电池,用于有机物质和矿物质元素的详尽测定的分析包,废物中矿物质元素形态的替代方法以及用于人类毒性和生态毒性的计算方法和 M 因素。在本文中,将不同的建议方法应用于> 100 种各种固体和液体废物。对 45 种废物(通过广泛的化学分析和可燃性测试进行了记录)进行了评估,以确定不同的 HP 标准,并将结果与缺乏独立分类的 LoW 进行了比较。对于大多数废物流,分类与 LoW 中提供的分类相符。这表明 LoW 使用的标准与 HP 限值相似。该数据集表明,HP 14“慢性生态毒性”是最具区分性的 HP。所有被归类为急性生态毒性的废物也都是慢性生态毒性,因此无需单独评估急性生态毒性。被归类为 HP 14 的废物数量众多,是因为当将严格的 M 因素应用于总浓度(最坏情况方法)时,限值非常低。当 M 因素设置为 1 时,分类方法在危险材料和非危险材料之间的区分度不够。其次最常见的危害是 HP 7“致癌性”。第三常见的危害是 HP 10“生殖毒性”,第四常见的危害是 HP 4“刺激性-皮肤刺激和眼睛损伤”。逐步评估似乎首先需要评估 HP 14,然后,如果废物未被归类为危险废物,则随后评估 HP 7、HP 10 和 HP 4,然后如果仍未被归类为危险废物,则评估其余特性。按重要性顺序触发 HP 14 分类的元素是 Zn、Cu、Pb、Cr、Cd 和 Hg。Zn 和 Cu 的形态分析进展对于 HP 14 至关重要。有机物是通过建议的方法(AFNOR XP X30-489)进行定量的,不需要进行形态分析。有机物在许多废物中可以具有显著的内在毒性,但由于金属浓度是主要的 HP 14 分类器,因此对于 HP 14 的评估而言,它们的重要性较小。但是,有机化合物会引起其他毒理学特性(激素干扰,遗传毒性,生殖毒性等),因此在废物未被 HP 14 分类时应加以考虑。