Testing of 24 Potentially Hazardous Wastes Using 6 Ecotoxicological Tests

Abstract

The ecotoxicological characterization of wastes according to the European Waste List (EWL) is part of their assessment as hazardous or non-hazardous. Despite inclusion in national laws no methodological details have been fixed concerning the hazard property HP 14 ("ecotoxic").This paper intends to discuss the classification of wastes by ecotoxicological testing, using 24 representative samples of solid wastes (identified by their EWL number) with different properties. They were sampled according to standard methods, and, with one exception (galvanic sludge), ecotoxicologically tested. No chemical investigation of the samples was performed but they were characterized according to their properties in the ABANDA data base. Nearly all of these wastes were "mirror entries" in the EWL (i.e., they can be hazardous or not depending on the concentration of hazardous substances). For the ecotoxicological characterization three aquatic tests with eluates (genotoxicity, Algae, Daphnia) as well as three terrestrial tests with solid wastes (bacteria, plants, earthworms) were conducted. All investigations were performed as limit tests with three dilution steps. Algae, plants and terrestrial bacteria were the most sensitive organisms. Since no waste eluate showed any indication of genotoxicity, the genotoxicity test should be replaced by the luminescent bacteria test (ISO 11348-3). Proposals for toxicity criteria as well as hazard classifications were taken from the literature but they were modified according to own experiences. Using these concentration limits for the classification whether these wastes are ecotoxic or not, and using different versions of the hazard classification approach, 15-19 waste samples out of 23 waste samples were classified as ecotoxic (64-83%). It is proposed to perform a plausibility check of the respective HP 14-classification. The procedure used in this contribution (i.e. sampling of the wastes, their ecotoxicological testing as well as their hazard classification) could form the basis of a standardized hazard classification approach as proposed recently in the literature. In summary, this works confirms that ecotoxicological tests are practical and sensitive in order to be used for the ecotoxicological hazard classification of very different wastes.

Ecotoxicity attenuation by acid-resistant nanofiltration in scandium recovery from TiO2 production waste

“…Based on our results and experience with the ecotoxicity testing of wastes (red mud, fly ash, waste-derived biochars, transformer oil-contaminated soil and groundwater, soil contaminated with mazout, Zn, Cd, Pb contaminated soils and mine wastes, groundwater contaminated with chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, etc.) [ 44 , 58 , [90] , [91] , [92] , [93] , [94] , [95] ] and considering the reported, diverse challenges (inhomogeneity, phase-separation, extreme pH, precipitation of contaminants due to pH adjustment) [ 41 , 89 ] that often arise during the testing of complex waste samples of varying physico-chemical characteristics, in our opinion, the use of a routine ecotoxicity characterisation approach of wastes should not be proposed in terms of the strict restrictions on the applied test methods. Instead, the use of a set of generally sensitive, high-throughput and time- and cost-effective ecotoxicity methods could be more straightforward and efficient, with specific recommendations for the most appropriate assays to test a particular waste sample.…”

“…Although several authors have confirmed that the methods designed for classifying products under Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP) [ 37 ] are unsuitable for testing wastes [ 38 ] a harmonised testing strategy is still not available. In addition, a combination of a suitable battery of biological test methods and chemical analyses is necessary for the ecotoxicological characterisation of waste [ [39] , [40] , [41] ].…”

Proposal of a Testing Program for the Hp14 (Ecotoxic) Classification of Automotive Shredder Residues (Asr) by a Battery of Ecotoxicological Bioassays

“…The choice of the test battery has been determined following method proposed by Pandard and Römbke, 2013. Currently, there is consensus within the scientific community about this proposition, specifically when performed for fully comprehensive ecotoxicological characterization of waste (Moser and Römbke, 2009, Pandard and Römbke, 2013, Römbke, 2018. It should be assumed as a minimum set of assays, since it can be proved that the results from each ecotoxicological test will not be correlated with the other required tests, thus highlighting difference in the mechanisms of toxicity.…”

Industrial ecotoxicology in focus: The unexplored environmental impacts of pilot-scale advanced filtration in Sc recovery

“…Direct toxicity assessment (DTA) describes the aggregated effects of complex waste samples [ [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] ], therefore DTA-based ecotoxicity results should be prioritized over single chemical compound-based effective concentration (EC X ) values from scientific literature in life cycle impact assessments (LCIAs). As LCIAs aim to provide a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of a product or process throughout its life cycle, DTA results align with this objective by offering a more holistic view of the aggregated effects of complex waste samples, contributing to a thorough LCIA.…”