Modelling of demolition waste generation: Application to Greek residential buildings.

The construction sector in Europe is among the biggest waste generators, producing 370 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste (CDW) every year, which contain important secondary materials. Quantification of CDW is important from their circular management and environmental impact point of view. Thus, the overall objective of this study was to develop a modelling methodology for estimating demolition waste (DW) generation. The volumes (m3) of individual construction materials contained in 45 residential buildings in Greece were accurately estimated using computer-aided design (CAD) software and the materials were classified according to European List of Waste. These materials will become waste upon demolition, with a total estimated generation rate of 1590 kg m-2 of top view area and with concrete and bricks representing 74.5% of total. Linear regression models were developed to predict the total and individual amounts of 12 different building materials based on structural building characteristics. To test the accuracy of the models, the materials of two residential buildings were quantified and classified and the results were compared with the model predictions. Depending on the model used, the % differences between models' predictions and CAD estimates for total DW averaged 11.1% ± 7.4% for the first case study and 2.5% ± 1.5% for the second. The models can be used for accurate quantification of total and individual DW and their management within the framework of circular economy.

Proposal of concentration limits for determining the hazard property HP 14 for waste using ecotoxicological tests.

Different ecotoxicological test batteries and concentration limits have been proposed to assess the hazard property (HP) HP 14 'Ecotoxic' for waste in the European Union and its member states. In test batteries, if the concentration of waste in the culture/dilution medium producing 50% of inhibitory biological effect in one or more test(s) is below the concentration limit of the test, the waste is classified as hazardous. A summarized review of the test batteries proposed since 1998 is presented. The last proposed test battery uses seven aquatic and terrestrial species with standardized methods, but with options and uniform concentration limits of 10% of waste eluate or solid waste in the culture/dilution medium. No attempt was made to match this hazard assessment with the classification made in the European List of Waste (LoW). The aim of this paper is to propose for the same test battery (reduced to 6 tests without options) concentration limits that match with the European List of Waste. This list was taken as reference (despite the fact that waste can be hazardous for other properties than the most frequent HP 14, and its partly political nature for some opinions). The concentration limits (CLs) for tests are the concentrations producing the highest ecotoxicological effects for each test observed in a non-hazardous waste set. Data from Germany, France and Belgium (from in total 5 different sources from 2009 to 2016) with the above-mentioned test battery (without options) were gathered for 81 samples, being the largest set ever published. In total, ten non-hazardous (NH) waste samples (as defined by the LoW and for most of them checked by chemical composition) were used to establish CLs. These CLs were then applied to 13 hazardous (H) waste by the LoW, and all were classified as hazardous. The matching of the resulting classification with the LoW is convincing. For the 58 'mirror entries' in the LoW (hazardous or not depending of the presence of hazardous substances), 37 were classified H (64%) and 21 were classified NH (36%). These concentration limits can be refined with the method proposed here, as soon as additional data of NH waste (by list and by composition) are available. The test battery (without options) and the concentration limits (in percent of waste in the culture/dilution medium) proposed are the following: A waste is hazardous for HP 14 'Ecotoxic' if the concentration of waste (eluate or solid) in the culture/dilution medium producing 50% of biological effect relative to the control EC50-30 min of Vibrio fischeri (EN ISO 11348-3) is lower than 15.8%, or if the EC50-72 h of Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (EN ISO 8692) is lower than 7.03%, or if the EC50-48 h of Daphnia magna (EN ISO 6341) is lower than 7.95%, or if the EC50-6h of Arthrobacter globiformis (ISO 18187) is lower than 2.25%, or if the EC50-14d of Brassica rapa (EN ISO 11269-2) is lower than 13.7%, or if the EC50-48 h of Eisenia fetida avoidance test (ISO 17512-1) is lower than 3.75%. These CLs range between 2% and 16%, which is in line with the typically 10% concentration proposed without validation. To fix regulatory concentration limits, the regulators can use these CLs and the uncertainty of the ecotoxicological tests (standard deviation of inter-laboratory reproducibility typically of 25% of the mean, as published in the standards). Classification of waste for HP 14 with these tests and concentration limits will agree with the European List of Waste.

Assessment of four calculation methods proposed by the EC for waste hazardous property HP 14 'Ecotoxic'.

Legislation published in December 2014 revised both the List of Waste (LoW) and amended Appendix III of the revised Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC; the latter redefined hazardous properties HP 1 to HP 13 and HP 15 but left the assessment of HP 14 unchanged to allow time for the Directorate General of the Environment of the European Commission to complete a study that is examining the impacts of four different calculation methods for the assessment of HP 14. This paper is a contribution to the assessment of the four calculation methods. It also includes the results of a fifth calculation method; referred to as "Method 2 with extended M-factors". Two sets of data were utilised in the assessment; the first (Data Set #1) comprised analytical data for 32 different waste streams (16 hazardous (H), 9 non-hazardous (NH) and 7 mirror entries, as classified by the LoW) while the second data set (Data Set #2), supplied by the eco industries, comprised analytical data for 88 waste streams, all classified as hazardous (H) by the LoW. Two approaches were used to assess the five calculation methods. The first approach assessed the relative ranking of the five calculation methods by the frequency of their classification of waste streams as H. The relative ranking of the five methods (from most severe to less severe) is: Method 3>Method 1>Method 2 with extended M-factors>Method 2>Method 4. This reflects the arithmetic ranking of the concentration limits of each method when assuming M=10, and is independent of the waste streams, or the H/NH/Mirror status of the waste streams. A second approach is the absolute matching or concordance with the LoW. The LoW is taken as a reference method and the H wastes are all supposed to be HP 14. This point is discussed in the paper. The concordance for one calculation method is established by the number of wastes with identical classification by the considered calculation method and the LoW (i.e. H to H, NH to NH). The discordance is established as well, that is when the waste is classified "H" in the LoW and "NH" by calculation (i.e. an under-estimation of the hazard). For Data Set #1, Method 2 with extended M-factors matches best with the LoW (80% concordant H and non-H by LoW, and 13% discordant for H waste by LoW). This method more correctly classifies wastes containing substances with high ecotoxicity. Methods 1 and 3 have nearly as good matches (76% and 72% concordant H and non-H by LoW, and 13% and 6% respectively discordant for H waste by LoW). Method 2 with extended M-factors, but limited to the M-factors published in the CLP has insufficient concordance (64% concordant H and non-H by LoW, and 50% discordant for H waste by LoW). As the same method with extended M-factors gives the best performance, the lower performance is due to the limited set of M-factors in the CLP. Method 4 is divergent (60% concordant H and non-H by LoW, and 56% discordant for H waste by LoW). For Data Set #2, Methods 2 and 4 do not correctly classify 24 air pollution control residues from incineration 19 01 07(∗) (3/24 and 2/24 respectively), and should not be used, while Methods 3, 1 and 2 with extended M-factors successfully classify 100% of them as hazardous. From the two sets of data, Method 2 with extended M-factors (corresponding more closely to the CLP methods used for products) matches best with the LoW when the LoW code is safely known, and Method 3 and 1 will deviate from the LoW if the samples contain substances with high ecotoxicity (in particular PAHs). Methods 2 and 4 are not recommended. Formally, this conclusion depends on the waste streams that are used for the comparison of methods and the relevancy of the classification as hazardous for ecotoxicity in the LoW. Since the set is large (120 waste streams) and no selection has been made here in the available data, the conclusion should be robust.

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 (>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.