European Activities on Harmonisation of Leaching /Extraction Tests and Standardisation in

Relation to the Use of Alternative Materials in Construction.

H.A. van der Sloot

Netherlands Energy Research Foundation
P.O. Box 1, 1755 ZG PETTEN, The Netherlands

Introduction
In the framework of the Standards, Measurement & Testing Programme (DGXII) of the European
Community, a Network for the Harmonisation of Leaching/Extraction Tests [1,2,3] has been
established. The background for starting this network has been the increased use of widely different
leaching test methods in different areas: waste treatment and disposal, incineration of waste,
burning of waste fuels, soil clean-up and reuse of cleaned soil, sludge treatment, use of compost
from different sources and use of alternative raw materials in construction. The confusion -resulting
from the wide variety of tests used to assess environmental properties of materials - has led to an
evaluation of current practices and to an attempt of harmonising of the approaches across different
fields. Some main concerns in relation to leaching test use and development are:
- there are too many leaching tests addressing largely the same question
- there is a too limited relationship between test conditions in regulatory tests and the actual
release under field conditions
- the use and relevance of the vast amount of leaching test data generated annually in the industry
for regulatory purposes is too limited
All of these points call for more harmonisation of leaching test procedures.

Harmonisation
The Network Harmonisation of Leaching\Extraction tests has set out with the following goals:
- Identification of the needs in different fields in relation to leaching test use and interpretation.
- Comparison of different leaching test methods currently used or proposed in a specific field
- Horizontal comparison of leaching test methods between different fields
- Evaluation of leaching test data, interpretation and modelling for environmental impact
assessment.
- Development of cost efficient quality control systems through a hierarchy in testing.

10000
TOTAL

1000 MATRIX
Leached quantity (mg/kg)

MINERALOGY CHANGES DUE TO POTENTIALLY

REMINERALIZATION LEACHABLE
100
WASTE NATURAL
SLUDGE SOIL
WOOD ACTUAL LEACHING
10 COMPOST (Metal)
SOLUTION
1 CHEMISTRY
SEDIMENT STABILIZED WASTE
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND CONCRETE

0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
pH
Figure 1. Relevant pH domains for the various fields covered in the Thematic Network[1].
In figure 1 the relevant pH domains for the various fields covered in the network are given. It is not
surprising that the relevance of pH emerged first and most prominently in the waste area, as wastes
may cover a very wide range of pH conditions. The figure also illustrates different levels of
judgement. The most conservative approach uses total composition. This property has no direct
relationship with environmental impact. The potential leachability is a long-term worst case
asymptote. For some elements (e.g. Pb) the difference between potentially leachable and total may
be more than two orders of magnitude. The actual leachability as depicted by the curved line
represents the leaching behaviour of Pb as a function of the exposure condition. Depending on the
relevant pH condition in a given scenario, this level may be orders of magnitude below the
potentially leachable fraction, particularly, in the case of treatment to reduce environmental impact
(e.g. vitrification, solidification/stabilisation) both total and to a lesser extent potential leachability
are unnecessary limiting.
Through the EU project Technical work in support of the Network Harmonisation of
Leaching/ Extraction Tests the technical background for harmonisation of leaching tests is collected
[3]. The study covers a wide range of materials - soil, contaminated soil, compost, sewage sludge,
sediments, wastes, stabilised wastes, construction materials (concrete, drinking water pipes, bricks,
asphalt), aggregates (demolition debris, MSWI bottom ash) and impregnated wood. It also covers a
wide range of relevant tests addressing different aspects of leaching - porewater simulation test,
sequential chemical extraction (SCE) test, pH dependence leaching test, CaCl2 , HAc, EDTA, NaNO3
extraction tests, percolation test, EN 12457-3 test, tank leaching test in three modes, monolith
compliance test, wood leach test, spray test and compacted granular leach test. As an illustration of the
comparison of leaching tests, that forms the basis of the study an example of the type of leaching test
comparison is given in figure 2&3.
The results presented in figure 2 and 3 indicate that with the exception of EDTA extraction
all extraction methods relate closely to the pH dependence-leaching test [4]. Even the SCE, when
expressed as a cumulative leached amount in subsequent extractions matches well. This leads to the
conclusion that harmonisation of leaching tests across fields is very much needed as the information
required (release of contaminants to the surrounding) is very similar across fields. In addition,
generic-leaching behaviour of specific elements is consistent across fields [1,3]. As it turns out
dissolved organic matter (DOC) is a crucial factor in release of metals in many matrices. In the case
of Cu leaching from contaminated soil, this is reflected by the increase in Cu leaching with
increasing pH (parallel mobilisation of DOC), which would not occur in a purely inorganic matrix.
1000 pH s tat 100 pH s tat
duplo duplo
SCE SCE
NaNO3 NaNO3
EDTA EDTA
100 Hac
Hac 10
CaCl2 CaCl2
Le a che d (m g/kg)
Le a che d (m g/kg)

CEN CEN
SCE2 SCE2
10 Total Total

0.1
0.1
Co nta m ina te d
Cr
Co nta m ina te d Cd
so il CS O 2 so il CS O 2
0.01 0.01
1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 11

pH pH

Figure 2. Comparison of different leaching/extraction tests for Cr and Cd on heavily sewage sludge
amended soil (SCE: sequential chemical extraction; CEN: EN12457-3)[3].

2
 1000 100
Co n ta m in a te d Co n ta m in a te d
Rive r se d im e n t Rive r se d im e n t
S ED2 S ED2
100 10
Le ache d (mg/kg)

Le ache d (mg/kg)
10 1

pH s tat
pH s tat
duplo
duplo
1 CEN 0.1
CEN
CaCl2
SCE Zn V CaCl2
SCE
0.1 0.01
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH pH

Figure 3. Comparison of different leaching tests for Zn and V on contaminated harbour sludge
(SCE: sequential chemical extraction; CEN: EN12457-3; duplo: duplicate pH dependence test)[3].

It is important that tests address release mechanisms to allow transfer of the data to other conditions
rather than to be specific for one simplified condition for one scenario.

Scenario approach
To evaluate environmental impact resulting from utilisation or disposal of materials a scenario
approach is needed, in which the question to be answered must be properly specified. In ENV
12920 [5], worked out by CEN TC 292, a framework to describe such a scenario approach is
provided. As an example the following question is addressed: can alternative raw materials be used
in an environmental acceptable manner in road sub-base or in embankment?
Clearly, a single-step-leaching test will not provide the answer to that question. Issues to be
addressed are:
- the type of impact data needed: treatment optimisation, comparison between potential materials
for the application, soil and/or (ground) water impact,
- compliance with regulatory criteria, if present,
- technical requirements (load bearing, strength, etc),
- performance in different stages in the life cycle: service life - recycling - end-of-life.
The latter issue is an aspect of responsibility to prevent future impacts. A product should be
environmentally acceptable during its service life, but also in subsequent recycling and "end of life"
conditions. If not, future generations are burdened with bad practice from the past.
Scenario description: application of alternative materials in road base and embankment
(figure 4). As impact to the environment is realised through release by leaching, the hydrology of
the application is a crucial factor, which needs to be known (infiltration rate, groundwater flow,
etc). The geotechnical specifications of the application (isolation measures) need to be described.
The relevant properties of the (secondary) materials to be applied are important such as:
- nature and origin of the (alternative) material
- physical properties (e.g. density, porosity)
- morphology: granular versus monolithic as this determines the type of test to be applied
- geotechnical properties of the materials (permeability, particle size distribution, etc) are
important as they determine the degree of contact with infiltration water.
- chemical properties and speciation: oxidised, reducing, complexation, acid neutralisation
capacity, reducing capacity, degradable organic matter content, thermodynamic stability.

3
 RUN-OFF

INFILTRATION

GROUNDWATER
Figure 4. Scenario to assess impacts resulting from the use of alternative materials in road base and
embankment.

Clearly, several aspects play a role and estimates need to be made on the relative importance on
each of those. For instance, results from percolation leaching tests can be expressed as a cumulative
release as a function of liquid to solid ratio. This allows a relationship to be made between release
and time by taking into account the infiltration rate, the height, the density of the material used [6].
This is graphically illustrated in figure 5. In this figure, which has a resemblance to figure 1 where
similar levels are shown as a function of pH, the cumulative release of a specific contaminant is
shown expressed in mg/kg dry matter. In an uncovered application a L/S of 10 may correspond to
about 100 years of field exposure. For a covered scenario, the L/S=10 condition may reflect more
than 100 years of exposure.
Leaching tests, which are used to assess environmental impact, should therefore provide a
basis for prediction to the long term realising that a 1:1 relationship between laboratory conditions
and field conditions can not be reached. For an evaluation of impact from a regulatory point of view
it is important to know the long term consequences in an order of magnitude, rather than within an
error margin of 10 %, as that is absolutely impossible given the variability's in all parameters
concerned. For instance, the single step regulatory tests applied today do not take changes in
material behaviour in the long term into account. In several cases the release will be less than
projected based on a short leaching test. However, situations have been found where the short test
provides a too rosy picture of materials behaviour. Important changes in the own pH of a material or
changes in redox state can lead to such drastic behaviour changes. This needs to be known to
prevent co ntamination problems in the future.
CUMULATIVE RELEASE (mg/kg)

1000
TOTAL

AVAILABLE OR POTENTIALLY
100 LEACHABLE

ACTUAL
LEACHING
BEHAVIOUR

10
0.1 1 10
L/S (l/kg)
TIME (y)

Figure 5. Leaching as a function of L/S (and time) versus total composition.

4
 BATCH LEACHING TANK LEACH TEST pH STAT
TEST (GRANULAR) (MONOLITH) en CGLT. TEST

PERCOLATION
LEACHING TEST
(GRANULAR)

Figure 6. Relevant leaching tests to assess environmental impact

Leaching tests
The leaching tests, that allow predictions to be made on long term behaviour, can be distinguished
in tests addressing the chemical speciation changes in a material or changes in exposure conditions,
such as pH dependence leaching test, and tests addressing dynamic aspects of leaching, such as a
percolation test [7] and a tank leach test for monolithic materials [8]. The pH dependence leaching
tests provides in addition to the behaviour of an element as function of pH the acid neutralisation
capacity (figure 7). This property is a measure of the resistance of a material to pH changes under
the influence of external stresses (acidification, CO2 uptake from the air or from biodegradation,
oxidation of sulphide, etc). The results of the pH dependence test can be used as input to chemical
speciation codes such as MINTEQA2 and ECOSAT to identify the solubility controlling mineral
phases, the role of sorption onto ironoxide phases or complexation with dissolved organic matter. In
the case of V in Portland cement, V incorporation in ettringite type phases is important.
5 100
PO RTLAND
PO RTLAND
V CEMENT
Le ache d (mg/kg)

CEMENT
AN C (mol/kg)

MORTARS
4 MORTARS 10

3 1

2 0.1
Acid
N e utralization
1 0.01
Capacity

0 0.001
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
pH pH

Figure 7. Acid neutralisation capacity and pH dependent leaching behaviour of V as obtained from
the pH dependence leaching test on a wide range of Portland cement mortars [15].
.

5
 100 100
MSWI-BA Percolation test (CEN TC 292 WG6)

Cu
EN 12457-2

Leached mg/kg (cumulative)

Depletion of a soluble fraction
10 10
Leached (mg/kg)

1 1
Hom-Within
Hom-Between
pH Stat
Prequalification
EU validation
Cu
pH dependence test (CEN TC 292 WG6)
0.1 0.1
3 5 7 9 11 13 0.1 1 10
pH L/S (l/kg)

10 10
MSWI-BA EN 12457-2
Sb Sb
Solubility control
Leached mg/kg (cumulative)

1 1 (theor.)
Leached (mg/kg)

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01
Hom-Within
Hom-Between
pH Stat EN 12457-1
Prequalification
EU validation
0.001 0.001
3 5 7 9 11 13 0.1 1 10
pH L/S (l/kg)
Figure 8. Relationship between pH dependence test, percolation test and a compliance leaching test
(EN 12457-1 and 2) as obtained in the European validation of the latter [9].

In figure 8 results as obtained with a percolation leaching test are given for two elements Cu and Sb
from Municipal Solid waste Incinerator bottom ash, which show characteristic release behaviour. A
leachable Cu fraction is depleted readily by percolation (Cu - organic matter complex [10,,11,12]).
The Sb is apparently solubility controlled as it matches closely the theoretical release curve
expressed by the dotted line. For comparison the pH dependence test data are given. The leached
amount in the percolation test at L/S=10 matches well with the pH dependence test data, which are
carried out at L/S=10 at the corresponding pH. Finally, compliance leaching test data as obtained in
a European validation study of EN 12457 [9] are given illustrating the general agreement between
the compliance and characterisation tests.

Standardisation
In CEN/TC 292, a committee on waste characterisation in the European standardisation
organisation, the above mentioned characterisation and compliance leaching tests are developed
primarily for waste. These methods are also relevant for a wide range of other materials as has been
shown in the EU project on Harmonisation of Leaching/Extraction Tests. The methods focus on
mechanistic material properties such as percolation or diffusion dominated release behaviour and
parameter dependent behaviour such as the pH dependence-leaching test. The main tools for
characterisation of leaching behaviour of granular materials are the pH dependence-leaching test
and the percolation test.

6
 1000 1000

NEN 7345
Cumulative release (mg/m2)

Cumulative release (mg/m2)

100 BMD Cat 1.
100
BMD Cat 1.

10
10

1
0.1

0.1
0.01

V Cr
0.001 0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Time (days) Time (days)

Figure 9. Release of V and Cr from Portland cement mortars using a dynamic leaching test. The
dotted line represents theoretical release by diffusion. The data are compared with criteria as set in
the Dutch Building Materials Decree category 1[13].

A batch compliance leaching test (EN 12457 parts 1-4) is now validated [9]. To evaluate material
behaviour in different scenarios, the methodology guideline (ENV 12920 [5]) referenced before has
been worked out that provides a stepwise procedure to evaluate the type of information needed to
reach a conclusion for a given application or disposal scenario. Recently, a dynamic leaching test
for monolithic materials has been approved as a new work item. In figure 9 typical results of such a
dynamic leaching test are given for Portland cement mortars showing a relatively narrow range for
cements from a wide range of origins [14,15].

Modelling
The data obtained from the pH dependence test are used as input to geochemical codes to identify
relevant solubility controlling phases. In figure 10 this is illustrated for Cr from cement mortars. In
the left-hand side of the graph the pH dependence test data are given for 4 different cement types
with different leaching behaviour. The blast furnace slag cement has very low Cr leachability due to
its inherent reducing properties. As it turns out the geochemical modelling indicates that a solid
solution of BaSO4/ BaCrO4 is a most likely solubility-controlling phase as it matches the Cr
leaching behaviour over a wide range of concentrations.
100 100
CEM IIB -V B FS CEM
CEM I CEM IIB -L
Cr Ba(S96Cr4)O 4
10 10
Leached mg/L

Leached mg/L

1 1

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

Cr
0.001 0.001
3 5 7 9 11 13 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH pH

Figure 10. Geochemical modelling of Cr leaching from Portland cement mortars [15] using
MINTEQA2 [16].

7
At very high pH (pH >11.5) ettringite phases are probably responsible for the decrease in Cr
leachability. If solubility control can be confirmed, prediction of long term leachability becomes
more feasible.
Predictions based on release projections made on the basis of percolation tests or based on
extrapolation of monolith leach test data ultimately need some form of verification to ensure that no
major factors affecting release in the field are ignored.
- the best model validation is a verification in the field at an actual full scale demonstration
- measurements on long term field exposed materials may provide relevant information.
- consistency of data from different type of tests and between different sources may suffice as field
studies will not be possible in all cases.
- comparison with natural analogues or historical information is sometimes possible.

In figure 11 an example is given on the verification of release from a roadbase application of MSWI
bottom ash [17]. In this case measurements were carried out in the stabilisation layer (MSWI bottom
ash), in the soil directly beneath the stabilisation layer (10 cores) percolate was collected and
analysed. It was found that about 60 % of the leachable Cu (see figure 8) was retained in the soil
directly below the application and about 40 % was collected in the percolate. In spite of a relatively
large uncertainty, this is a very promising observation, as modelling had indicated the presence of at
least two chemically distinct Cu organic matter complexes [12]. In this case of MSWI bottom ash
application the pH of freshly sampled MSWI bottom ash (pH =11.5) deviated strongly form the pH in
the stabilisation layer after 10 years of field exposure (pH 7.9 - 8.2).

Figure 11. Example of field verification study on MSWI bottom ash application in road base
showing measurements in the stabilization layer, below the layer and in leachate collected below
the application[17,18].

8
 100 100
Total Solubility
Different control
10 10
Release conditions
Pb

Leached (mg/kg)
Leached (mg/kg)

1 1

0.1 0.1

0.01 Uncertainty in 0.01

measurement Uncertainty
0.001 0.001 interval
pH stat; L/S=10 Pb Column; L/S=0,1 -10
0.0001 0.0001
3 5 7 9 11 13 0.1 1 10
pH L/S (l/kg)
Figure 12. Different release conditions for Pb from MSWI bottom ash relevant to assessing field
exposure.

This leads to the question what the relevant condition will be for an evaluation of this application.
As leachability for some elements may vary over orders of magnitude between these values, it is
crucial to decide about the main condition to focus on.
In figure 12 the release behaviour of Pb from MSWI bottom ash under different exposure
conditions is given showing such significant differences in leachability. The relationship between
pH dependence and time dependent leaching behaviour forms a key element in the prediction. Work
is in progress to predict release under continuously changing pH conditions.

Regulation
At the Dutch national level a regulation for building materials has been come into force recently [13].
At the European level, the Construction Products Directive [19] specifies that construction products
standards need to address dangerous substances. So far it is left to the national bodies to regulate this
aspect. However, in 2005 at the revision of current standards a paragraph dealing with dangerous
substances must be added. In view of the fact that there are some 40 TC's dealing with construction
products, it would be counterproductive to have each of these TC's work out its own test methods to
address these issues. Harmonisation of approaches is called for in this area to avoid unnecessary
duplication of work, for which the work carried out in the framework of the Network Harmonisation
of Leaching tests provides a basis. The EU Landfill Directive [20] has been issued in 1999. In the
framework of the EU Directive for landfill of waste, activities are ongoing to define the methods and
criteria for acceptance of waste at the three main categories of landfill inert, non-hazardous and
hazardous waste. This should be ready by June 2002. As in the evaluation of environmental properties
of materials all stages of its life cycle are relevant - service life, recycling and "end of life"- both
directives are important to the judgement of construction products.

Waste management aimed at satisfying a too simple regulatory test is generally not leading to the best
environmentally-sound solution achievable. In fact there are several situations where the judgement is
definitely wrong. Characterisation leaching tests as described above can guide material management
to come to the best treatment options. Judgement of environmental properties of materials can be done
best on the basis of a scenario approach in combination with a selection of adequate (short)
compliance tests.

Hierarchy in testing
In CEN TC 292 a hierarchy in testing has been developed to address the different needs of tests.

9
CHARACTERIZATION OF LEACHING BEHAVIOUR
10000 10000
Leachability Release

Concentration (mg/kg)
Concentration (mg/kg)

1000 controls 1000 with time

100 100

10 10

1 1

0.1 0.1
3 5 7 9 11 13 0.1 1 10
L/S (l/kg)
pH

COMPLIANCE TESTING
10000 10000
Own pH
Concentration (mg/kg)

L/S=10
Concentration (mg/kg)

1000 1000
O
100 X 100
X
10 O 10

1 1 O

0.1 0.1
3 5 7 9 11 13 0.1 1 10
L/S (l/kg)
pH
Figure 13. Illustration of the data use in a hierarchy in testing. Compliance test data are presented in
relation to previous characterisation data.

Tests to characterise the behaviour of waste materials can generally be divided into three categories:
(1) "Basic Characterisation" tests are used to obtain information on the short and long term
leaching behaviour and characteristics properties of waste materials. Liquid/solid (L/S) ratios,
leachant composition, factors controlling leachability such as pH, redox potential, complexing
capacity and physical parameters are addressed in these tests.
(2) "Compliance" tests are used to determine whether the waste complies with specific reference
values. The tests focus on key variables and leaching behaviour identified by basic characterisation
tests.
(3) "On-site verification" tests are used as a rapid check to confirm that the waste is the same as
that which has been subjected to the compliance test(s).

In figure 13 the relationship between characterisation and compliance is highlighted. Deviations

well beyond the condition identified in previous characterisation testing should trigger verification
into the causes for such a deviation.
Hierarchy in leaching tests with a distinction in characterisation - compliance - and on-site verification
test is useful in all fields where leaching is relevant. Reporting compliance test data in relation to
previously determined characterisation level test data enhances the potential use of the short
compliance leaching test results. Minimum requirements need to be defined to make optimal use of
compliance test data and to avoid their burial.
An example of the different tests to be used for assessing the life cycle of construction
materials is given in figure 14. It illustrates an evaluation of the raw materials, an evaluation by
characterisation of a class of materials prior to full production, the quality control of commercial
products, the evaluation of recycled material and the judgement of the material that is no longer fit
for purpose and has reached the "end - of- life" condition.

10
 Primary Raw
Materials
Characterisation of
Stage 2: monolith leaching
Alternative raw Stage 1 Manufacture of behaviour and pH
materials Raw material construction dependence
supplies materials and elements

Granular
Recycling of
compliance test construction
debris Energy

Supply of
End of Life information on Stage 3:
technical and Construction
Dust, noise Stage 5: environmental Process
Demolition Monolith
emissions quality
compliance
leaching test
Characterisation of
granular leaching
Environmental
behaviour and pH
impact (dusting)
dependence
Stage 4:
Service Life
Energy Release into the
environment

Figure 14. Example of the different tests used in different stadia of the construction cycle.

Database/expert system
The characterisation test methods have by now been applied to some 50 different types of materials
providing a good insight in the relationships in leaching behaviour of specific contaminants in
different matrices (table I). Among others the use of alternative raw materials in cement production
have been assessed by studying detailed leaching behaviour of now more than 20 cement mortars
from world wide origin [15]. The environmental properties of the cement mortars in their service life
as well as in the secondary life (construction debris) and their end-of- life condition are considered
[14]. For cement mortars and concrete for that matter, the recycling stage and the end-of-life scenarios
are most important from an environmental point of view. The leaching behaviour of synthetic
aggregates produced by an innovative kiln technology has been studied to evaluate their compliance
with regulatory criteria for building materials [21,22]. Also in this case, the long-term behaviour of
the aggregates in recycling stages and end-of-life scenarios is the most relevant phase for judgement.
Both in case of the cement-based products as well as aggregates in concrete, the oxyanions such as
molybdate, chromate and vanadate are more important than metals, which feature a rather low
mobility in the relevant pH domain for common applications. For quality control purposes,
compliance leaching tests have been developed, of which results when presented in connection with
the characterisation information more valuable conclusions can be drawn on process performance,
than in the current single step approaches used in most current regulations.
If within the current expense on testing a more appropriate selection is made, the cost of
implementing the three levels of testing will not be excessive and provide the possibility to focus on
key aspects rather than measure irrelevant parameters. Branch wise organisation of characterisation
testing will prove very beneficial for industry as it reduces cost and at the same time highlights the
key issues to be resolved in a given sector of industry. A European database/expert system of
characterisation data would be very beneficial for all parties. Several materials have the same basic
characteristics, yet often different compliance test results.

11
Table I. Characterised materials
MATERIALS FOR WHICH MORE EXTENDED LEACHING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE
Sources: Mammoet project, RIVM studies, EU Harmonisation work (ECN, DHI, INSA, WRc, IBAC,NNI,UB),
ECN research, Building Materials Decree certification, others.
Synthetic Aggregates (coal fly ash, mining waste, etc) Expanded clay pellets Lava stone
Alkaline batteries Fe-Cr catalyst residue Lime stone
Al-production ash Fe-norit waste from phamarceutic industry) Light weight concrete
Asphalt FeOH sludge needle factory Lime silicate bricks
Asphalt rubble Filter cake MSWI Metallurgical sludge (Cao-type)
Basalt Filter dust (ceramic industry) Metalugical slag
Biomass ash Flotation concentrate/sand blasting waste purific. Milling residues
Bioreactor residue (after degradation) Fluor cont. dust from primary Al production Mine stone (coal)
Blast furnace slag Flourescent Powder Waste mixture (70% of landfilled waste largely inorg.)
Bottom ash (coal) Fly ash from isolation material prod. MSWI residues (bottom ash, fly ash APC residues)
Brown coal ash Fly ash industrial waste and RDF incineration Municipal Solid Waste, fly ash
Bricks (ceramic) Foundary sand ( waste material) Natural gas production sludge
Cat. Cracker, Cat. ox. RVC Foundry Oven Dust Ni sludge
Chemical sludge (Electroplating Ni) Galvanic sludge Non-purificable sand blasting dust
Clay bricks Glass-oven rubble formglass production Oven waste from primary Al production
Coal fly ash Glaze/enamel sludge PAH, PCB and metal polluted soil
Compost Gravitational concentrate/sand blasting waste Paper sludge
Concrete HCH soil purific. res. (physical purification) Pb/Zn slag
Concrete with coal fly ash Incinerated sewage sludge Phosphate slag
Construction debris Jarosite Phosphating Sludge
Contaminated soil Sand blasting waste Phosphogypsum
Crushing waste Sediments (river, lake, canal) Pigment Sludge
Cryolite waste (Zeolite production) Sewage sludge Plastic waste material
Detox., neutralized dewatering sludge(filter cake) Shredder waste Preserved wood
Dredging sludge Sieve sand from demolition breaker Purification sludge from industrial purification
Drinking water pipes Soil (various types of natural soil: sand, loam, clay) Purification sludge from textile paint product.
Drinking water product. sludge (ground water) Soil amended with sewage sludge Purification Sludge polymer prod.
Dust form a sand blasting unit Soil purific. extract. Residue Refuse derived fuel ash
Tannery Sludge Spent Catatalyst (activated Al) Vitrified MSWI fly ash
TBBA recovery sludge from production of te Stabilized galvanic sludge Zn-Fe-salt residue from Zn-varnish installation
Tiles (ceramic) Stabilized waste (various) Zn-MnO- batteries
Sb containing sludge Steel slag

Conclusions
Hydrological information on the effect of wet/dry cycles in a given exposure scenario and information
on the degree of exposure to atmospheric CO2 are crucial for a long-term assessment in utilisation and
disposal.
The role of particle size in assessing impact is crucial as it determines to what extent slow release
processes, such as diffusion, play a role in the mass transfer to from the material to the surroundings.
Out of the whole range of more than 30 tests world wide, a limited number of tests - pH dependence,
percolation test and monolith test - will cover more than 80 % of the cases. In combination with
appropriate compliance testing, the later will help strengthen the understanding of the leaching
behaviour of different materials.
In the process of horizontal standardisation, i.e. standards applicable in more fields, the similarities
need to be stressed not the differences, as exceptions to the rule will always remain.

Acknowledgement
The support of the EU Regional Institute of Environmental Technology (RIET) is gratefully
acknowledged

References

1. Harmonization of leaching/extraction tests, 1997. Studies in Environmental Science, Volume 70.

Eds H.A. van der Sloot, L. Heasman, Ph. Quevauviller, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 292 pp.

12
2. H.A. van der Sloot and R.N.J. Comans. TRA-EFCT meeting, November 17, 1998, Brussels.
ECN-RX-98-068, 1998
3. EU project SMT4-CT96-2066, 2001 (in preparation). Website: www.leaching.net
4. pH dependence test. CEN TC 292 Working Group 6, (2001 , in enquiry).
5. ENV 12920. Methodology guideline. CEN TC 292 Characterization of waste , 1996.
6. Hjelmar, O. Leachate from land disposal of coal fly ash. Waste Management & Research (1990)
8, 429-449.
7. Up-flow percolation test. CEN TC 292 Characterization of Waste. (2001, in enquiry).
8. NEN 7345 Tank leaching test. NEN, 1995.
9. H.A. van der Sloot, O. Hjemar, J. Bjerre-Hansen, P. Woitke, P. Lepom, R. Leschber, B. Bartet, N.
Debrucker. Validation of CEN/TC 292 Leaching Tests and Eluate Analysis Methods PrEN 12457
part 1- 4, ENV 13370 and ENV 12506 in Co-operation with CEN/TC 308. 2001 (in preparation
2001).
10. IAWG (International Ash Working Group; A.J.Chandler, T.T.Eighmy, J.Hartlen, O.Hjelmar,
D.S.Kosson, S.E.Sawell, H.A.van der Sloot, J.Vehlow). 1997. Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator
Residues. Studies in Environmental Science 67, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 974 pp.
11. Meima, J. PhD Thesis: Leaching properties of MSWI bottom ash. RU Utrecht (1997)
12. Meima, J. A., van Zomeren, A. and Comans, R. N. J., ES&T, 1999, 33, 1424-1429.
13. Building Materials Decree. Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 1995, 567.
14. H.A. van der Sloot. Cement & Concrete Research 30, 1079 1096 (2000).
15. H.A. van der Sloot, D. Hoede, R.P.J.J. Rietra, R. Stenger, Th. Lang, M. Schneider, G. Spanka, E.
Stoltenberg-Hansson, A. Lerat. Environmental criteria for cement based products - ECRICEM I
ECN-C-01-069, 2001 (in preparation).
16. Felmy, A.R., Girvin, D.C. and Jenne, E.A. MINTEQA2 computer program for calculating
aqueous geochemical equilibria, EPA-600/3-84-032, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Athens, (1984).
17. J.P.G.M. Schreurs, H.A. van der Sloot, Ch. F. Hendriks, in Waste Materials in Construction
edited by J.J.J.M. Goumans, G.J. Senden, H.A. van der Sloot (Elsevier Science, Studies in
Environmental Science 71, 1997) pp 519-530.
18. CROW, CROW Manual Characterization of Leaching, Part I, II and III (in Dutch), Ede, The
Netherlands, 1994 -1996.
19. Construction Products Directive (CPD).89/106/EEC, 1988 and 93/68/EEC, 1993.
20. European Council, Directive 1999/31/EC (OJ L 182, 16/07/1999 pp.1-19).
21. H.A. van der Sloot, D. Hoede, D.J.F. Cresswell, J.D. Barton, in Waste Materials In Construction
WASCON 2000 Science and Engineering of recycling for environmental protection edited. Eds.
G.R. Woolley, J.J.J.M. Goumans, P.J. Wrainwright (Pergamon, Waste Management Series 1,
Amsterdam) pp. 695 706.
22. H.A. van der Sloot, R.P.J.J Rietra, D. Hoede. BRST-CT98-5234, 2001 (in preparation).
23. D.S. Kosson, H.A. van der Sloot, in Waste Materials in Construction edited by J.J.J.M. Goumans,
G.J. Senden, H.A. van der Sloot (Elsevier Science, Studies in Environmental Science 71,
1997)201-216.

13
14