Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- Gefahrgut (9)
- Prüfmethode (9)
- Dangerous goods (7)
- Test method (7)
- Gefahrstoff (6)
- Qualitätssicherung (6)
- Ringversuch (5)
- Validierung (5)
- Hazardous substances (4)
- Leaching (4)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
For the classification of chemicals, special standardized test procedures have been developed and are used world-wide. Safe handling and use of these chemicals depend on the correct classification which therefore must be based on the precise and correct execution of the tests and their evaluation. In this context interlaboratory tests (round robin tests, interlaboratory comparisons / intercomparisons) are a crucial element of a laboratory's quality system. Participation in interlaboratory tests is explicitly recommended by the standard ISO/IEC 17025.
The present document reports on the results of the interlaboratory test 2009/2010 on the test methods UN O.2 “Test for oxidizing liquids” [1] / EC A.21 “Oxidizing Properties (Liquids)” [2] which was organized by the Center for Quality Assurance for Testing of Dangerous Goods and Hazardous Substances.
The test methods UN O.2 and EC A.21 are applied to characterize the oxidizing properties of liquid chemical substances or mixtures. To differentiate between chemicals with hazardous / dangerous oxidizing properties and chemicals which are not classified as hazardous / dangerous, the substance’s oxidizing properties are compared to those of a standard reference substance.
Since the methods (UN O.2 / EC A.21) were developed and came into force in the early nineties a systematic review concerning the practical application of the test method has not been carried out.
The classification of solid oxidizers according to the GHS (Globally Harmonized System of Classifica-tion and Labelling of Chemicals) and according to regulations on the transport of dangerous goods (based on the UN Recommendations/Model Regulations and implemented in all carrier domains as transport by road, railway, sea, air) is performed on the basis of the results of the UN test O.1 (―Test for oxidizing solids‖ described in chapter 34.4.1 in the Recommendations on the Transport of Danger-ous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, Fifth revised edition, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2009). This test was introduced into the UN Test Manual in 1995 as a replacement for a similar test from 1986. Even though the O.1 test is much better than the previous one there are still many prob-lems with this test. For this reason the IGUS-EOS working group (international group of experts on the explosion risks of unstable substances – working group: energetic and oxidizing substances) installed an ad-hoc working group in 2002 assigned with the task of proposing solutions for the existing prob-lems. The adequacy of such proposals has to be proven preferably by interlaboratory comparison (interlaboratory test) before they are presented to the UN Sub Committee for adoption into the UN Test Manual. The present report is the evaluation of an interlaboratory test which was designed by the Ad-hoc working group in order to find out whether the current method of comparing combustion times of test mixtures with those of reference mixtures is suitable in principle and whether some approaches for improvement of the method can be identified.
Laboratory test results are of vital importance for correctly classifying and labelling chemicals as “hazardous” as defined in the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) / EC CLP Regulation or as “dangerous goods” as defined in the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Interlaboratory tests play a decisive role in assessing the reliability of laboratory test results. Interlaboratory tests performed over the last 10 years have examined different laboratory test methods. After analysing the results of these interlaboratory tests, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. There is a need for improvement and validation for all laboratory test methods examined.
2. To avoid any discrepancy concerning the classification and labelling of chemicals, the use of validated laboratory test methods should be state of the art, with the results accompanied by the measurement uncertainty and (if applicable) the probability of incorrect classification.
This paper addresses the probability of correct/incorrect classification (for example, as dangerous goods) on the basis of the measurement deviation obtained from interlaboratory tests performed by the Centre for quality assurance for testing of dangerous goods and hazardous substances (CEQAT-DGHS) to validate laboratory test methods. This paper outlines typical results (e.g. so-called “Shark profiles” – the probability of incorrect classification as a function of the true value estimated from interlaboratory test data) as well as general conclusions and steps to be taken to guarantee that laboratory test results are fit for purpose and of high quality.
Die Ursachen für Chemikalienunfälle können vielfältig sein. Prävention beginnt bereits im Prüflabor, wenn Chemikalien auf ihre gefährlichen Eigenschaften getestet werden. Dazu sind Prüfmethoden entwickelt und veröffentlicht worden, die heute weltweit Anwendung finden. Auf die Validität der Prüfmethode und richtige Durchführung der Prüfung im Laboratorium müssen sich Sicherheitsfachkräfte, Transporteure oder Händler verlassen können. Anhand der in den letzten 10 Jahren im Rahmen des CEQAT-DGHS von BAM und PTB durchgeführten Ringversuche (RV) wird gezeigt, dass bei allen bisher untersuchten Prüfmethoden ein Verbesserungsbedarf besteht. Die RV müssen daher zunächst auf die Methodenverbesserung und -validierung abzielen und nicht auf Leistungstests. Das Labormanagement und die praktische Durchführung der Prüfung sind in vielen Laboratorien verbesserungsbedürftig. Der Begriff „Erfahrung der Prüfer“ ist kritisch zu sehen: Eine „lange Erfahrung mit vielen Prüfungen“ ist nicht unbedingt ein Garant für richtige Ergebnisse.
Prävention beginnt im Prüflabor, wenn Chemikalien auf ihre gefährlichen Eigenschaften getestet werden. Dazu sind Prüfmethoden entwickelt und veröffentlicht worden, die heute weltweit Anwendung finden. Auf die Validität der Prüfmethode und richtige Durchführung der Prüfung im Laboratorium müssen sich Sicherheitsfachkräfte, Transporteure oder Händler verlassen können. Anhand der in den letzten 10 Jahren im Rahmen des CEQAT-DGHS von BAM und PTB durchgeführten Ringversuche (RV) wird gezeigt, dass bei allen bisher untersuchten Prüfmethoden ein Verbesserungsbedarf besteht. Die RV müssen daher zunächst auf die Methodenverbesserung und -validierung abzielen und nicht auf Leistungstests. Das Labormanagement und die praktische Durchführung der Prüfung sind in vielen Laboratorien verbesserungsbedürftig. Der Begriff „Erfahrung der Prüfer“ ist kritisch zu sehen: Eine „lange Erfahrung mit vielen Prüfungen“ ist nicht unbedingt ein Garant für richtige Ergebnisse. Bei der Prüfung der gefährlichen Eigenschaften von Chemikalien sind Referenzmaterialen auf Grund der Instabilität in der Regel nicht verfügbar. Für Prüflaboratorien sind RV daher eine Alternative bei der Qualitätssicherung. RV sind jedoch aufwendig und können nur in relativ großen Zeitabständen durchgeführt werden. Es sind deshalb Verfahren zur Verifizierung z. B. der in den Laboratorien verwendeten Prüfapparaturen zu entwickeln. Die Entwicklung von Verifizierungsverfahren wird am Bespiel der Prüfmethode UN Test N.5 demonstriert.
CEQAT-DGHS Interlaboratory Test Programme for Chemical Safety - Need of Test Methods Validation
(2019)
Safety experts, manufacturers, suppliers, importers, employers or consumers must be able to rely on the validity of safety-related test methods and on correct test results and assessments in the laboratory. Via the eChemPortal lots of data from the REACH registration dossiers are available. However, the quality and correctness of the information remains in the responsibility of the data submitter. Unfortunately, we found more or less appropriate information on physicochemical properties and concluded that more quality or adequacy of any data submitted will be needed.
Interlaboratory tests play a decisive role in assessing the reliability of test results. Interlaboratory tests on different test methods have been performed by Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM) and Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in collaboration with the QuoData GmbH during the last 10 years. Significant differences between the results of the participating laboratories were observed in all interlaboratory tests. The deviations of the test results were not caused only by laboratory faults but also by deficiencies of the test method.
In view of the interlaboratory test results the following conclusions can be drawn:
• To avoid any discrepancy on classification and labelling of chemicals it should become state of the art to use validated test methods and the results accompanied by the measurement uncertainty.
• A need for improvement is demonstrated for all examined test methods. Thus, interlaboratory tests shall initially aim at the development, improvement and validation of the test methods and not on proficiency tests.
• The laboratory management and the practical execution of the tests need to be improved in many laboratories.
• The term "experience of the examiner" must be seen critically: A "long experience with many tests" is not necessarily a guarantee for correct results.
The classification of solid oxidizers according to the regulations on the transport of dangerous goods (based on the UN Recommendations/Model Regulations and accepted by all international organisations for the transport of dangerous goods as ADR, IMO, IATA) and in future also according to the GHS (Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals) is performed on the basis of the results of the UN test O.1 (UN test O.1 ―Test for oxidizing solids‖ described in chapter 34.4.1 in the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods – Manual of Tests and Criteria, see [1]). This test was introduced into the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria in 1995 as a replacement for a similar test from 1986. Even if the UN O.1 test as described in the current 5th revised edition of UN Manual of Tests and Criteria gives some improvements compared to the old test, which had had many deficiencies, there are still some problems left with this test in terms of e.g. repeatability or reproducibility of test results, how to handle compacted or multilayer formulations like tablets, toxicity and partly significantly varying particle size distribution within defined fractions of 150 μm to 300 μm of the reference oxidizer potassium bromate (KBrO3). For this reason the IGUS EOS working group installed an ad-hoc working group in 2002 assigned with the task to propose solutions for the existing problems. The appropriateness of such proposed solutions has to be proved by the method of interlaboratory (round robin) tests before they are presented for the adoption to the UN Committee of Experts on the TDG and on the GHS with a proposal of a completely revised test procedure.
For the classification and safe handling and use of the chemicals, special standardized testing proce-dures have been developed and are used world-wide. Safety experts must be able to fully rely on the precise execution of the respective laboratory tests and assessments. In this context interlaboratory tests (round robin tests, interlaboratory comparisons / intercomparisons) are a crucial element of a laboratory's quality system. Participation in interlaboratory tests is explicitly recommended by the standard ISO/IEC 17025.
The present document reports on the results of the interlaboratory test 2010/2011 on the test method DIN EN 15188:2007 “Determination of the spontaneous ignition behaviour of dust accumulations” [1] which was organized by the Center for Quality Assurance for Testing of Dangerous Goods and Haz-ardous Substances.
The test method DIN EN 15188:2007 is applied to characterize the self-ignition behaviour of combus-tible dusts. The experimental basis for describing the self-ignition behaviour of a given dust is the de-termination of the self-ignition temperatures (TSI) of differently-sized volumes of the dust sample by isoperibolic hot storage experiments (storage at constant oven temperatures) in commercially availa-ble ovens. The results thus measured reflect the dependence of self-ignition temperatures upon dust volume [1].
Several internal investigations and interlaboratory comparisons in the past have shown significant differences between the lab-specific results of hot storage tests.
Figure 2-1 shows the Pseudo-Arrhenius plot of hot storage tests of eight different laboratories (Round Robin Test 2002, BAM). The dust under this investigation was Lycopodium powder (spores). The par-ticipants of this interlaboratory test used different laboratory ovens (size, ventilation) as well as differ-ent sample baskets (shape, mesh size, single- and double-walled).
Figure 2-1 shows clearly that this test failed to produce reasonable reproducibility of the TSI between the different laboratories. As possible reasons for the deviations have been identified lab-specific dif-ferences, e.g.:
- oven ventilation (enforced, natural convection),
- oven size,
- sample baskets,
- radiation effects,
- measuring precision (temperature difference between tests with ignition and no ignition),
- minimum sample size.
To reduce the differences between the labs it was necessary to ameliorate the testing method and to improve the execution of the method by the lab. From there, the installation of an inner chamber into the laboratory oven was suggested as experimental set-up in EN 15188:2007 to provide more repro-ducible test conditions. The aappropriateness of this set-up has not been verified yet.
The current interlaboratory test 2010-2011 focuses on the use of a special mesh wire screen and spe-cial volumes of the sample baskets (cubes) to normalise/harmonise the test conditions in the different labs. In preparation for the interlaboratory test a joint program between Syngenta and BAM has been initiated in 2009. As a result of these investigations a modified set-up ( chapter 3) has been identi-fied to be probably more appropriate than the suggested set-up in DIN EN-15188:2007.
Due to the time-consuming test procedure and to optimize the workflow for the laboratories this in-terlaboratory test should be performed stepwise as a multi-level test ( chapter 5.4) on one typical test sample.
Anwendungen von Bioziden in Materialien für Außenanwendungen sind mögliche Quellen für Biozide in Umweltkompartimenten infolge von witterungsbedingten Auswaschprozessen. Im Bericht werden Leachingprozesse und -parameter als auch Methoden zu deren Untersuchung unter Labor- und Freilandversuchsbedingungen beschrieben. Vorteile und Grenzen der verschiedenen Herangehensweisen zur Untersuchung von Leachingprozessen werden diskutiert. Standardisierte Auswaschtests sowie in der Fachliteratur publizierte Auswaschexperimente werden zusammenfassend dargestellt. Es wird beschrieben, wie Leachingdaten gemäß Technischem Leitfaden zur Biozidprodukten-Richtlinie 98/8/EG für eine Risikobewertung genutzt werden. Ein alternativer Ansatz zur mathematischen Modellierung von Leachingtest-Daten wurde erprobt und wird im Bericht erläutert. Potentiell lassen sich mit dem vorgeschlagenen Ansatz bestimmte gegenwärtig auftretende Schwierigkeiten bei der Risikobewertung umgehen.
Applications of biocides in outdoor materials are potential sources of biocides in environmental compartments due to leaching processes under weathering conditions. Leaching processes and parameters as well as methods to investigate leaching processes under laboratory and semi-field conditons are described in the report. Benefits and limitations of different test approaches are discussed. Standardised leaching tests as well as leaching experiments reported in scientific literature are listed. The application of leaching data for risk assessments according to the Technical Guidance Documents for the Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC) is described. An alternative approach for mathematical modelling of leaching data was tested and is Explained in the report. Certain difficulties that currently appear during risk assessments may be circumvented by the proposed approach.
For the classification of chemicals, special standardized test procedures have been developed and are used world-wide. Safe handling and use of these chemicals depend on the correct classification which
therefore must be based on the precise and correct execution of the tests and their evaluation. In this context interlaboratory tests (round robin tests, interlaboratory comparisons / intercomparisons) are a crucial element of a laboratory's quality system. Participation in interlaboratory tests is explicitly recommended by the standard ISO/IEC 17025. The present document reports on the results of the interlaboratory test 2007 on the method UN Test N.5 “Test method for substances which in contact with water emit flammable gases” [1] / EC A.12 “Flammability (contact with water)” [2] which was organized by the Center for Quality Assurance for Testing of Dangerous Goods and Hazardous Substances.
In dependence on the chemical structure and/or the physical form and state (e.g. particle size) substances or mixtures may be able to react with water (even water damp / air humidity) under normal ambient temperature conditions. Sometimes this reaction can be violent and/or with significant generation of heat. Especially if gases are evolved this reaction may become dangerous. In addition, it is important to know whether a substance emits flammable gases due to contact with water because
special precautions are necessary especially with regard to explosion protection. The methods UN Test N.5 and EC A.12 are applied to characterize chemical substances or mixtures which in contact with water emit flammable gases. To differentiate between chemicals with these properties and chemicals which are not classified as hazardous / dangerous, the substance’s gas evolution rate is determined and compared to the classification criteria(s) in the last step of the test
method. In the methods UN Test N.5 / EC A.12 no special laboratory apparatus / measuring technique to determine gas evolving flow is required. However, practical experience shows that the testing procedure for substances and mixtures which in contact with water emit flammable gases is sensitive to a number of influencing factors. Since the methods (UN N.5 / EC A.12) were developed and came into force in the early nineties a
systematic review concerning the practical application of the test method has not been carried out.