Chemical methods priority substances

Some of the above methods can be miniaturized, and the instrumentation can be adapted for use in field situations (see Section 4 of this book (Potential Use of Screening Methods and Performance Evaluation)), and some can be used only in the laboratory. In the former case a spot sample can be taken, processed and analysed in the field without the need for sample preservation, transport, or storage. Since many of these methods are rapid, they can provide either quantitative (concentration) or qualitative (above or below a threshold) data on water quality in a time-scale that enables a timely and appropriate response (for instance in the case of an accidental spillage) or the rapid mapping of water quality in a wide area. Table 1.3.3 shows the main classes of chemical priority substances and the different methods that can be used for their analysis. 

Table 1.3.3 Main emerging monitoring methods used for chemical priority substances...

The procedure employed for developing the new list is different than previous methods. Candidate chemicals and hazardous substances other than oil were not taken from all known spill priority lists but only from materials known to have been spilled in the past 15 years. This was done to eliminate the possibility that chemicals that have never been spilled or have a low spill potential might be present on the new priority list, as occurred in the past list. The problem is that many lists contain materials that have no spill history. This is because these chemicals may not be transported or consumed in the form noted on the particular priority list, they may be a degradation or reaction product, or they may not be used commercially at the present time. Furthermore, there is an extensive spill history at this time, as evidenced by a sizeable database, and substances that have a potential for spillage are likely to be listed. Few new chemicals appear to be produced in high volumes. 

In the minds of all authors who favour the estimation of flashpoints based on a theoretical model rather than experimental results this approach was temporary and only supposed to be used during the period used by commissions of experts to lay down a standard technique for the determination of flashpoints. As has already been seen, it is less likely that this method will be used in the near future. This is the reason why we think estimation techniques have to be part of the priority tools of risk analysis in work on chemical risk prevention. Why is such work on estimation important We will see later that flashpoint is the cruciai parameter in order to establish the ievel of fire hazard of a substance. 

The EPA prepares a biennial report on its list of waste minimization priority chemicals. This report summarizes the quantities of each chemical produced and the states in which the largest quantities of each chemical are produced, the major sources, the methods of disposal used, and other important data about the listed substances. The most recent biennial report, which covers the years from 1991 to 2001, was published in February 2004. 

A general method of stereochemical notation based on the ligand priority sequence rule of Cahn, Ingold, and Prelog (CIP),8,9 developed at Chemical Abstracts Service,0 1 has been in use in Chemical Abstracts Chemical Substance Indexes for mononuclear coordination compounds since 1972. 

Quantitative Structure - Activity Relationships (QSARs) are estimation methods developed and used to predict certain effects or properties of chemical substances, which are primarily based on the structure of the chemicals. The development of QSARs often relies on the application of statistical methods such as multiple linear regression (MLR) or partial least squares regression (PLS). However, since toxicity data often include uncertainties and measurements errors, when the aim is to point out the more toxic and thus hazardous chemicals and to set priorities, order models can be used as alternative to statistical methods such as multiple linear regression. 

An alternative to time-consuming risk assessments of chemical substances could be more reliable and advanced priority setting methods. Hasse Diagram Technique (HDT) and/or Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) provide an elaboration of the simple scoring methods. The present chapter evaluates HDT relative to two MCA techniques. The main methodological step in the comparison is the use of probability concepts based on mathematical tools such as linear extensions of partially ordered sets and Monte Carlo simulations. A data set consisting of 12 High Production Volume Chemicals (HPVCs) is used for illustration. 

---