ASTM E2552-23
(Guide)Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Compounds for Military Use
Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Compounds for Military Use
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The purpose of this guide is to provide a logical, tiered approach in the development of environmental health criteria coincident with level and effort in the research, development, testing, and evaluation of new materials for military use. Various levels of uncertainty are associated with data collected from previous stages. Following the recommendation in the guide should reduce the relative uncertainty of the data collected at each developmental stage. At each stage, a general weight of evidence qualifier shall accompany each exposure/effect relationship. They may be simple (for example, low, medium, or high confidence) or sophisticated using a numerical value for each predictor as a multiplier to ascertain relative confidence in each step of risk characterization. The specific method used will depend on the stage of development, quantity and availability of data, variation in the measurement, and general knowledge of the dataset. Since specific formulations, conditions, and use scenarios may not be known until the later stages, exposure estimates can be determined when practical (for example, Engineering and Manufacturing Development; see 6.6). Exposure data can then be used with other toxicological data collected from previous stages in a quantitative risk assessment to determine the relative degree of hazard.
5.2 Data developed from the use of this guide are designed to be consistent with criteria required in weapons and weapons system development (for example, programmatic environment, safety and occupational health evaluations, environmental assessments/environmental impact statements, toxicity clearances, and technical data sheets).
5.3 Information shall be evaluated in a flexible manner consistent with the needs of the authorizing program. This requires proper characterization of the current problem. For example, compounds may be ranked relative to the environmental criteria of the prospective alternatives, the replacement compound, and within bo...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative environmental influence of new substances, consistent with the research and development (R&D) level of effort and is intended to be applied in a logical, tiered manner that parallels both the available funding and the stage of research, development, testing, and evaluation. Specifically, conservative assumptions, relationships, and models are recommended early in the research stage, and as the technology is matured, empirical data will be developed and used. Munition constituents are included and may include propellants, oxidizers, explosives, binders, stabilizers, metals, dyes, and other compounds used in the formulation to produce a desired effect. Munition systems range from projectiles, grenades, rockets/missiles, training simulators, to smokes and obscurants. Given the complexity of issues involved in the assessment of environmental fate and effects and the diversity of the systems used, this guide is broad in scope and not intended to address every factor that may be important in an environmental context. Rather, it is intended to reduce uncertainty at minimal cost by considering the most important factors related to human health and environmental impacts of energetic materials. This guide provides an outline for collecting data useful in a relative ranking procedure to provide the systems scientist with a sound basis for prospectively determining a selection of candidates based on environmental and human health criteria. The general principles in this guide are applicable to substances other than energetics if intended to be used in a similar manner with similar exposure profiles.
1.2 The scope of this guide includes:
1.2.1 Energetic and other new/novel materials and compositions in all stages of research, development, test and evaluation.
1.2.2 Environmental assessment, including:
1.2.2.1 Human and ecological effects of the unexploded energetics and ...
General Information
- Status
- Published
- Publication Date
- 31-Aug-2023
- Technical Committee
- E50 - Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action
- Drafting Committee
- E50.47 - Biological Effects and Environmental Fate
Relations
- Effective Date
- 01-Apr-2019
- Effective Date
- 01-Feb-2019
- Effective Date
- 01-Feb-2019
- Effective Date
- 01-Mar-2017
- Effective Date
- 01-Feb-2016
- Effective Date
- 01-Apr-2012
- Effective Date
- 01-Nov-2010
- Effective Date
- 01-Sep-2010
- Effective Date
- 01-Sep-2009
- Effective Date
- 01-Mar-2008
- Refers
ASTM E1689-95(2008) - Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites - Effective Date
- 01-Feb-2008
- Effective Date
- 01-Feb-2008
- Effective Date
- 01-Oct-2007
- Effective Date
- 01-Oct-2007
- Effective Date
- 10-Mar-1996
Overview
ASTM E2552-23: Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Compounds for Military Use is a key international standard developed by ASTM International. This guide provides a logical, tiered approach to the evaluation of new materials, specifically those developed for military applications such as munitions and weapon systems. The primary objective is to assess and minimize potential human health and environmental impacts through all stages of research, development, testing, and evaluation.
ASTM E2552-23 aligns environmental health criteria development with the progression of new materials, helping stakeholders-such as research chemists, toxicologists, and environmental safety professionals-systematically reduce uncertainties and risks. The guide encompasses diverse munitions constituents including propellants, explosives, binders, metals, dyes, and other novel compounds, addressing their environmental fate, transport, transformation, and toxicity potential.
Key Topics
- Tiered Assessment Approach: Recommends a stepwise, risk-based procedure to match the data collection and analysis with the stage of development (from conception to manufacturing and demilitarization).
- Data Collection and Uncertainty Reduction: Encourages the use of both computational models in early stages and empirical data as materials progress through development, supporting informed decision-making and risk characterization.
- Environmental and Occupational Health: Covers potential impacts from manufacture, assembly, use, and disposal of new compounds, emphasizing both ecological and human health criteria.
- Weight of Evidence Methodology: Stresses qualitative and quantitative evaluation of evidence, highlighting confidence levels at every stage of assessment.
- Applicability: Designed for energetic materials but extendable to any new compound with similar use and exposure profiles in military applications.
- Flexible Implementation: Allows customization based on the needs of individual programs or projects while maintaining consistent assessment methods.
Applications
ASTM E2552-23 is vital for:
- Military R&D and Material Selection: Offers a standardized method to rank new compounds relative to their environmental and human health impacts, helping prioritize safer alternatives and innovations in munitions and weapons systems.
- Regulatory Compliance: Supports environmental assessments, impact statements, toxicity clearances, and preparation of technical data sheets required for official programmatic evaluations.
- Risk Management: Assists safety officers and environmental professionals in identifying key risks, providing a documented basis for operational decisions at higher stages of material deployment.
- Occupational Safety: Guides assessment of health impacts for personnel engaged in the production, handling, and use of military materials.
- Sustainability Initiatives: Enables the integration of environmental stewardship into military technology development and lifecycle management, from design through demilitarization.
Related Standards
ASTM E2552-23 references and complements several other essential ASTM and international standards relevant to hazard, toxicity, and environmental fate assessment. Key related standards include:
- ASTM E729 - Acute toxicity tests with fishes, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians
- ASTM E857 - Subacute dietary toxicity tests with avian species
- ASTM E1023 - Assessing the hazard of a material to aquatic organisms
- ASTM E1163 - Estimating acute oral toxicity in rats
- ASTM E1193 / E1194 / E1195 - Tests for bioaccumulation, vapor pressure, and soil sorption constants
- ASTM E1241 - Early life-stage toxicity tests with fishes
- ASTM E1415 - Static toxicity tests with aquatic plants
- ASTM E1525 / E1706 - Sediment toxicity tests and analysis
This network of referenced standards ensures that environmental risk assessments are both comprehensive and consistent across related military and environmental applications.
Summary:
ASTM E2552-23 is an essential standard for any organization or professional engaged in the R&D, evaluation, or implementation of new military compounds. Its systematic, tiered approach delivers practical tools for confidently assessing and managing the environmental and human health risks of novel substances in military contexts, fostering compliance, innovation, and sustainability. For anyone involved in material selection, risk assessment, or environmental impact analysis in defense sectors, this guide is indispensable.
Buy Documents
ASTM E2552-23 - Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Compounds for Military Use
REDLINE ASTM E2552-23 - Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Compounds for Military Use
Frequently Asked Questions
ASTM E2552-23 is a guide published by ASTM International. Its full title is "Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Compounds for Military Use". This standard covers: SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 5.1 The purpose of this guide is to provide a logical, tiered approach in the development of environmental health criteria coincident with level and effort in the research, development, testing, and evaluation of new materials for military use. Various levels of uncertainty are associated with data collected from previous stages. Following the recommendation in the guide should reduce the relative uncertainty of the data collected at each developmental stage. At each stage, a general weight of evidence qualifier shall accompany each exposure/effect relationship. They may be simple (for example, low, medium, or high confidence) or sophisticated using a numerical value for each predictor as a multiplier to ascertain relative confidence in each step of risk characterization. The specific method used will depend on the stage of development, quantity and availability of data, variation in the measurement, and general knowledge of the dataset. Since specific formulations, conditions, and use scenarios may not be known until the later stages, exposure estimates can be determined when practical (for example, Engineering and Manufacturing Development; see 6.6). Exposure data can then be used with other toxicological data collected from previous stages in a quantitative risk assessment to determine the relative degree of hazard. 5.2 Data developed from the use of this guide are designed to be consistent with criteria required in weapons and weapons system development (for example, programmatic environment, safety and occupational health evaluations, environmental assessments/environmental impact statements, toxicity clearances, and technical data sheets). 5.3 Information shall be evaluated in a flexible manner consistent with the needs of the authorizing program. This requires proper characterization of the current problem. For example, compounds may be ranked relative to the environmental criteria of the prospective alternatives, the replacement compound, and within bo... SCOPE 1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative environmental influence of new substances, consistent with the research and development (R&D) level of effort and is intended to be applied in a logical, tiered manner that parallels both the available funding and the stage of research, development, testing, and evaluation. Specifically, conservative assumptions, relationships, and models are recommended early in the research stage, and as the technology is matured, empirical data will be developed and used. Munition constituents are included and may include propellants, oxidizers, explosives, binders, stabilizers, metals, dyes, and other compounds used in the formulation to produce a desired effect. Munition systems range from projectiles, grenades, rockets/missiles, training simulators, to smokes and obscurants. Given the complexity of issues involved in the assessment of environmental fate and effects and the diversity of the systems used, this guide is broad in scope and not intended to address every factor that may be important in an environmental context. Rather, it is intended to reduce uncertainty at minimal cost by considering the most important factors related to human health and environmental impacts of energetic materials. This guide provides an outline for collecting data useful in a relative ranking procedure to provide the systems scientist with a sound basis for prospectively determining a selection of candidates based on environmental and human health criteria. The general principles in this guide are applicable to substances other than energetics if intended to be used in a similar manner with similar exposure profiles. 1.2 The scope of this guide includes: 1.2.1 Energetic and other new/novel materials and compositions in all stages of research, development, test and evaluation. 1.2.2 Environmental assessment, including: 1.2.2.1 Human and ecological effects of the unexploded energetics and ...
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 5.1 The purpose of this guide is to provide a logical, tiered approach in the development of environmental health criteria coincident with level and effort in the research, development, testing, and evaluation of new materials for military use. Various levels of uncertainty are associated with data collected from previous stages. Following the recommendation in the guide should reduce the relative uncertainty of the data collected at each developmental stage. At each stage, a general weight of evidence qualifier shall accompany each exposure/effect relationship. They may be simple (for example, low, medium, or high confidence) or sophisticated using a numerical value for each predictor as a multiplier to ascertain relative confidence in each step of risk characterization. The specific method used will depend on the stage of development, quantity and availability of data, variation in the measurement, and general knowledge of the dataset. Since specific formulations, conditions, and use scenarios may not be known until the later stages, exposure estimates can be determined when practical (for example, Engineering and Manufacturing Development; see 6.6). Exposure data can then be used with other toxicological data collected from previous stages in a quantitative risk assessment to determine the relative degree of hazard. 5.2 Data developed from the use of this guide are designed to be consistent with criteria required in weapons and weapons system development (for example, programmatic environment, safety and occupational health evaluations, environmental assessments/environmental impact statements, toxicity clearances, and technical data sheets). 5.3 Information shall be evaluated in a flexible manner consistent with the needs of the authorizing program. This requires proper characterization of the current problem. For example, compounds may be ranked relative to the environmental criteria of the prospective alternatives, the replacement compound, and within bo... SCOPE 1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative environmental influence of new substances, consistent with the research and development (R&D) level of effort and is intended to be applied in a logical, tiered manner that parallels both the available funding and the stage of research, development, testing, and evaluation. Specifically, conservative assumptions, relationships, and models are recommended early in the research stage, and as the technology is matured, empirical data will be developed and used. Munition constituents are included and may include propellants, oxidizers, explosives, binders, stabilizers, metals, dyes, and other compounds used in the formulation to produce a desired effect. Munition systems range from projectiles, grenades, rockets/missiles, training simulators, to smokes and obscurants. Given the complexity of issues involved in the assessment of environmental fate and effects and the diversity of the systems used, this guide is broad in scope and not intended to address every factor that may be important in an environmental context. Rather, it is intended to reduce uncertainty at minimal cost by considering the most important factors related to human health and environmental impacts of energetic materials. This guide provides an outline for collecting data useful in a relative ranking procedure to provide the systems scientist with a sound basis for prospectively determining a selection of candidates based on environmental and human health criteria. The general principles in this guide are applicable to substances other than energetics if intended to be used in a similar manner with similar exposure profiles. 1.2 The scope of this guide includes: 1.2.1 Energetic and other new/novel materials and compositions in all stages of research, development, test and evaluation. 1.2.2 Environmental assessment, including: 1.2.2.1 Human and ecological effects of the unexploded energetics and ...
ASTM E2552-23 is classified under the following ICS (International Classification for Standards) categories: 95.020 - Military in general. The ICS classification helps identify the subject area and facilitates finding related standards.
ASTM E2552-23 has the following relationships with other standards: It is inter standard links to ASTM E1706-19, ASTM E857-05(2019), ASTM E1163-10(2019), ASTM E1194-17, ASTM E1163-10(2016), ASTM E857-05(2012), ASTM E1163-10, ASTM E1706-05(2010), ASTM D5660-96(2009), ASTM E943-08, ASTM E1689-95(2008), ASTM E1525-02(2008), ASTM E729-96(2007), ASTM E1023-84(2007), ASTM D5660-96(2004). Understanding these relationships helps ensure you are using the most current and applicable version of the standard.
ASTM E2552-23 is available in PDF format for immediate download after purchase. The document can be added to your cart and obtained through the secure checkout process. Digital delivery ensures instant access to the complete standard document.
Standards Content (Sample)
This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E2552 − 23
Standard Guide for
Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of
New Compounds for Military Use
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2552; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
Sustaining training operations while maintaining force health is vital to national security. Research
efforts are underway to identify new substances that have negligible environmental impacts and
implement them in military weapon systems and applications. This guide is intended to provide a
standardized method to evaluate the potential human health and environmental impacts of prospective
candidate substances. This guide is intended for use by technical persons with a broad knowledge of
risk assessment, fate and transport processes, and toxicology to provide recommendations to the
research chemist or systems engineer regarding the environmental consequences of use.
1. Scope The general principles in this guide are applicable to sub-
stances other than energetics if intended to be used in a similar
1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative envi-
manner with similar exposure profiles.
ronmental influence of new substances, consistent with the
research and development (R&D) level of effort and is in-
1.2 The scope of this guide includes:
tended to be applied in a logical, tiered manner that parallels
1.2.1 Energetic and other new/novel materials and compo-
both the available funding and the stage of research,
sitions in all stages of research, development, test and evalu-
development, testing, and evaluation. Specifically, conserva-
ation.
tive assumptions, relationships, and models are recommended
1.2.2 Environmental assessment, including:
early in the research stage, and as the technology is matured,
1.2.2.1 Human and ecological effects of the unexploded
empirical data will be developed and used. Munition constitu-
energetics and compositions on the environment.
ents are included and may include propellants, oxidizers,
1.2.2.2 Environmental transport mechanisms of the unex-
explosives, binders, stabilizers, metals, dyes, and other com-
ploded energetics and composition.
pounds used in the formulation to produce a desired effect.
1.2.2.3 Degradation and bioaccumulation properties.
Munition systems range from projectiles, grenades, rockets/
1.2.3 Occupational health impacts from manufacture and
missiles, training simulators, to smokes and obscurants. Given
use of the energetic substances and compositions to include
the complexity of issues involved in the assessment of envi-
load, assembly, and packing of the related munitions.
ronmental fate and effects and the diversity of the systems
1.3 Given the wide array of applications, the methods in this
used, this guide is broad in scope and not intended to address
guide are not prescriptive. They are intended to provide
every factor that may be important in an environmental
flexible, general methods that can be used to evaluate factors
context. Rather, it is intended to reduce uncertainty at minimal
important in determining environmental consequences from
cost by considering the most important factors related to
use of new substances in weapon systems and platforms.
human health and environmental impacts of energetic materi-
als. This guide provides an outline for collecting data useful in
1.4 Factors that affect the health of humans as well as the
a relative ranking procedure to provide the systems scientist
environment are considered early in the development process.
with a sound basis for prospectively determining a selection of
Since some of these data are valuable in determining health
candidates based on environmental and human health criteria.
effects from generalized exposure, effects from occupational
exposures are also included.
1.5 This guide does not address all processes and factors
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental
Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action and is the direct responsibil-
important to the fate, transport, and potential for effects in
ity of Subcommittee E50.47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate.
every system. It is intended to be balanced effort between
Current edition approved Sept. 1, 2023. Published September 2023. Originally
scientific and practical means to evaluate the relative environ-
approved in 2008. Last previous edition approved in 2016 as E2552–16. DOI:
10.1520/E2552-23 mental effects of munition compounds resulting from intended
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2552 − 23
use. It is the responsibility of the user to assess data quality as Die-Away Method (Withdrawn 2013)
well as sufficiently characterize the scope and magnitude of E1372 Test Method for Conducting a 90-Day Oral Toxicity
uncertainty associated with any application of this standard. Study in Rats (Withdrawn 2010)
E1415 Guide for Conducting Static Toxicity Tests With
1.6 Integration of disparate information and data streams
Lemna gibba G3
developed from using the methods described in this guide is
E1525 Guide for Designing Biological Tests with Sediments
challenging and may not be straight-forward. Professional
E1624 Guide for Chemical Fate in Site-Specific Sediment/
assistance from subject matter experts familiar with the fields
Water Microcosms (Withdrawn 2013)
of toxicology and risk assessment is advised.
E1676 Guide for Conducting Laboratory Soil Toxicity or
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the
Bioaccumulation Tests with the Lumbricid Earthworm
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
Eisenia Fetida and the Enchytraeid Potworm Enchytraeus
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
albidus
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
E1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
Contaminated Sites
1.8 This international standard was developed in accor-
E1706 Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
3. Terminology
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
3.1.1 conception, n—refers to part of the munition develop-
ment process whereby molecules are designed through soft-
2. Referenced Documents
ware and modeling efforts though not yet synthesized.
2.1 ASTM Standards:
3.1.2 demonstration, n—refers to testing munition com-
D5660 Test Method for Assessing the Microbial Detoxifica-
pounds in specific configurations that may use other substances
tion of Chemically Contaminated Water and Soil Using a
to maintain performance specifications.
Toxicity Test with a Luminescent Marine Bacterium
(Withdrawn 2014)
3.1.3 engineering and manufacturing development,
E729 Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test
n—involves the process of refining manufacturing techniques
Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphib-
and adjusting formulations to meet production specifications.
ians
3.1.4 environmental, adj—used to describe the aggregate of
E857 Practice for Conducting Subacute Dietary Toxicity
a receptor’s surroundings that influence exposure, used in the
Tests with Avian Species
holistic sense that may include human exposures in a variety of
E943 Terminology Relating to Biological Effects and Envi-
conditions.
ronmental Fate
3.1.5 energetic materials, n—chemical compounds or com-
E1023 Guide for Assessing the Hazard of a Material to
positions that contain both fuel, binder, and potentially oxidizer
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses
and rapidly react to release energy and other products of
E1147 Test Method for Partition Coefficient (N-Octanol/
combustion. Examples of energetic materials are substances
Water) Estimation by Liquid Chromatography (With-
used in high explosives, gun propellants, rocket & missile
drawn 2013)
propellants, igniters, primers, initiators, and pyrotechnics (for
E1148 Test Method for Measurements of Aqueous Solubility
example, illuminants, smoke, delay, decoy, flare and incendi-
(Withdrawn 2013)
ary) and compositions. Energetic materials may be thermally,
E1163 Test Method for Estimating Acute Oral Toxicity in
mechanically, and electrostatically initiated and do not require
Rats
atmospheric oxygen to sustain the reaction.
E1193 Guide for Conducting Daphnia magna Life-Cycle
Toxicity Tests 3.1.6 munition, n—refers to weapon systems or parts of
E1194 Test Method for Vapor Pressure
platforms that have a military application. Includes the use of
E1195 Test Method for Determining a Sorption Constant energetic substances in addition to stabilizers, plasticizers, and
(K ) for an Organic Chemical in Soil and Sediments
other substances to the final combined formulation referred to
oc
(Withdrawn 2013) as energetic material.
E1241 Guide for Conducting Early Life-Stage Toxicity Tests
3.1.7 production, n—includes activities involved in the
with Fishes
finalized manufacturing and use of the munition compound and
E1279 Test Method for Biodegradation By a Shake-Flask
accompanying system.
3.1.8 synthesis, n—process in which minute (gram) quanti-
ties of the energetic material are made, often using laboratory
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
desktop equipment.
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
3.1.9 testing and refinement, n—includes preliminary small-
the ASTM website.
scale tests to large-scale testing and range operations that
The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
www.astm.org. require refined synthesis techniques within the research and
E2552 − 23
development phase for new energetic compounds. Energetic logical data collected from previous stages in a quantitative
materials may be combined with other ingredients at this stage risk assessment to determine the relative degree of hazard.
to tailor specific performance properties.
5.2 Data developed from the use of this guide are designed
to be consistent with criteria required in weapons and weapons
4. Summary of Guide
system development (for example, programmatic environment,
safety and occupational health evaluations, environmental
4.1 In the evaluation of the probability of adverse environ-
assessments/environmental impact statements, toxicity
mental effects, measures of exposure are compared with
clearances, and technical data sheets).
measures of toxicity to evaluate relative risk. These methods
and data requirements are balanced with the level of funding
5.3 Information shall be evaluated in a flexible manner
used in military system development. This guideline, therefore,
consistent with the needs of the authorizing program. This
provides a tiered approach to data development necessary for
requires proper characterization of the current problem. For
various levels of hazard assessment. Often it results in a
example, compounds may be ranked relative to the environ-
relative ranking of properties, not a robust estimation of
mental criteria of the prospective alternatives, the replacement
exposure. Initially, physical/chemical properties necessary for
compound, and within bounds of absolute environmental
fate, transport, and exposure estimation may be derived and
values. A weight of evidence (evaluation of uncertainty and
estimated from conceptual compounds developed from com-
variability) must also be considered with each criterion at each
puter model simulations. Quantitative structural activity rela-
stage to allow for a proper assessment of the potential for
tionships (QSARs) and quantitative structural property rela-
adverse environmental or occupational effects; see 6.8.
tionships (QSPRs) may be useful in estimating toxicity and
5.4 This standard approach requires environment, safety,
chemical properties important in estimating environmental fate
and occupational health (ESOH) technical experts to determine
and transport, respectively. Following successful synthesis of
the magnitude of the hazard and system engineers/researchers
compounds, key properties may be experimentally determined
to evaluate the acceptability of the risk. Generally, the higher
(for example, water solubility, vapor pressure, sorption (K ),
oc
developmental stages require a higher managerial level of
octanol/water partition coefficients (K ), boiling point, and
ow
approval.
molecular weight). These properties can be used in a relative
manner or quantitatively to determine potential for transport
6. Procedure
and bioaccumulation. Given the expense involved, toxicity
studies are tiered, where lower cost in vitro methods are used
6.1 Problem Evaluation—The first step requires an under-
early in the process and more expensive in vivo methods are
standing of the current problem. Often, specific attributes of
recommended later in the development process. Acute mam- existing compounds drive the need for a replacement. For
malian toxicity data may be generated, along with soil, water,
example, increased water solubility may indicate a propensity
and sediment toxicity to invertebrates (Tier I tests). Earthworm of the compound to contaminate groundwater. Environmental
bioaccumulation tests may also be conducted, along with an
persistence and biomagnification may cause concerns regard-
evaluation of plant uptake models. At advanced stages, sub- ing exposures to predatory animals and in human fish con-
lethal mammalian testing shall be conducted along with avian
sumption. Increased vapor pressure may lead to significant
and other limited vertebrate toxicity tests (Tier II tests). inhalation exposures in confined spaces that would increase the
probability of toxicity to workers or troops. A sound under-
5. Significance and Use standing of the factors principally attributed to the environ-
mental problem is required to focus relative evaluation of these
5.1 The purpose of this guide is to provide a logical, tiered
properties. A conceptualization of potential exposure pathways
approach in the development of environmental health criteria
given specific chemical properties can be helpful in ascertain-
coincident with level and effort in the research, development,
ing likelihood for adverse effects. Guide E1689 can be helpful
testing, and evaluation of new materials for military use.
in that regard. Table 1 provides stages of technical develop-
Various levels of uncertainty are associated with data collected
ment of munition compounds and corresponding suggested
from previous stages. Following the recommendation in the
data requirements.
guide should reduce the relative uncertainty of the data
collected at each developmental stage. At each stage, a general 6.2 Conception—At this stage of energetic material
weight of evidence qualifier shall accompany each exposure/ development, molecular relationships and characteristics are
effect relationship. They may be simple (for example, low, examined to evaluate the properties of a new material. These
medium, or high confidence) or sophisticated using a numeri- include molecular and electronic structure, stability, thermal
cal value for each predictor as a multiplier to ascertain relative properties, performance and sensitivity requirements, and de-
confidence in each step of risk characterization. The specific composition pathways. Since these substances are still
method used will depend on the stage of development, quantity conceptual, no empirical data exist.
and availability of data, variation in the measurement, and 6.2.1 The predicted molecular and electronic structural
general knowledge of the dataset. Since specific formulations, properties can be used in quantitative structure-activity rela-
conditions, and use scenarios may not be known until the later tionship (QSAR) or other approaches to determine chemical/
stages, exposure estimates can be determined when practical physical properties relating to toxicity, fate, and transport.
(for example, Engineering and Manufacturing Development; These properties can be gleaned from computer-modeled
see 6.6). Exposure data can then be used with other toxico- estimations using quantitative structure-property relationship
E2552 − 23
TABLE 1 Life-Cycle Munition Development Stage Relative to the Collection of Data Important to the Evaluation of
Environmental Criteria
Developmental Stage Action Data Requirement
Conception Computer modeling (QSAR), computational Chem/phys properties; toxicity estimates (mammalian and ecotoxicity)
chemistry
Synthesis Develop experimental chemical property data; Chem/phys properties (estimate fate, transport, bioaccumulation), in vitro
conduct relative toxicity screen mammalian toxicity screen, in vitro ecotoxicity screen (for example,
luminescent bacteria)
Testing Conduct Tier I mammalian toxicity testing Acute/subacute rodent toxicity data; in vitro cancer screen
Demonstration Conduct Tier II mammalian toxicity testing; Tier I Subchronic rodent toxicity data; aquatic/plant/earthworm assays
Ecotox screening
A
Engineering and Cancer studies ; Tier II Ecotox studies, evaluate Rodent cancer evaluation; avian, amphibian studies; plant uptake models
plant uptake
manufacturing development
B
Production Evaluate exposure and effects No additional data required
Storage and use Evaluate exposure and effects No additional data required
Demilitarization Evaluate exposure and effects No additional data required
A
Only necessary if in vitro screens are predominantly positive and potential for exposure is relatively high.
B
In certain cases, it may be necessary to verify predictions through environmental monitoring procedures.
(QSPR)-like or quantum mechanical models. The properties Vp MW
~ !
H 5 (1)
that are useful in estimating the extent of fate and transport S
include the following:
where:
6.2.1.1 Molecular weight;
H = Henry’s law constant (atm·m /mol),
6.2.1.2 Water solubility;
Vp = vapor pressure (atm) at 25°C (298 K),
6.2.1.3 Henry’s law constant;
MW = molecular weight (g/mol), and
6.2.1.4 Vapor pressure;
S = solubility in water (mg substance/L).
(1) Liquid-phase vapor pressure;
6.2.5 Octanol/water partition coefficients (log K ) can be
(2) Solid-phase vapor pressure;
ow
predicted through the use of QSPR models. Models that predict
6.2.1.5 Affinity to organic carbon; sorption (log K );
oc
sorption (affinity to organic carbon; log K ) are generally not
6.2.1.6 Lipid solubility (octanol/water coefficient; log K );
oc
ow
required since log K can be predicted from log K values
6.2.1.7 Boiling point;
oc ow
using the following equation:
6.2.1.8 Melting point; and
6.2.1.9 Ionization potential. @0.07841~0.79191~logK !!#
ow
K 5 10 (2)
oc
6.2.2 When using existing materials, conduct a literature
where:
search to determine first if Chemical Abstract Service (CAS)
K = soil organic carbon-water partition coefficient (mL
registry numbers are available. A comprehensive database oc
water/g soil), and
available from the National Institute of Health can be used to
K = n-octanol/water partition coefficient (unitless).
search for this information: ow
(http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). These CAS numbers may
6.2.6 QSAR approaches can also be used to estimate toxi-
then be used to search for chemical/physical property values
cological impact. Toxicity QSAR models can often predict
and toxicity information without significant risk of confusion
many parameters before experimental toxicology testing but
regarding synonyms. In many cases PubChem offers links to
are dependent upon similar compounds that have toxicity data.
additional sites, such as the archived Hazardous Substances
These models produce estimates of toxicity (for example, rat
Data Bank (HSDB) as well as European Chemical Agency sites
subchronic benchmark dose response, low or no observed
6.2.3 Models are available to predict environmental param-
adverse effect levels (NOAELs)) are used to rank new ener-
eters that can be useful in predicting environmental fate and
getic materials, not to evaluate them quantitatively. These
transport with an inherent degree of uncertainty. It is important
methods provide a relatively fast, low-cost method for devel-
that this uncertainty be captured using a qualitative or semi-
oping the minimum amount of environmental data necessary
quantitative approach (see 6.8). Examples of such models
for an initial evaluation of environmental impacts. They can be
include those found in the EPA’s Estimation Program Interface
used as a basis for go/no-go decisions regarding further
(EPI) suites. EPI suites is available for download at https://
development and can serve to focus further research. These
www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-
rankings shall be based on measures of toxicity (for example,
programinterface#download. EPI suites includes programs to
acute values such as LD50s, chronic/subchronic rat lowest
estimate log Kow, Henry’s Law constant, melting and boiling
observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs), benchmark dose
points, as well as several other parameters of environmental
response, etc.). QSARs may also be used in a qualitative sense
relevance.
to evaluate the need for focused developmental, reproductive
6.2.4 Henry’s law constant can also be calculated using the
(for example, endocrine-like functional groups) in vivo testing.
following equation:
Compounds with structure suggesting specific toxicity should
be qualified for further testing at advanced stages in munition
development (for example, engineering and manufacturing
EPI Suite is a trademark of ImageWare Systems, Inc. 10883 Thornmint Road
San Diego, CA 92127. development).
E2552 − 23
6.2.7 Following the problem evaluation procedure, pertinent Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/
properties are compared along with those of other candidate default/files/iccvam/docs/protocols/ivcytonhk.pdf). Relative
substances and, if applicable, with the currently used constitu-
acute toxicity can be evaluated using relatively low-cost
ents marked for replacement. Estimates of the relative level of in-vitro cell culture techniques (for example, MTT [3-(4,5-
confidence (for example, high, medium, or low) shall also be
dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide] assay,
assigned to each attribute. These qualifiers may be assigned a
cell exclusion dyes, and propidium iodide (5, 6)). Specific
numerical weight and used in a semiquantitative approach.
assays that assess cellular function may be needed when
These substances are then ranked, evaluated based on absolute
toxicity for replacement compound is not mediated by changes
parameters, and/or assessed relative to the replacement sub-
in metabolism, necrosis or cell death. Screening-level ecotoxi-
stance configuration according to these criteria to provide the
cological methods ((7), Test Method D5660) can be used to
system investigator with a prioritized list from which to focus
ascertain relative toxicity to the test organism and can be used
efforts or provide general recommendations regarding their use
for ranking purposes, though all have limitations (7, 8).
in an environmental or occupational context or both.
6.3.5 As before, these data are used to improve on the
6.3 Synthesis—Following the conceptualization and suc- information and confidence estimates used in the previous
cessful assessment of a new material, it must be made. Once it
evaluation. The relative weight of each ranking criterion
is shown that small amounts of a new energetic material can be
depends upon the factors most important to the initial problem.
produced, small-scale screening tests shall be performed to
Confidence estimates shall be used as ranking criteria in
establish performance characteristics. If the material can be
providing the hierarchic
...
This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: E2552 − 16 E2552 − 23
Standard Guide for
Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of
New Compounds for Military Use
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2552; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
Sustaining training operations while maintaining force health is vital to national security. Research
efforts are underway to identify new substances that have negligible environmental impacts and
implement them in military weapon systems and applications. This guide is intended to provide a
standardized method to evaluate the potential human health and environmental impacts of prospective
candidate substances. This guide is intended for use by technical persons with a broad knowledge of
risk assessment, fate and transport processes, and toxicology to provide recommendations to the
research chemist or systems engineer regarding the environmental consequences of use.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative environmental influence of new substances, consistent with the research and
development (R&D) level of effort and is intended to be applied in a logical, tiered manner that parallels both the available funding
and the stage of research, development, testing, and evaluation. Specifically, conservative assumptions, relationships, and models
are recommended early in the research stage, and as the technology is matured, empirical data will be developed and used.
Munition constituents are included and may include fuels,propellants, oxidizers, explosives, binders, stabilizers, metals, dyes, and
other compounds used in the formulation to produce a desired effect. Munition systems range from projectiles, grenades,
rockets/missiles, training simulators, to smokes and obscurants. Given the complexity of issues involved in the assessment of
environmental fate and effects and the diversity of the systems used, this guide is broad in scope and not intended to address every
factor that may be important in an environmental context. Rather, it is intended to reduce uncertainty at minimal cost by
considering the most important factors related to human health and environmental impacts of energetic materials. This guide
provides a methodan outline for collecting data useful in a relative ranking procedure to provide the systems scientist with a sound
basis for prospectively determining a selection of candidates based on environmental and human health criteria. The general
principles in this guide are applicable to other substances beyond substances other than energetics if intended to be used in a similar
manner with similar exposure profiles.
1.2 The scope of this guide includes:
1.2.1 Energetic and other new/novel materials and compositions in all stages of research, development, test and evaluation.
1.2.2 Environmental assessment, including:
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action and is the direct responsibility
of Subcommittee E50.47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate.
Current edition approved Feb. 1, 2016Sept. 1, 2023. Published March 2016September 2023. Originally approved in 2008. Last previous edition approved in 20142016
as E2552–08(2014).E2552–16. DOI: 10.1520/E2552-1610.1520/E2552-23
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2552 − 23
1.2.2.1 Human and ecological effects of the unexploded energetics and compositions on the environment.
1.2.2.2 Environmental transport mechanisms of the unexploded energetics and composition.
1.2.2.3 Degradation and bioaccumulation properties.
1.2.3 Occupational health impacts from manufacture and use of the energetic substances and compositions to include load,
assembly, and packing of the related munitions.
1.3 Given the wide array of applications, the methods in this guide are not prescriptive. They are intended to provide flexible,
general methods that can be used to evaluate factors important in determining environmental consequences from use of new
substances in weapon systems and platforms.
1.4 Factors that affect the health of humans as well as the environment are considered early in the development process. Since
some of these data are valuable in determining health effects from generalized exposure, effects from occupational exposures are
also included.
1.5 This guide does not address all processes and factors important to the fate, transport, and potential for effects in every system.
It is intended to be balanced effort between scientific and practical means to evaluate the relative environmental effects of munition
compounds resulting from intended use. It is the responsibility of the user to assess data quality as well as sufficiently characterize
the scope and magnitude of uncertainty associated with any application of this standard.
1.6 Integration of disparate information and data streams developed from using the methods described in this guide is challenging
and may not be straight-forward. Professional assistance from subject matter experts familiar in the fieldwith the fields of
toxicology and risk assessment is advised.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility
of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and healthsafety, health, and environmental practices and determine
the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization
established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued
by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
D5660 Test Method for Assessing the Microbial Detoxification of Chemically Contaminated Water and Soil Using a Toxicity
Test with a Luminescent Marine Bacterium (Withdrawn 2014)
E729 Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians
E857 Practice for Conducting Subacute Dietary Toxicity Tests with Avian Species
E943 Terminology Relating to Biological Effects and Environmental Fate
E1023 Guide for Assessing the Hazard of a Material to Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses
E1147 Test Method for Partition Coefficient (N-Octanol/Water) Estimation by Liquid Chromatography (Withdrawn 2013)
E1148 Test Method for Measurements of Aqueous Solubility (Withdrawn 2013)
E1163 Test Method for Estimating Acute Oral Toxicity in Rats
E1193 Guide for Conducting Daphnia magna Life-Cycle Toxicity Tests
E1194 Test Method for Vapor Pressure
E1195 Test Method for Determining a Sorption Constant (K ) for an Organic Chemical in Soil and Sediments (Withdrawn
oc
2013)
E1241 Guide for Conducting Early Life-Stage Toxicity Tests with Fishes
E1279 Test Method for Biodegradation By a Shake-Flask Die-Away Method (Withdrawn 2013)
E1372 Test Method for Conducting a 90-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rats (Withdrawn 2010)
E1415 Guide for Conducting Static Toxicity Tests With Lemna gibba G3
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards
volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on www.astm.org.
E2552 − 23
E1525 Guide for Designing Biological Tests with Sediments
E1624 Guide for Chemical Fate in Site-Specific Sediment/Water Microcosms (Withdrawn 2013)
E1676 Guide for Conducting Laboratory Soil Toxicity or Bioaccumulation Tests with the Lumbricid Earthworm Eisenia Fetida
and the Enchytraeid Potworm Enchytraeus albidus
E1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites
E1706 Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.1.1 conception, n—refers to part of the munition development process whereby molecules are designed through software and
modeling efforts though not yet synthesized.
3.1.2 demonstration, n—refers to testing munition compounds in specific configurations that may use other substances to maintain
performance specifications.
3.1.3 engineering and manufacturing development, n—involves the process of refining manufacturing techniques and adjusting
formulations to meet production specifications.
3.1.4 environmental, adj—used to describe the aggregate of a receptor’s surroundings that influence exposure, used in the holistic
sense that may include human exposures in a variety of conditions.
3.1.5 energetic materials, n—chemical compounds or compositions that contain both fuel and fuel, binder, and potentially oxidizer
and rapidly react to release energy and other products of combustion. Examples of energetic materials are substances used in high
explosives, gun propellants, rocket & missile propellants, igniters, primers, initiators, and pyrotechnics (for example, illuminants,
smoke, delay, decoy, flare and incendiary) and compositions. Energetic materials may be thermally, mechanically, and
electrostatically initiated and do not require atmospheric oxygen to sustain the reaction.
3.1.6 munition, n—refers to weapon systems or parts of platforms that have a military application. Includes the use of energetic
substances in addition to stabilizers, plasticizers, and other substances to the final combined formulation referred to as energetic
material.
3.1.7 production, n—includes activities involved in the finalized manufacturing and use of the munition compound and
accompanying system.
3.1.8 synthesis, n—process in which minute (gram) quantities of the energetic material are made, often using laboratory desktop
equipment.
3.1.9 testing and refinement, n—includes preliminary small-scale tests to large-scale testing and range operations that require
refined synthesis techniques within the research and development phase for new energetic compounds. Energetic materials may
be combined with other ingredients at this stage to tailor specific performance properties.
4. Summary of Guide
4.1 In the evaluation of the probability of adverse environmental effects, measures of exposure are compared with measures of
toxicity to evaluate relative risk. These methods and data requirements are balanced with the level of funding used in military
system development. This guideline, therefore, provides a tiered approach to data development necessary for various levels of
hazard assessment. Often it results in a relative ranking of properties, not a robust estimation of exposure. Initially,
physical/chemical properties necessary for fate, transport, and exposure estimation may be derived and estimated from conceptual
compounds developed from computer model simulations. Quantitative structural activity relationships (QSARs) and quantitative
structural property relationships (QSPRs) may be useful in estimating toxicity and chemical properties important in estimating
environmental fate and transport, respectively. Following successful synthesis of compounds, key properties may be experimen-
tally determined (for example, water solubility, vapor pressure, sorption (K ), octanol/water partition coefficients (K ), boiling
oc ow
point, and so forth).molecular weight). These properties can be used in a relative manner or quantitatively to determine potential
for transport and bioaccumulation. Given the expense involved, toxicity studies are tiered, where lower cost in vitro methods are
used early in the process and more expensive in vivo methods are recommended later in the development process. Acute
E2552 − 23
mammalian toxicity data may be generated, along with soil, water, and sediment toxicity to invertebrates (Tier I tests). Earthworm
bioaccumulation tests may also be conducted, along with an evaluation of plant uptake models. At advanced stages, sublethal
mammalian testing shall be conducted along with avian and other limited vertebrate toxicity tests (Tier II tests).
5. Significance and Use
5.1 The purpose of this guide is to provide a logical, tiered approach in the development of environmental health criteria
coincident with level and effort in the research, development, testing, and evaluation of new materials for military use. Various
levels of uncertainty are associated with data collected from previous stages. Following the recommendation in the guide should
reduce the relative uncertainty of the data collected at each developmental stage. At each stage, a general weight of evidence
qualifier shall accompany each exposure/effect relationship. They may be simple (for example, low, medium, or high confidence)
or sophisticated using a numerical value for each predictor as a multiplier to ascertain relative confidence in each step of risk
characterization. The specific method used will depend on the stage of development, quantity and availability of data, variation
in the measurement, and general knowledge of the dataset. Since specific formulations, conditions, and use scenarios are often not
may not be known until the later stages, exposure estimates can be determined only at advanced stages when practical (for
example, Engineering and Manufacturing Development; see 6.6). Exposure data can then be used with other toxicological data
collected from previous stages in a quantitative risk assessment to determine the relative degree of hazard.
5.2 Data developed from the use of this guide are designed to be consistent with criteria required in weapons and weapons system
development (for example, programmatic environment, safety and occupational health evaluations, environmental assessments/
environmental impact statements, toxicity clearances, and technical data sheets).
5.3 Information shall be evaluated in a flexible manner consistent with the needs of the authorizing program. This requires proper
characterization of the current problem. For example, compounds may be ranked relative to the environmental criteria of the
prospective alternatives, the replacement compound, and within bounds of absolute environmental values. A weight of evidence
(evaluation of uncertainty and variability) must also be considered with each criterion at each stage to allow for a proper
assessment of the potential for adverse environmental or occupational effects; see 6.8.
5.4 This standard approach requires environment, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) technical experts to determine the
magnitude of the hazard and system engineers/researchers to evaluate the acceptability of the risk. Generally, the higher
developmental stages require a higher managerial level of approval.
6. Procedure
6.1 Problem Evaluation—The first step requires an understanding of the current problem. Often, specific attributes of existing
compounds drive the need for a replacement. For example, increased water solubility may indicate a propensity of the compound
to contaminate groundwater. Environmental persistence and biomagnification may cause concerns regarding exposures to
predatory animals and in human fish consumption. Increased vapor pressure may lead to significant inhalation exposures in
confined spaces that would increase the probability of toxicity to workers or troops. A sound understanding of the factors
principally attributed to the environmental problem is required to focus relative evaluation of these properties. A conceptualization
of potential exposure pathways given specific chemical properties can be helpful in ascertaining likelihood for adverse effects.
Guide E1689 can be helpful in that regard. Table 1 provides stages of technical development of munition compounds and
corresponding suggested data requirements.
6.2 Conception—At this stage of energetic material development, molecular relationships and characteristics are examined to
evaluate the properties of a new material. These include molecular and electronic structure, stability, thermal properties,
performance and sensitivity requirements, and decomposition pathways. Since these substances are still conceptual, no empirical
data exist.
6.2.1 The predicted molecular and electronic structural properties can be used in quantitative structure-activity relationship
(QSAR) or other approaches to determine chemical/physical properties relating to toxicity, fate, and transport. These properties can
be gleaned from computer-modeled estimations using quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR)-like or quantum
mechanical models. The properties that are useful in estimating the extent of fate and transport include the following:
6.2.1.1 Molecular weight;
6.2.1.2 Water solubility;
E2552 − 23
TABLE 1 Life-Cycle Munition Development Stage Relative to the Collection of Data Important to the Evaluation of
Environmental Criteria
Developmental Stage Action Data Requirement
Conception Computer modeling (QSAR), computational Chem/phys properties; toxicity estimates (mammalian and ecotoxicity)
chemistry
Synthesis Develop experimental chemical property data; Chem/phys properties (estimate fate, transport, bioaccumulation), in-vitro
conduct relative toxicity screen mammalian toxicity screen, in-vitro ecotoxicity screen (for example,
luminescent bacteria)
Synthesis Develop experimental chemical property data; Chem/phys properties (estimate fate, transport, bioaccumulation), in vitro
conduct relative toxicity screen mammalian toxicity screen, in vitro ecotoxicity screen (for example,
luminescent bacteria)
Testing Conduct Tier I mammalian toxicity testing Acute/subacute rodent toxicity data; in-vitro cancer screen
Testing Conduct Tier I mammalian toxicity testing Acute/subacute rodent toxicity data; in vitro cancer screen
Demonstration Conduct Tier II mammalian toxicity testing; Tier I Subchronic rodent toxicity data; aquatic/plant/earthworm assays
Ecotox screening
A
Engineering and Cancer studies ; Tier II Ecotox studies, evaluate Rodent cancer evaluation; avian, amphibian studies; plant uptake models
plant uptake
manufacturing development
B
Production Evaluate exposure and effects No additional data required
Storage and use Evaluate exposure and effects No additional data required
Demilitarization Evaluate exposure and effects No additional data required
A
Only necessary if in-vitro in vitro screens are predominantly positive and potential for exposure is relatively high.
B
In certain cases, it may be necessary to verify predictions through environmental monitoring procedures.
6.2.1.3 Henry’s law constant;
6.2.1.4 Vapor pressure;
(1) Liquid-phase vapor pressure;
(2) Solid-phase vapor pressure;
6.2.1.5 Affinity to organic carbon; sorption (log K );
oc
6.2.1.6 Lipid solubility (octanol/water coefficient; log K );
ow
6.2.1.7 Boiling point;
6.2.1.8 Melting point; and
6.2.1.9 Ionization potential.
6.2.2 When using existing materials, conduct a literature search to determine first if Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry
numbers are available. A comprehensive database available from the National Institute of Health can be used to search for this
informationinformation:
(http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/).(http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). These CAS numbers may then be used to search for
chemical/physical property values and toxicity information without significant risk of confusion regarding synonyms. Other
databases may provide information regarding chemical/physical properties and toxicity. See the suite available at http://
toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/.In many cases PubChem offers links to additional sites, such as the archived Hazardous Substances Data Bank
(HSDB) as well as European Chemical Agency sites
6.2.3 Models are available to predict environmental parameters that can be useful in predicting environmental fate and transport
with an inherent degree of uncertainty. It is important that this uncertainty be captured using a qualitative or semiquantitative
approach (see 6.8). Examples of such models include those found in the EPI suiteEPA’s Estimation Program Interface (EPI) suites.
(http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm;EPI (suites1)) and can be helpful in obtaining values. is available for
download at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-programinterface#download. EPI suites includes
programs to estimate log Kow, Henry’s Law constant, melting and boiling points, as well as several other parameters of
environmental relevance.
6.2.4 Henry’s law constant is can also be calculated using the following equation:
EPI Suite is a trademark of ImageWare Systems, Inc. 10883 Thornmint Road San Diego, CA 92127.
E2552 − 23
Vp MW
~ !
H 5 (1)
S
where:
H = Henry’s law constant (atm·m /mol),
Vp = vapor pressure (atm) at 25°C (298 K),
MW = molecular weight (g/mol), and
S = solubility in water (mg substance/L).
6.2.5 Octanol/water partition coefficients (log K ) can be predicted through the use of QSPR models. Models that predict sorption
ow
(affinity to organic carbon; log K ) are generally not required since log K can be predicted from log K values using the
oc oc ow
following equation:
0.07841 0.79191 logK
@ ~ ~ !!#
ow
K 5 10 (2)
oc
where:
K = soil organic carbon-water partition coefficient (mL water/g soil), and
oc
K = n-octanol/water partition coefficient (unitless).
ow
6.2.6 QSAR approaches can also be used to estimate toxicological impact. Toxicity QSAR models can often predict many
parameters before experimental toxicology testing but are dependent upon similar compounds that have toxicity data. These
models produce estimates of toxicity (for example, rat subchronic benchmark dose response, low or no observed adverse effect
levels (NOAELs)) are used to rank new energetic materials, not to evaluate them quantitatively. These methods provide a relatively
fast, low-cost method for developing the minimum amount of environmental data necessary for an initial evaluation of
environmental impacts. They can be used as a basis for go/no-go decisions regarding further development and can serve to focus
further research. These rankings shall be based on measures of toxicity (for example, acute values such as LD50s,
chronic/subchronic rat lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs), and so forth). benchmark dose response, etc.). QSARs
may also be used in a qualitative sense to evaluate the need for focused developmental, reproductive (for example, endocrine-like
functional groups) in vivo testing. Compounds with structure suggesting specific toxicity should be qualified for further testing at
advanced stages in munition development (for example, engineering and manufacturing development).
6.2.7 Following the problem evaluation procedure, pertinent properties are compared along with those of other candidate
substances and, if applicable, with the currently used constituents marked for replacement. Estimates of the relative level of
confidence (for example, high, medium, or low) shall also be assigned to each attribute. These qualifiers may be assigned a
numerical weight and used in a semiquantitative approach. These substances are then ranked, evaluated based on absolute
parameters, and/or assessed relative to the replacement substance configuration according to these criteria to provide the system
investigator with a prioritized list from which to focus efforts or provide general recommendations regarding their use in an
environmental or occupational context or both.
6.3 Synthesis—Following the conceptualization and successful assessment of a new material, it must be made. Once it is shown
that small amounts of a new energetic material can be produced, small-scale screening tests shall be performed to establish
performance characteristics. If the material is found to be acceptable from a performance perspective,can be synthesized at the
gram level, risks from an environmental and occupational perspective can be more reliably determined through experimentally
determining chemical properties in small-scale tests using actual material. If the candidate is suitable for further consideration,
performance in gun or warhead configurations will be modeled to provide information on emissions. Amounts needed for each
assay may need to be determined before initiation. These methods can be used to develop data that can increase confidence in risk
(fate, transport, and toxicity) predictions. In addition, analytical chemistry methods are also needed at this stage.
6.3.1 Analytical chemistry and standard experimental methods can be used to develop the following data. The appropriate ASTM
International standard is referenced where applicable.
6.3.1.1 Water Solubility—Test Method E1148.
6.3.1.2 Vapor Pressure—Test Method E1194.
6.3.1.3 Log K —Test Method E1195.
oc
---
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.
Loading comments...