ASTM E2552-08(2014)
(Guide)Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Energetic Compounds
Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Energetic Compounds
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 energetic materials. 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 known until the later stages, exposure estimates can be determined only at advanced stages (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 with...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative environmental influence of new munition constituents, 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 munition technology is matured, empirical data will be developed and used. Munition constituents may include fuels, 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, smokes and obscurants. Given the complexity of issues involved in the assessment of environmental fate and effects and the diversity of the munition 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 the environmental impacts of energetic materials. This guide provides a method for collecting data useful in a relative ranking procedure to provide the munition scientist with a sound basis for prospectively determining a selection of candidates based on environmental and human health criteria.
1.2 The scope of this guide includes:
1.2.1 Energetic 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 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 Occupat...
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E2552 − 08(Reapproved 2014)
Standard Guide for
Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of
New Energetic Compounds
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 energetic substances that have negligible environmental impacts and
implement them in military munitions. This guide is intended to provide a standardized method to
evaluatethepotentialenvironmentalimpactsofprospectivecandidateenergeticsubstances.Thisguide
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 engineer regarding
the environmental consequences of use.
1. Scope 1.2 The scope of this guide includes:
1.2.1 Energetic materials and compositions in all stages of
1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative envi-
research, development, test and evaluation.
ronmental influence of new munition constituents, consistent
withtheresearchanddevelopment(R&D)levelofeffortandis
1.2.2 Environmental assessment, including:
intended to be applied in a logical, tiered manner that parallels
1.2.2.1 Human and ecological effects of the unexploded
both the available funding and the stage of research,
energetics and compositions on the environment.
development, testing, and evaluation. Specifically, conserva-
1.2.2.2 Environmental transport mechanisms of the unex-
tive assumptions, relationships, and models are recommended
ploded energetics and composition.
early in the research stage, and as the munition technology is
1.2.2.3 Degradation and bioaccumulation properties.
matured, empirical data will be developed and used. Munition
1.2.3 Occupational health impacts from manufacture and
constituents may include fuels, oxidizers, explosives, binders,
use of the energetic substances and compositions to include
stabilizers, metals, dyes, and other compounds used in the
load, assembly, and packing of the related munitions.
formulation to produce a desired effect. Munition systems
range from projectiles, grenades, rockets/missiles, training
1.3 Giventhewidearrayofapplications,themethodsinthis
simulators, smokes and obscurants. Given the complexity of
guide are not prescriptive. They are intended to provide
issues involved in the assessment of environmental fate and
flexible, general methods that can be used to evaluate factors
effects and the diversity of the munition systems used, this
important in determining environmental consequences from
guideisbroadinscopeandnotintendedtoaddresseveryfactor
use of the energetic substances.
thatmaybeimportantinanenvironmentalcontext.Rather,itis
intended to reduce uncertainty at minimal cost by considering 1.4 Factors that affect the health of humans as well as the
themostimportantfactorsrelatedtotheenvironmentalimpacts
environment are considered early in the development process.
of energetic materials. This guide provides a method for Since some of these data are valuable in determining health
collectingdatausefulinarelativerankingproceduretoprovide
effects from generalized exposure, effects from occupational
the munition scientist with a sound basis for prospectively
exposures are also included.
determining a selection of candidates based on environmental
1.5 This guide does not address all processes and factors
and human health criteria.
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 environ-
ThisguideisunderthejurisdictionofASTMCommitteeE50onEnvironmental
Assessment, Risk Management and CorrectiveAction and is the direct responsibil-
mental effects of munition compounds resulting from intended
ity of Subcommittee E50.47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate.
use. It is the responsibility of the user to assess data quality as
Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2014. Published December 2014. Originally
well as sufficiently characterize the scope and magnitude of
approved in 2008. Last previous edition approved in 2008 as E2552–08. DOI:
10.1520/E2552-08R14. uncertainty associated with any application of this standard.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2552 − 08 (2014)
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
3. Terminology
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
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 forAssessing the Microbial Detoxifica-
poundsinspecificconfigurationsthatmayuseothersubstances
tion of Chemically Contaminated Water and Soil Using a
to maintain performance specifications.
Toxicity Test with a Luminescent Marine Bacterium
3.1.3 engineering and manufacturing development,
(Withdrawn 2014)
n—involves the process of refining manufacturing techniques
E729 Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test
and adjusting formulations to meet production specifications.
Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphib-
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 holisticsensethatmayincludehumanexposuresinavarietyof
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 and oxidizer and rapidly react
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses
to release energy and other products of combustion. Examples
E1147 Test Method for Partition Coefficient (N-Octanol/
of energetic materials are substances used in high explosives,
Water) Estimation by Liquid Chromatography (With-
gunpropellants,rocket&missilepropellants,igniters,primers,
drawn 2013)
initiators, and pyrotechnics (for example, illuminants, smoke,
E1148 TestMethodforMeasurementsofAqueousSolubility
delay,decoy,flareandincendiary)andcompositions.Energetic
(Withdrawn 2013)
materials may be thermally, mechanically, and electrostatically
E1163 Test Method for Estimating Acute Oral Toxicity in
initiated and do not require atmospheric oxygen to sustain the
Rats
reaction.
E1193 Guide for Conducting Daphnia magna Life-Cycle
3.1.6 munition, n—refers to weapon systems or platforms
Toxicity Tests
that have a military application. Includes the use of energetic
E1194 Test Method for Vapor Pressure (Withdrawn 2013)
substances in addition to stabilizers, plasticizers, and other
E1195 Test Method for Determining a Sorption Constant
substances to the final combined formulation referred to as
(K ) for an Organic Chemical in Soil and Sediments
oc
energetic material.
(Withdrawn 2013)
3.1.7 production, n—includes activities involved in the
E1241 GuideforConductingEarlyLife-StageToxicityTests
finalizedmanufacturinganduseofthemunitioncompoundand
with Fishes
accompanying system.
E1279 Test Method for Biodegradation By a Shake-Flask
Die-Away Method (Withdrawn 2013) 3.1.8 synthesis, n—process in which minute (gram) quanti-
E1372 Test Method for Conducting a 90-Day Oral Toxicity
ties of the energetic material are made, often using laboratory
Study in Rats (Withdrawn 2010) desktop equipment.
E1415 Guide for Conducting Static Toxicity Tests With
3.1.9 testing and refinement, n—includes preliminary small-
Lemna gibba G3
scale tests to large-scale testing and range operations that
E1525 Guide for Designing BiologicalTests with Sediments
require refined synthesis techniques within the research and
E1624 Guide for Chemical Fate in Site-Specific Sediment/
development phase for new energetic compounds. Energetic
Water Microcosms (Withdrawn 2013)
materials may be combined with other ingredients at this stage
E1676 Guide for Conducting Laboratory Soil Toxicity or
to tailor specific performance properties.
Bioaccumulation Tests with the Lumbricid Earthworm
Eisenia Fetida and the Enchytraeid Potworm Enchytraeus
4. Summary of Guide
albidus
4.1 In the evaluation of the probability of adverse environ-
E1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for
mental effects, measures of exposure are compared with
Contaminated Sites
measures of toxicity to evaluate relative risk. These methods
E1706 Test Method for Measuring theToxicity of Sediment-
and data requirements are balanced with the level of funding
used in munition compound development. This guideline,
therefore, provides a tiered approach to data development
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
necessary for various levels of risk assessment. Often it results
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
in a relative ranking of properties, not a robust estimation of
the ASTM website.
exposure. Initially, physical/chemical properties necessary for
The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
www.astm.org. fate, transport, and exposure estimation may be derived and
E2552 − 08 (2014)
estimated from conceptual compounds developed from com- values. A weight of evidence (evaluation of uncertainty and
puter model simulations. Quantitative structural activity rela- variability) must also be considered with each criterion at each
tionships (QSARs) and quantitative structural property rela- stage to allow for a proper assessment of the potential for
tionships (QSPRs) may be useful in estimating toxicity and adverse environmental or occupational effects; see 6.8.
chemicalproperties,respectively.Followingsuccessfulsynthe-
5.4 This standard approach requires environment, safety,
sis of compounds, key properties may be experimentally
andoccupationalhealth(ESOH)technicalexpertstodetermine
determined (for example, water solubility, vapor pressure,
the risk and energetic materials researchers to evaluate the
sorption (K ), octanol/water partition coefficients (K ), boil-
oc ow
acceptability of the risk. Generally, the higher developmental
ing point, and so forth). These properties can be used in a
stages require a higher managerial level of approval.
relative manner or quantitatively to determine potential for
transport and bioaccumulation. Given the expense involved,
6. Procedure
toxicity studies are tiered, where lower cost in vitro methods
6.1 Problem Evaluation—The first step requires an under-
are used early in the process and more expensive in vivo
standing of the current problem. Often, specific attributes of
methods are recommended later in the development process.
existing compounds drive the need for a replacement. For
Acute mammalian toxicity data may be generated, along with
example, increased water solubility may indicate a propensity
soil, water, and sediment toxicity to invertebrates (Tier I tests).
of the compound to contaminate groundwater. Environmental
Earthworm bioaccumulation tests may also be conducted,
persistence and biomagnification may cause concerns regard-
along with an evaluation of plant uptake models. At advanced
ing exposures to predatory animals and in human fish con-
stages, sublethal mammalian testing shall be conducted along
sumption. Increased vapor pressure may lead to significant
with avian and other limited vertebrate toxicity tests (Tier II
inhalationexposuresinconfinedspacesthatwouldincreasethe
tests).
probability of toxicity to workers or soldiers. A sound under-
standing of the factors principally attributed to the environ-
5. Significance and Use
mentalproblemisrequiredtofocusrelativeevaluationofthese
5.1 The purpose of this guide is to provide a logical, tiered
properties.Aconceptualization 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 energetic materials. Various
in that regard. Table 1 provides stages of technical develop-
levels of uncertainty are associated with data collected from
ment of munition compounds and corresponding suggested
previous stages. Following the recommendation in the guide
data requirements.
should reduce the relative uncertainty of the data collected at
6.2 Conception—At this stage of energetic material
each developmental stage. At each stage, a general weight of
development, molecular relationships and characteristics are
evidence qualifier shall accompany each exposure/effect rela-
examined to evaluate the properties of a new material. These
tionship. They may be simple (for example, low, medium, or
include molecular and electronic structure, stability, thermal
high confidence) or sophisticated using a numerical value for
properties, performance and sensitivity requirements, and de-
eachpredictorasamultipliertoascertainrelativeconfidencein
composition pathways. Since these substances are still
each step of risk characterization. The specific method used
conceptual, no empirical data exist.
will depend on the stage of development, quantity and avail-
6.2.1 The predicted molecular and electronic structural
ability of data, variation in the measurement, and general
properties can be used in quantitative structure-activity rela-
knowledge of the dataset. Since specific formulations,
tionship (QSAR) or other approaches to determine chemical/
conditions, and use scenarios are often not known until the
physical properties relating to toxicity, fate, and transport.
later stages, exposure estimates can be determined only at
These properties can be gleaned from computer-modeled
advanced stages (for example, Engineer
...
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 − 08 E2552 − 08 (Reapproved 2014)
Standard Guide for
Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of
New Energetic Compounds
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 energetic substances that have negligible environmental impacts and
implement them in military munitions. This guide is intended to provide a standardized method to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of prospective candidate energetic 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 engineer regarding
the environmental consequences of use.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative environmental influence of new munition constituents, 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 munition technology is matured, empirical data
will be developed and used. Munition constituents may include fuels, 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, smokes and obscurants. Given the complexity of issues involved in the assessment of
environmental fate and effects and the diversity of the munition 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 the environmental impacts of energetic materials. This guide provides a
method for collecting data useful in a relative ranking procedure to provide the munition scientist with a sound basis for
prospectively determining a selection of candidates based on environmental and human health criteria.
1.2 The scope of this guide includes:
1.2.1 Energetic 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 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 the
energetic substances.
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.
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 May 1, 2008Oct. 1, 2014. Published May 2008December 2014. Originally approved in 2008. Last previous edition approved in 2008 as
E2552–08. DOI: 10.1520/E2552-08.10.1520/E2552-08R14.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2552 − 08 (2014)
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 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 health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use.
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 (Withdrawn 2013)
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
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 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 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.
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 − 08 (2014)
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 munition
compound development. This guideline, therefore, provides a tiered approach to data development necessary for various levels of
risk 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, respectively. Following successful
synthesis of compounds, key properties may be experimentally determined (for example, water solubility, vapor pressure, sorption
(K ), octanol/water partition coefficients (K ), boiling point, and so forth). These properties can be used in a relative manner or
oc ow
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 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 energetic materials. 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 known until the later
stages, exposure estimates can be determined only at advanced stages (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 risk
and energetic materials 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 a
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.