Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review on Biodegradation and Toxicity Methods: Risk Assessment, Standards, and Analyses

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Toxicity and Biodegradation Testing

Part of the book series: Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology ((MIPT))

Abstract

The role of chemicals in used daily lives is simultaneously obvious and unrevealed. These chemicals are used either in combined form or as some reagents. Around 100,000 different chemical substances find their way into routine products. At 2013, worldwide chemicals industry production was valued at 3.578 trillion dollars. Although no-one would disagree that some chemicals carry significant benefits to humanity—through their use in healthcare, for example—unfortunately some chemicals have harmful impacts on human health and the ecological system and we still don’t know enough about their long-term effects. The majority are used without proper tests being carried out on effects of its toxic on health and the environment. Hazardous chemicals are found in the tissue of nearly every individual on Earth and exposure to them has been related to several diseases and the increasing incidence of some of these conditions, and continued exposure to a blend of these chemicals, is alarming. In order to ensure that we are safe, we need chemicals to be properly tested, regulated, and more safety information. This chapter provides a general overview of the biodegradability, standard, and test method and focuses on standards and guidelines for toxicological testing. Some test methods are given. Several methods for evaluating the toxicity and biodegradability of hazardous chemical pollutants have been reviewed in this work. Moreover, it must be noted that biodegradation alone if mostly not enough for acceptance in biological disposal but that also requirements with regard to dissolution and environmental safety are formulated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Brauer RL (2016) Safety and health for engineers. John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bidwell P. Toxic chemicals in our environment and the role of biotransformation

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wexler P, Judson R, de Marcellus S, De Knecht J, Leinala E (2016) Health effects of toxicants: online knowledge support. Life Sci 145:284–293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Judson R, Kavlock R, Martin M, Reif D, Houck K, Knudsen T, Huang R (2013) Perspectives on validation of high-throughput assays supporting 21st century toxicity testing. ALTEX 30(1):51

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Thapar A, Zalawadia A, Pokharkar OV, Satam SS (2016) Classification of pesticides and its damaging effects: a review. Biolife 4(1):13–24

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis S (2009) Chemical economics handbook marketing research report: benzene. SRI Consulting

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang W, Jiang F, Ou J (2011) Global pesticide consumption and pollution: with China as a focus. Proc Int Acad Ecol Environ Sci 1(2):125

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/GlobalProductPathway/ucm259754.htm. Accessed 30 Feb 2017

  9. Euromonitor International. Available at: http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/Portal/Pages/Statistics/Statistics.aspx. Accessed 30 Oct 2016)

  10. Golberg A, Sack M, Teissie J, Pataro G, Pliquett U, Saulis G, Frey W (2016) Energy-efficient biomass processing with pulsed electric fields for bioeconomy and sustainable development. Biotechnol Biofuels 9(1):94

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. European Commision (2006) Environment fact sheet: reach a chemicals policy for the EU http://www.ec.euroupa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/fact_sheet.pdf

  12. Gauthier AM, Fung M, Panko J, Kingsbury T, Perez AL, Hitchcock K, Abelmann A (2015) Chemical assessment state of the science: evaluation of 32 decision-support tools used to screen and prioritize chemicals. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11(2):242–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mahadevan B, Snyder RD, Waters MD, Benz RD, Kemper RA, Tice RR, Richard AM (2011) Genetic toxicology in the 21st century: reflections and future directions. Environ Mol Mutagen 52(5):339–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Eide-Haugmo I, Brakstad OG, Hoff KA, da Silva EF, Svendsen HF (2012) Marine biodegradability and ecotoxicity of solvents for CO2-capture of natural gas. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 9:184–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Luo Z, Xia C, Fan H, Chen X, Peng B (2011) The biodegradabilities of different oil-based fatliquors. J Am Oil Chem Soc 88(7):1029–1036

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Boichenko S, Vovk O, Iakovlieva A, Kumeiko S (2015) Comparative analysis of standard testing methods for measuring fuels & lubricants biodegradation

    Google Scholar 

  17. Government of Canada (2006) Invest in Canada: chemical sector http://www.investincanada.comen921Industry.html. Accessed 3 Apr 2017

  18. Privy Council Office (2006) A framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision making about risk. www.pcobcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=publications&Sub=precaution&doc=precaution_e.htlm. Accessed 3 Apr 2017

  19. Government of Canada (2005) Guidelines for the notification and testing of new substances: chemicals and polymers, pursuant to section 69 of the CanadianEnvironmental Protection Act, 1999, Version 2005. SBN0-662-69285-3 Cat. no.: En84-25/2005 EPS M-688.Ottawa, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  20. Government of Canada (2005) New substances notification regulations (chemicals and polymers) http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2005/20050921/html/sor247-e.html. Accessed 3 Apr 2017

  21. Crist E (2013) On the poverty of our nomenclature. Environ Humanit 3(1):129–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson AC, Sumpter JP (2016) Are we going about chemical risk assessment for the aquatic environment the wrong way? Environ Toxicol Chem 35(7):1609–1616

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paustenbach DJ (2015) Human and ecological risk assessment: theory and practice (Wiley classics library). John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  25. Manuele FA (2013) On the practice of safety. John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  26. Li WC (2014) Occurrence, sources, and fate of pharmaceuticals in aquatic environment and soil. Environ Pollut 187:193–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hussen A (2012) Principles of environmental economics and sustainability: an integrated economic and ecological approach. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Aven T (2016) Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur J Oper Res 253(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmid G, Schömann K (2004) Managing social risks through transitional labour markets. Towards a European social model. SISWO, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2013) Global environmental risk. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  31. Haimes YY (2015) Risk modeling, assessment, and management. John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  32. Glendon AI, Clarke S, McKenna E (2016) Human safety and risk management. Crc Press

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chemicals DOFO (2005) OECD guideline for testing of chemicals

    Google Scholar 

  34. Toräng L (2003) Biodegradation rates of chemicals in surface water and groundwater assessed in batch simulation tests. Ph. D. Thesis (Doctoral dissertation, Technical University of DenmarkDanmarksTekniskeUniversitet, Department of Environmental EngineeringInstitut for VandogMiljøteknologi)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gruiz K, Molnár M, Nagy ZM, Hajdu C (2015) Fate and behavior of chemical substances in the environment. In: Engineering tools for environmental risk management: 2. Environmental toxicology. CRC Press, pp 71–124

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kowalczyk A, Martin TJ, Price OR, Snape JR, van Egmond RA, Finnegan CJ, Bending GD (2015) Refinement of biodegradation tests methodologies and the proposed utility of new microbial ecology techniques. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 111:9–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bradbury SP, Feitel TC, Van Leeuwen CJ (2004) Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. Environmental Science & Technology

    Google Scholar 

  38. Péry ARR, Schüürmann G, Ciffroy P, Faust M, Backhaus T, Aicher L, Andres S (2013) Perspectives for integrating human and environmental risk assessment and synergies with socio-economic analysis. Sci Total Environ 456:307–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Patlewicz G (2005) Chemical categories and read across. European Commission Joint Research Center

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rorije E, Aldenberg T, Buist H, Kroese D, Schüürmann G (2013) The OSIRIS weight of evidence approach: ITS for skin sensitisation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67(2):146–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vermeire T, van de Bovenkamp M, de Bruin YB, Delmaar C, van Engelen J, Escher S, Meijster T (2010) Exposure-based waiving under REACH. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 58(3):408–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Balls M, Combes RD, Bhogal N (2012) The use of integrated and intelligent testing strategies in the prediction of toxic hazard and in risk assessment. Adv Exp Med Biol 745:221–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stanton K, Kruszewski FH (2016) Quantifying the benefits of using read-across and in silico techniques to fulfill hazard data requirements for chemical categories. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 81:250–259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Worth AP, Bassan A, De Bruijn J, Gallegos Saliner A, Netzeva T, Pavan M, Eisenreich S (2007) The role of the European chemicals bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q) SAR methods. SAR QSAR Environ Res 18(1–2):111–125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. OECD (2004) Manual for investigation of HPV chemicals. OECD secretariat, April 2004. Online Available at: http://www.oecd.org/

  46. Mishra S, Autiero M, Balteau M, Tencalla F, Petry T (2016) Reducing uncertainty in read across based chemical safety assessments. Toxicol Lett 258:S314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sharifi S, Behzadi S, Laurent S, Forrest ML, Stroeve P, Mahmoudi M (2012) Toxicity of nanomaterials. Chem Soc Rev 41(6):2323–2343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schilter B, Benigni R, Boobis A, Chiodini A, Cockburn A, Cronin MT, Worth A (2014) Establishing the level of safety concern for chemicals in food without the need for toxicity testing. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 68(2):275–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Teubner W, Mehling A, Schuster PX, Guth K, Worth A, Burton J, Landsiedel R (2013) Computer models versus reality: how well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization potential of a substance. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67(3):468–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Eskes C, Whelan M (2016) Validation of alternative methods for toxicity testing, Advances in experimental medicine and biology (ISSN 2214-8019), vol 856. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  51. Organization for economic co-operation and development (2006) Guidelines for the testing of chemicals. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rovida C, Alépée N, Api AM, Basketter DA, Bois FY, Caloni F, Fuchs H (2015) Integrated testing strategies (ITS) for safety assessment. ALTEX 32(1):25–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lilienblum W, Dekant W, Foth H, Gebel T, Hengstler JG, Kahl R, Wollin KM (2008) Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European chemicals legislation (REACH). Arch Toxicol 82(4):211–236

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Basketter DA, Clewell H, Kimber I, Rossi A, Blaauboer BJ, Burrier R, Hasiwa N (2012) A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing-t4 report. ALTEX 29(1):3–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Food US, Administration D (1995) Food additives: threshold of regulation for substances used in food-contact articles (final rule). Fed Regist 60(136):36582–36596

    Google Scholar 

  56. Dewhurst I, Renwick AG (2013) Evaluation of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)–challenges and approaches. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 65(1):168–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Barlow S (2005) Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC): a tool for assessing substances of unknown toxicity present at low levels in the diet

    Google Scholar 

  58. Munro IC, Renwick AG, Danielewska-Nikiel B (2008) The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) in risk assessment. Toxicol Lett 180(2):151–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hennes EC (2012) An overview of values for the threshold of toxicological concern. Toxicol Lett 211(3):296–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Barron MG, Lilavois CR, Martin TM (2015) MOAtox: a comprehensive mode of action and acute aquatic toxicity database for predictive model development. Aquat Toxicol 161:102–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Verhaar HJ, Van Leeuwen CJ, Hermens JL (1992) Classifying environmental pollutants. Chemosphere 25(4):471–491

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Escher BI, Hermens JL (2002) Modes of action in ecotoxicology: their role in body burdens, species sensitivity, QSARs, and mixture effects. Environ Sci Technol 36(20):4201–4217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Zhao YH, Zhang XJ, Wen Y, Sun FT, Guo Z, Qin WC, Abraham MH (2010) Toxicity of organic chemicals to Tetrahymenapyriformis: effect of polarity and ionization on toxicity. Chemosphere 79(1):72–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Worth AP, Balls M (2002) Alternative (non-animal) methods for chemicals testing: current status and future prospects. FRAME, pp 71–82

    Google Scholar 

  65. Foth H, Hayes AW (2008) Concept of REACH and impact on evaluation of chemicals. Hum Exp Toxicol 27(1):5–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chapman KL, Holzgrefe H, Black LE, Brown M, Chellman G, Copeman C, Kinter LB (2013) Pharmaceutical toxicology: designing studies to reduce animal use, while maximizing human translation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 66(1):88–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Adeleye Y, Andersen M, Clewell R, Davies M, Dent M, Edwards S, Scott S (2015) Implementing toxicity testing in the 21st century (TT21C): making safety decisions using toxicity pathways, and progress in a prototype risk assessment. Toxicology 332:102–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Suter GW II (2016) Ecological risk assessment. CRC press

    Google Scholar 

  69. Graham JD (2015) Legislative approaches to achieving more protection against risk at less cost. In: University of Chicago Legal Forum (Vol. 1997, No. 1, p. 3)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Duffus JH, Nordberg M, Templeton DM (2007) Glossary of terms used in toxicology, (IUPAC recommendations 2007). Pure Appl Chem 79(7):1153–1344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Singh DK (2012) Pesticide chemistry and toxicology. Bentham Science Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  72. Raies AB, Bajic VB (2016) In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Comput Mol Sci 6(2):147–172

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Kroes R, Feron VJ (1984) General toxicity testing: sense and non-sense, science and policy. Fundam Appl Toxicol 4(3):S298–S308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kroes R, Feron VJ (1990) Toxicity testing: strategies and conduct. Prog Predict Toxicol:15–39

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ramirez T, Daneshian M, Kamp H, Bois FY, Clench MR, Coen M, Guillou C (2013) Metabolomics in toxicology and preclinical research. ALTEX 30(2):209

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Krewski D, Acosta D Jr, Andersen M, Anderson H, Bailar JC III, Boekelheide K, Kelsey KT (2010) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part B 13(2–4):51–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. National Research Council (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. National Academies Press

    Google Scholar 

  78. Zhang C, Ball J, Panzica-Kelly J, Augustine-Rauch K (2016) In vitro developmental toxicology screens: a report on the progress of the methodology and future applications. Chem Res Toxicol 29(4):534–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Abou-Donia MB (2015) Toxicology in the 21st century. Mamm Toxicol:641–650

    Google Scholar 

  80. Bhattacharya S, Zhang Q, Carmichael PL, Boekelheide K, Andersen ME (2011) Toxicity testing in the 21 st century: defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracellular toxicity pathways. PLoS One 6(6):e20887

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Weeks JA, Guiney PD, Nikiforov AI (2012) Assessment of the environmental fate and ecotoxicity of N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET). Integr Environ Assess Manag 8(1):120–134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Handy RD, Cornelis G, Fernandes T, Tsyusko O, Decho A, Sabo-Attwood T, Horne N (2012) Ecotoxicity test methods for engineered nanomaterials: practical experiences and recommendations from the bench. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(1):15–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Buschmann J (2013) The OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals and pesticides. Methods Mol Biol 947:37–56

    Google Scholar 

  84. Valavanidis A,Vlachogianni T (2015) Ecotoxicity test methods and ecological risk assessment ecosystems. 10:13

    Google Scholar 

  85. Tardiff RG, Rodricks JV (2013) Toxic substances and human risk: principles of data interpretation. Springer Science & Business Media

    Google Scholar 

  86. Kokkali V, van Delft W (2014) Overview of commercially available bioassays for assessing chemical toxicity in aqueous samples. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 61:133–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Barile FA (2013) Principles of toxicology testing. CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

  88. Richardson M (2002) Environmental xenobiotics. CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

  89. Kalčíková G, Zupančič M, Levei EA, Miclean M, Englande AJ, Gotvajn AŽ (2015) Application of multiple toxicity tests in monitoring of landfill leachate treatment efficiency. Environ Monit Assess 187(8):489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Noon M, Blyton P, Morrell K (2013) The realities of work: experiencing work and employment in contemporary society. Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  91. Fujimoto WY (2016) 2015 Yutaka Seino distinguished leadership award lecture: the Japanese American community diabetes study and the ‘canary in the coal mine’. J Diabetes Invest 7(5):664–673

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Richter E (2016) Ecotoxicological evaluation of treated wastewater and sewage sludge for sustainable use in land management. Frankfurt, Hessen

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wieczerzak M, Namieśnik J, Kudłak B (2016) Bioassays as one of the green chemistry tools for assessing environmental quality: a review. Environ Int 94:341–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Amiard-Triquet C, Amiard JC, Mouneyrac C (2015) Predictive ecotoxicology and environmental assessment. Aquatic ecotoxicology: advancing tools for dealing with emerging risks, 463

    Google Scholar 

  95. Bitton G, Koopman B (1992) Bacterial and enzymatic bioassays for toxicity testing in the environment. In: Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology. Springer, New York, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  96. Kratasyuk VA, Esimbekova EN (2015) Applications of luminous bacteria enzymes in toxicology. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 18(10):952–959

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Tobajas M, Verdugo V, Polo AM, Rodriguez JJ, Mohedano AF (2016) Assessment of toxicity and biodegradability on activated sludge of priority and emerging pollutants. Environ Technol 37(6):713–721

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Halmi MIE (2016) Rapid ecotoxicological tests using bioassay systems-a review. J Biochem Microbiol Biotechnol 4(1):29–37

    Google Scholar 

  99. Matyja K, Małachowska-Jutsz A, Mazur AK, Grabas K (2016) Assessment of toxicity using dehydrogenases activity and mathematical modeling. Ecotoxicology 25(5):924–939

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. MacDonald JS, Robertson RT (2009) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a view from the pharmaceutical industry. Toxicol Sci 110(1):40–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. McKim J, James M (2010) Building a tiered approach to in vitro predictive toxicity screening: a focus on assays with in vivo relevance. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 13(2):188–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Zhu H, Zhang J, Kim MT, Boison A, Sedykh A, Moran K (2014) Big data in chemical toxicity research: the use of high-throughput screening assays to identify potential toxicants. Chem Res Toxicol 27(10):1643–1651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Horner S, Robinson S, Lees D, Callander R, Roberts R (2014) Target organ profiles in toxicity studies supporting human dosing: an assessment of recovery and chronic dosing. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 70(1):270–285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. De Wilde B (2005) International and national norms on biodegradability and certificationprocedures. In: Bastioli C (ed) Handbook of biodegradable polymers. RapraTechnology Ltd., Shewsbury, pp 145–181. ISBN 1-85957-389-4

    Google Scholar 

  105. Mistriotis AD, Briassoulis D, Mortier N, De Wilde B(2014) Review of standard testing methods and specifications for measuring biodegradation of bio-based materials in fresh water. Proceedings International Conference of Agricultural Engineering, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  106. Gathergood N, Garcia MT, Scammells PJ (2004) Biodegradable ionic liquids: part I. Concept, preliminary targets and evaluation. Green Chem 6(3):166–175

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Stolte S, Steudte S, Igartua A, Stepnowski P (2011) The biodegradation of ionic liquids-the view from a chemical structure perspective. Curr Org Chem 15(12):1946–1973

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. OECD (2006) Test guideline 425. Acute oral toxicity—up and down procedure (UDP. In: OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  109. Docherty KM, Aiello SW, Buehler BK, Jones SE, Szymczyna BR, Walker KA (2015) Ionic liquid biodegradability depends on specific wastewater microbial consortia. Chemosphere 136:160–166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1971) Pollution by detergents: determination of the biodegradability of anionic synthetic surface active agents. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

    Google Scholar 

  111. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1976) Proposed method for the determination of the biodegradability of surfactants used in synthetic detergents. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  112. OECD (1981) Guidelines for testing of chemicals. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  113. Struijs J, Van den Berg R (1995) Standardized biodegradability tests: extrapolation to aerobic environments. Water Res 29(1):255–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. EEC (1984) 84/449/EEC directive, annex part C: methods for the determination of ecotoxicity

    Google Scholar 

  115. Karel V (2001) Handbook of environmental data on organic-chemicals. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  116. Thouand G, Durand MJ, Maul A, Gancet C, Blok H (2011) New concepts in the evaluation of biodegradation/persistence of chemical substances using a microbial inoculum. Front Microbiol 2:164

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Martin TJ (2014) The influence of microbial inocula on biodegradation outcome towards enhanced regulatory assessments. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne

    Google Scholar 

  118. Calza P, Vione D (2015) Surface water photochemistry. Royal Society of Chemistry

    Google Scholar 

  119. Guideline PBT (2001) OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. The Hershberger 601

    Google Scholar 

  120. Ahtiainen J, Aalto M, Pessala P (2003) Biodegradation of chemicals in a standardized test and in environmental conditions. Chemosphere 51(6):529–537

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Bhogal N, Grindon C, Combes R, Balls M (2005) Toxicity testing: creating a revolution based on new technologies. Trends Biotechnol 23(6):299–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Zoller U (2004) Sustainable relationships: raw materials-surfactant/detergent production/formulation-usage/consumption-environment. In: Handbook of detergents, part B: environmental impact. CRC Press, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  123. Karsa DR, Porter MR (2012) Biodegradability of surfactants. Springer Science & Business Media

    Google Scholar 

  124. OECD (1981) Test guideline 453. Combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies. In: OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  125. Bowmer T, Leopold A, Schaefer E, Hanstveit R (2004) Strategies for selecting biodegradation simulation tests and their interpretation in persistence evaluation and risk assessment. Simulation Testing of Environmental Persistence (STEP):4–5

    Google Scholar 

  126. Mezzanotte V, Bertani R, DegliInnocenti F, Tosin M (2005) Influence of inocula on the results of biodegradation tests. Polym Degrad Stab 87(1):51–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Parece TE (2015) In: Younos T (ed) Advances in watershed science and assessment, vol 33. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  128. SCHER SHENIHR SCCS (2013) Addressing the new challenges for risk assessment. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_131.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_131.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2017

  129. Van Emon JM (2015) The omics revolution in agricultural research. J Agric Food Chem 64(1):36–44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Wolff MS (2012) Breast cancer and the environment. Lancet Oncol 13(9):868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Watson B, Smith L (2009) The detox strategy: vibrant health in 5 easy steps. Simon and Schuster

    Google Scholar 

  132. Benigni R, Battistelli CL, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O, Crettaz P (2013) New perspectives in toxicological information management, and the role of ISSTOX databases in assessing chemical mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Mutagenesis 28(4):401–409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) (2014) US EPA. Accessed 13 Mar 2017

    Google Scholar 

  134. Reuschenbach P, Pagga U, Strotmann U (2003) A critical comparison of respirometric biodegradation tests based on OECD 301 and related test methods. Water Res 37(7):1571–1582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Pagga U (1997) Testing biodegradability with standardized methods. Chemosphere 35(12):2953–2972

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Lapertot ME, Pulgarin C (2006) Biodegradability assessment of several priority hazardous substances: choice, application and relevance regarding toxicity and bacterial activity. Chemosphere 65(4):682–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Comber M, Holt M (2010) Developing a set of reference chemicals for use in biodegradability tests for assessing the persistency of chemicals. MCC report no. MCC/007

    Google Scholar 

  138. ECHA (2017) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.7b: endpoint specific guidance

    Google Scholar 

  139. Ready Biodegradability (1992) OECD Guideline for testing of chemicals

    Google Scholar 

  140. OECD 302 A (1981) OECD guidelines. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. Inherent Biodegradability: Modified SCAS Test. Accessed 2 Apr 2017

    Google Scholar 

  141. OECD 302 B (1992) OECD guidelines. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. Zahn-Wellens/EMPATest. Accessed 2 Apr 2017

    Google Scholar 

  142. OECD 302 C (1981) OECD guidelines. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. Inherent Biodegradability Modified MITI Test (II) Accessed 2 Apr 2017

    Google Scholar 

  143. De Wilde B, Mortier N, OWS SV, Briassoulis D, Babou M, Mistriotis A, Hiskakis M (2013) Report on current relevant biodegradation and ecotoxicity standards

    Google Scholar 

  144. Jordan A, Gathergood N (2015) Biodegradation of ionic liquids–a critical review. Chem Soc Rev 44(22):8200–8237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Kelland MA (2014) Production chemicals for the oil and gas industry. CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

  146. Tosin M, Weber M, Siotto M, Lott C, Degli-Innocenti F (2012) Laboratory test methods to determine the degradation of plastics in marine environmental conditions. Front Microbiol 3:225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Metcalfe K, Roberts T, Smith RJ, Harrop SR (2013) Marine conservation science and governance in North–West Europe: conservation planning and international law and policy. Mar Policy 39:289–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Environmentally acceptable lubricants

    Google Scholar 

  149. den Besten PJ, Munawar M (2016) Ecotoxicological testing of marine and freshwater ecosystems: emerging techniques, trends and strategies. CRC Press

    Google Scholar 

  150. Sjollema SB, van Beusekom SA, van der Geest HG, Booij P, de Zwart D, Vethaak AD, Admiraal W (2014) Laboratory algal bioassays using PAM fluorometry: effects of test conditions on the determination of herbicide and field sample toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 33(5):1017–1022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Wendt I, Backhaus T, Blanck H, Arrhenius Å (2016) The toxicity of the three antifouling biocides DCOIT, TPBP and medetomidine to the marine pelagic copepod Acartiatonsa. Ecotoxicology 25(5):871–879

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. McGee, D. (2014). Overcoming the seasonal variations in fitness of the amphipod CorophiumVolutator as an environmental toxicology test species using laboratory cultured specimens

    Google Scholar 

  153. Tornambè A, Manfra L, Canepa S, Oteri F, Martuccio G, Cicero AM, Magaletti E (2016) Adaptation of the fish juvenile growth test (OECD TG 215, 2000) to the marine species Dicentrarchuslabrax. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety

    Google Scholar 

  154. Darby D (2012) Bioplastics industry report. Biocycle 53(8):40–44

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The support provided by the Arabian Gulf Oil Co. (AGOCO) and Universiti Sains of Malaysia (USM) are greatly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical Affairs Department, Arabian Gulf Oil Co. (AGOCO.), PO Box 263, Al Kish, Benghazi, Libya

    Abdullah M. El Mahdi

  2. School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

    Hamidi A. Aziz

  3. Solid Waste Management Cluster, Science and Engineering Research Centre, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

    Hamidi A. Aziz

Authors
  1. Abdullah M. El Mahdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamidi A. Aziz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdullah M. El Mahdi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Biosciences Institute, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil

    Ederio Dino Bidoia

  2. Biosciences Institute, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil

    Renato Nallin Montagnolli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

El Mahdi, A.M., Aziz, H.A. (2018). A Review on Biodegradation and Toxicity Methods: Risk Assessment, Standards, and Analyses. In: Bidoia, E., Montagnolli, R. (eds) Toxicity and Biodegradation Testing. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7425-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7425-2_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-7424-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-7425-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation