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

  • Abdullah M. El MahdiEmail author
  • Hamidi A. Aziz
Part of the Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology book series (MIPT)


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.

Key words

Chemical Environment Biodegradation Toxicity Safety Standard testing methods 



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


  1. 1.
    Brauer RL (2016) Safety and health for engineers. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bidwell P. Toxic chemicals in our environment and the role of biotransformationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wexler P, Judson R, de Marcellus S, De Knecht J, Leinala E (2016) Health effects of toxicants: online knowledge support. Life Sci 145:284–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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):51PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thapar A, Zalawadia A, Pokharkar OV, Satam SS (2016) Classification of pesticides and its damaging effects: a review. Biolife 4(1):13–24Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis S (2009) Chemical economics handbook marketing research report: benzene. SRI ConsultingGoogle Scholar
  7. 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):125Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Euromonitor International. Available at: Accessed 30 Oct 2016)
  10. 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):94PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Commision (2006) Environment fact sheet: reach a chemicals policy for the EU
  12. 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):242–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):339–354PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 9:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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):1029–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boichenko S, Vovk O, Iakovlieva A, Kumeiko S (2015) Comparative analysis of standard testing methods for measuring fuels & lubricants biodegradationGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Government of Canada (2006) Invest in Canada: chemical sector http://www.investincanada.comen921Industry.html. Accessed 3 Apr 2017
  18. 18.
    Privy Council Office (2006) A framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision making about risk. Accessed 3 Apr 2017
  19. 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, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Government of Canada (2005) New substances notification regulations (chemicals and polymers) Accessed 3 Apr 2017
  21. 21.
    Crist E (2013) On the poverty of our nomenclature. Environ Humanit 3(1):129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction. Springer Science & Business Media, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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):1609–1616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paustenbach DJ (2015) Human and ecological risk assessment: theory and practice (Wiley classics library). John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manuele FA (2013) On the practice of safety. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li WC (2014) Occurrence, sources, and fate of pharmaceuticals in aquatic environment and soil. Environ Pollut 187:193–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hussen A (2012) Principles of environmental economics and sustainability: an integrated economic and ecological approach. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aven T (2016) Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur J Oper Res 253(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmid G, Schömann K (2004) Managing social risks through transitional labour markets. Towards a European social model. SISWO, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2013) Global environmental risk. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haimes YY (2015) Risk modeling, assessment, and management. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Glendon AI, Clarke S, McKenna E (2016) Human safety and risk management. Crc PressGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chemicals DOFO (2005) OECD guideline for testing of chemicalsGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. 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 71–124Google Scholar
  36. 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 111:9–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bradbury SP, Feitel TC, Van Leeuwen CJ (2004) Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. Environmental Science & TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 456:307–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Patlewicz G (2005) Chemical categories and read across. European Commission Joint Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  40. 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):146–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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):408–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 745:221–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 81:250–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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):111–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    OECD (2004) Manual for investigation of HPV chemicals. OECD secretariat, April 2004. Online Available at:
  46. 46.
    Mishra S, Autiero M, Balteau M, Tencalla F, Petry T (2016) Reducing uncertainty in read across based chemical safety assessments. Toxicol Lett 258:S314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sharifi S, Behzadi S, Laurent S, Forrest ML, Stroeve P, Mahmoudi M (2012) Toxicity of nanomaterials. Chem Soc Rev 41(6):2323–2343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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):275–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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):468–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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, ChamGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Organization for economic co-operation and development (2006) Guidelines for the testing of chemicals. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. 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):25–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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):211–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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):3–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Food US, Administration D (1995) Food additives: threshold of regulation for substances used in food-contact articles (final rule). Fed Regist 60(136):36582–36596Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dewhurst I, Renwick AG (2013) Evaluation of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)–challenges and approaches. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 65(1):168–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Barlow S (2005) Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC): a tool for assessing substances of unknown toxicity present at low levels in the dietGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Munro IC, Renwick AG, Danielewska-Nikiel B (2008) The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) in risk assessment. Toxicol Lett 180(2):151–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hennes EC (2012) An overview of values for the threshold of toxicological concern. Toxicol Lett 211(3):296–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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 161:102–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Verhaar HJ, Van Leeuwen CJ, Hermens JL (1992) Classifying environmental pollutants. Chemosphere 25(4):471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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):4201–4217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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):72–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Worth AP, Balls M (2002) Alternative (non-animal) methods for chemicals testing: current status and future prospects. FRAME, pp 71–82Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Foth H, Hayes AW (2008) Concept of REACH and impact on evaluation of chemicals. Hum Exp Toxicol 27(1):5–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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):88–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 332:102–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Suter GW II (2016) Ecological risk assessment. CRC pressGoogle Scholar
  69. 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. 70.
    Duffus JH, Nordberg M, Templeton DM (2007) Glossary of terms used in toxicology, (IUPAC recommendations 2007). Pure Appl Chem 79(7):1153–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Singh DK (2012) Pesticide chemistry and toxicology. Bentham Science PublishersGoogle Scholar
  72. 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):147–172Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kroes R, Feron VJ (1984) General toxicity testing: sense and non-sense, science and policy. Fundam Appl Toxicol 4(3):S298–S308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kroes R, Feron VJ (1990) Toxicity testing: strategies and conduct. Prog Predict Toxicol:15–39Google Scholar
  75. 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):209PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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):51–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    National Research Council (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  78. 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):534–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Abou-Donia MB (2015) Toxicology in the 21st century. Mamm Toxicol:641–650Google Scholar
  80. 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):e20887PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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):120–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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):15–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Buschmann J (2013) The OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals and pesticides. Methods Mol Biol 947:37–56Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Valavanidis A,Vlachogianni T (2015) Ecotoxicity test methods and ecological risk assessment ecosystems. 10:13Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tardiff RG, Rodricks JV (2013) Toxic substances and human risk: principles of data interpretation. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kokkali V, van Delft W (2014) Overview of commercially available bioassays for assessing chemical toxicity in aqueous samples. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 61:133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Barile FA (2013) Principles of toxicology testing. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Richardson M (2002) Environmental xenobiotics. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  89. 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):489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Noon M, Blyton P, Morrell K (2013) The realities of work: experiencing work and employment in contemporary society. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  91. 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):664–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Richter E (2016) Ecotoxicological evaluation of treated wastewater and sewage sludge for sustainable use in land management. Frankfurt, HessenGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wieczerzak M, Namieśnik J, Kudłak B (2016) Bioassays as one of the green chemistry tools for assessing environmental quality: a review. Environ Int 94:341–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Amiard-Triquet C, Amiard JC, Mouneyrac C (2015) Predictive ecotoxicology and environmental assessment. Aquatic ecotoxicology: advancing tools for dealing with emerging risks, 463Google Scholar
  95. 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 1–22Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kratasyuk VA, Esimbekova EN (2015) Applications of luminous bacteria enzymes in toxicology. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 18(10):952–959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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):713–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Halmi MIE (2016) Rapid ecotoxicological tests using bioassay systems-a review. J Biochem Microbiol Biotechnol 4(1):29–37Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Matyja K, Małachowska-Jutsz A, Mazur AK, Grabas K (2016) Assessment of toxicity using dehydrogenases activity and mathematical modeling. Ecotoxicology 25(5):924–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    MacDonald JS, Robertson RT (2009) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a view from the pharmaceutical industry. Toxicol Sci 110(1):40–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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):188–206PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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):1643–1651PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 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):270–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 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 1-85957-389-4Google Scholar
  105. 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, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Gathergood N, Garcia MT, Scammells PJ (2004) Biodegradable ionic liquids: part I. Concept, preliminary targets and evaluation. Green Chem 6(3):166–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 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):1946–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 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, ParisGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Docherty KM, Aiello SW, Buehler BK, Jones SE, Szymczyna BR, Walker KA (2015) Ionic liquid biodegradability depends on specific wastewater microbial consortia. Chemosphere 136:160–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 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 DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  111. 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, ParisGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    OECD (1981) Guidelines for testing of chemicals. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Struijs J, Van den Berg R (1995) Standardized biodegradability tests: extrapolation to aerobic environments. Water Res 29(1):255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    EEC (1984) 84/449/EEC directive, annex part C: methods for the determination of ecotoxicityGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Karel V (2001) Handbook of environmental data on organic-chemicals. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  116. 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 2:164PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Martin TJ (2014) The influence of microbial inocula on biodegradation outcome towards enhanced regulatory assessments. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Calza P, Vione D (2015) Surface water photochemistry. Royal Society of ChemistryGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Guideline PBT (2001) OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals. The Hershberger 601Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Ahtiainen J, Aalto M, Pessala P (2003) Biodegradation of chemicals in a standardized test and in environmental conditions. Chemosphere 51(6):529–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Bhogal N, Grindon C, Combes R, Balls M (2005) Toxicity testing: creating a revolution based on new technologies. Trends Biotechnol 23(6):299–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 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 1–10Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Karsa DR, Porter MR (2012) Biodegradability of surfactants. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  124. 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, ParisGoogle Scholar
  125. 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):4–5Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Mezzanotte V, Bertani R, DegliInnocenti F, Tosin M (2005) Influence of inocula on the results of biodegradation tests. Polym Degrad Stab 87(1):51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Parece TE (2015) In: Younos T (ed) Advances in watershed science and assessment, vol 33. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    SCHER SHENIHR SCCS (2013) Addressing the new challenges for risk assessment. Available at: Accessed 3 Apr 2017
  129. 129.
    Van Emon JM (2015) The omics revolution in agricultural research. J Agric Food Chem 64(1):36–44PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Wolff MS (2012) Breast cancer and the environment. Lancet Oncol 13(9):868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Watson B, Smith L (2009) The detox strategy: vibrant health in 5 easy steps. Simon and SchusterGoogle Scholar
  132. 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):401–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) (2014) US EPA. Accessed 13 Mar 2017Google Scholar
  134. 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):1571–1582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Pagga U (1997) Testing biodegradability with standardized methods. Chemosphere 35(12):2953–2972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 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):682–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 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/007Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    ECHA (2017) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.7b: endpoint specific guidanceGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Ready Biodegradability (1992) OECD Guideline for testing of chemicalsGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    OECD 302 A (1981) OECD guidelines. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. Inherent Biodegradability: Modified SCAS Test. Accessed 2 Apr 2017Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    OECD 302 B (1992) OECD guidelines. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. Zahn-Wellens/EMPATest. Accessed 2 Apr 2017Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    OECD 302 C (1981) OECD guidelines. OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. Inherent Biodegradability Modified MITI Test (II) Accessed 2 Apr 2017Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    De Wilde B, Mortier N, OWS SV, Briassoulis D, Babou M, Mistriotis A, Hiskakis M (2013) Report on current relevant biodegradation and ecotoxicity standardsGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Jordan A, Gathergood N (2015) Biodegradation of ionic liquids–a critical review. Chem Soc Rev 44(22):8200–8237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Kelland MA (2014) Production chemicals for the oil and gas industry. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  146. 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 3:225PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 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 39:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Environmentally acceptable lubricantsGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    den Besten PJ, Munawar M (2016) Ecotoxicological testing of marine and freshwater ecosystems: emerging techniques, trends and strategies. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  150. 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):1017–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 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):871–879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    McGee, D. (2014). Overcoming the seasonal variations in fitness of the amphipod CorophiumVolutator as an environmental toxicology test species using laboratory cultured specimensGoogle Scholar
  153. 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 safetyGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Darby D (2012) Bioplastics industry report. Biocycle 53(8):40–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical Affairs DepartmentArabian Gulf Oil Co. (AGOCO.)BenghaziLibya
  2. 2.School of Civil Engineering, Engineering CampusUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia
  3. 3.Solid Waste Management Cluster, Science and Engineering Research Centre, Engineering CampusUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia

Personalised recommendations