You are here:
Interlaboratory Validation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) Method 1313 and Method 1316
Citation:
Garrabrants, A., D. Kosson, L. Stefanski, AND R. DeLapp. Interlaboratory Validation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) Method 1313 and Method 1316. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R/12/623, 2012.
Impact/Purpose:
The report provides data to support OSWER's intent to adopt these methods into SW-846 so that standardized methods will be used by commercial, research, and regional labs to evaluate the potential leaching of materials that encounter a range of conditions in the environment. This report is for the two batch methods and a companion report is for the two mass transfer methods to determine constituent release rates.
Description:
This document summarizes the results of an interlaboratory study conducted to generate precision estimates for two parallel batch leaching methods which are part of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF). These methods are: (1) Method 1313: Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function of Eluate pH using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure and (2) Method 1316: Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid-to-Solid Ratio using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure. These methods are under review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) for potential inclusion into the EPA’s Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, also known as SW-846. A validation study was designed based on the two-phase approach recommended by the EPA in Guidance for Methods Development and Methods Validation for the RCRA Program. In the first phase of the study, participating laboratories demonstrate proficiency in conducting the methods prior to generating data for the precision statistics in the second phase. The study targeted three study materials and ten participating laboratories. The study materials – a coal combustion fly ash, a cementitious solidified waste analog, and a contaminated smelter site soil – were chosen to challenge the tests to a variety of waste types with environmental interests to the EPA and the waste management community.