Understanding Hazardous Substances in Urban Environments: Key Insights from NonHazCity 3

Urban areas are constantly transforming, with construction and development shaping the cities of tomorrow. But amid this progress lies a hidden danger: the presence of hazardous substances in the very materials used to build our homes and cities.

The NonHazCity 3 project is tackling this issue head-on, aiming to reduce the risk of harmful substances infiltrating our urban spaces. Through targeted screening activities, the project sheds light on the areas that require deeper investigation, paving the way for a healthier, safer urban future.

The Scope of NonHazCity 3’s Screening Investigations

Focusing on five cities in the Baltic Sea region—Tallinn, Helsinki, Turku, Västerås, and Stockholm—NonHazCity 3 set out to understand how construction materials contribute to contamination in both indoor and outdoor environments. By examining five key matrices—construction materials, stormwater, indoor dust, indoor air, and residential wastewater—the project uncovered significant findings regarding hazardous substances in urban spaces.

While not every city screened all five matrices, the results revealed several harmful substances commonly found in construction materials, offering valuable insights for both policymakers and the construction industry.

Common Hazardous Substances Found in Urban Spaces

Here are some of the most problematic substances identified:

  • Phthalates: Often found in PVC flooring, cables, and roofing membranes, phthalates make plastics more flexible but disrupt hormones in living organisms.
  • PFAS: Known for their extreme persistence, PFAS are widely used in products like non-stick coatings and water-resistant fabrics but pose long-term health risks.
  • Bisphenols: These endocrine disruptors are commonly found in plastics.
  • Organophosphate Esters (OPEs): Used as flame retardants and plasticizers, OPEs are linked to adverse health effects.
  • Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs): These substances can cause neurological and hormonal disruptions and linger in the environment.
  • Biocides: Widely used to prevent mold growth, biocides contribute to microbial resistance.
  • Chlorinated Paraffins (CPs): Persistent in the environment and potentially carcinogenic, CPs are often used in building materials.
  • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Found in paints and adhesives, VOCs can cause a range of health problems.
  • Metals: Toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury are present in construction materials and pose serious health risks even in small amounts.
  • Key Findings: The Reality of Hazardous Substances in Our Cities
  • Indoor Dust: The investigation showed that indoor dust closely reflects the hazardous substances found in the materials used within the building. In homes with PVC flooring and treated surfaces, higher concentrations of organic pollutants, like plasticizers, PFAS, and chlorinated paraffins, were detected.
  • Stormwater: Stormwater serves as a major conduit for pollutants, transporting contaminants like biocides, organophosphate esters, metals, and PFAS from buildings into natural environments. Cities with newer constructions, particularly those with wooden claddings, showed high levels of biocides like diuron, propiconazole, and mecoprop.
  • PFAS: The concentration of PFAS varied significantly between cities, underscoring the widespread use of these harmful substances in a range of products, despite their severe environmental and health impacts.
  • TCPP Contamination: This pervasive flame retardant was found in stormwater runoff, wastewater, and indoor dust, highlighting its widespread contamination in urban areas.
  • Emerging Substances: The research also found evidence of new hazardous substances replacing older ones in construction materials, pointing to the need for ongoing monitoring and research.

Recommendations for a Safer, Healthier Urban Future

  • For Regulators: Strengthen regulations on hazardous substances in construction materials and promote the use of safer alternatives.
  • For Public Authorities: Enforce compliance with current regulations and enhance monitoring for emerging contaminants. Public awareness campaigns can help citizens understand the risks, while improved waste management ensures recycled materials are hazard-free.
  • For Constructors: Avoid materials treated with harmful chemicals and demand transparency from suppliers regarding the substances used. Replace the most harmful chemicals with safer alternatives, and ensure robust waste management practices to prevent hazardous substances from re-entering the environment through recycling.

Conclusion: Collaboration for Safer Cities

The NonHazCity 3 project highlights the urgent need for continuous monitoring, stricter regulations, and the promotion of safer construction materials. By following these recommendations, cities in the Baltic Sea region—and around the world—can protect both the environment and public health.

Collaboration across cities and countries is crucial. By sharing knowledge and best practices, we can collectively tackle pollution caused by hazardous substances in construction materials and make our urban environments safer for everyone.

If you are interested in this article, if you would like to find out more about hazardous substances in your environment – you can find interesting information on our websites and social media, but you can also make your contact in the form and we will regularly inform you about our materials (articles, reports, training courses, meetings) in which we will deepen this topic and suggest safe and proven solutions. In this form you can also declare your willingness to actively participate in our project, which will be of benefit to us (feedback) but also to you (concrete support).

Let’s work together to build healthier, greener cities for future generations.

What are the End-of-Waste Criteria and why are they a significant element of waste management?

The End-of-Waste Criteria (EoW) represent a crucial regulatory element in the European Union’s (EU) waste management framework. Their purpose is to ensure that materials that cease to be considered waste meet certain quality and safety standards, essential for promoting the circular economy. A review of the literature in this area offers insights into the mechanisms behind the implementation of these criteria and the challenges associated with their practical application.

  1. Regulatory Framework and Implementation Principles
    Numerous publications address the regulatory frameworks related to EoW conditions. The main reference point is the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, which defines the core principles of waste management in the EU, including EoW criteria. Works such as the European Commission’s White Paper (2011) and commentary on this directive emphasize the importance of these regulations in promoting recycling and minimizing waste disposal. In Polish legislation, the issue of End-of-Waste is covered in Chapter 5 of Part I of the Waste Act.
    According to legal frameworks (Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC) and literature (Delgado Sancho et al, 2009), the core of the EoW system is four general conditions that must be met for a material to no longer be considered waste:
    1. Material Use – The material must be commonly used for specific purposes, similar to other market materials. This means that the material, which has lost its waste status, should have a real and practical use recognized in the economy (according to Art. 14 Sec. 1. 1) a) of the Waste Act: “the object or substance is to be used for specific purposes”).
    2. Existence of a Market or Demand for the Material – There must be a market or demand for the material, ensuring that it will not be treated as waste again. The material should have commercial value, and its recipients must be able to purchase or reuse it in compliance with regulations (according to Art. 14 Sec. 1. 1) b) of the Waste Act: “there is a market for such objects or substances or demand for them”).
    3. Meeting Technical and Legal Standards – The material, which ceases to be considered waste, must meet certain technical standards and legal requirements related to quality and safety, to be used without adverse effects on the environment or public health (according to Art. 14 Sec. 1. 1) c) of the Waste Act: “the object or substance meets the technical requirements for use for specific purposes and the requirements specified in the regulations, in particular concerning chemicals and products applicable to that object or substance, and in the applicable product standards”).
    4. No Harm to the Environment or Health – The material must undergo a recovery or recycling process, and its further use should not pose a threat to the environment or human health. This includes control over hazardous substances and potential contaminants that may be present in the waste (according to Art. 14 Sec. 1. 1) d) of the Waste Act: “the use of the object or substance does not lead to negative consequences for human life, health, or the environment”).
  • National Differences in Implementing EoW Criteria

The previous chapter addressed the general conditions that need to be met in order to achieve EoW status. The revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD) includes a provision by which certain specified waste shall cease to be waste when it has undergone a recovery operation and complies with specific criteria developed in accordance with a number of conditions. Those detailed criteria shall ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health and facilitate the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources. They shall include:

  • permissible waste input material for the recovery operation;
  • allowed treatment processes and techniques;
  • quality criteria for end-of-waste materials resulting from the recovery operation in line with the applicable product standards, including limit values for pollutants where necessary;
  • requirements for management systems to demonstrate compliance with the end-of-waste criteria, including for quality control and self-monitoring, and accreditation, where appropriate; and
  • a requirement for a statement of conformity.

At EU level we have several waste stream, for which the EoW criteria have been developed. These are: a) iron, steel and aluminium scrap (see Council Regulation (EU) N° 333/2011); b) glass cullet (see Commission Regulation (EU) N° 1179/2012), c) copper scrap (see Commission Regulation (EU) N° 715/2013). Recently, stakeholders and policymakers have been calling for identification of further possible material streams for which to develop end-of-waste criteria. JRC has started developing new scientific proposals for end-of-waste criteria for plastics and plans to do the same for textiles.

  • In addition, some publications, such as López-Portillo et al. (2021) and COM (2023), highlight national differences in the implementation of directives and the challenges of harmonizing these regulations across EU member states. Despite the common EU framework, the implementation of EoW criteria varies between member states. Harmonizing these regulations faces challenges, particularly due to differences in infrastructure, technological resources, the development level of waste management, and national regulations in individual countries.
    • Differences in Recycling Infrastructure: Some countries, especially those with more advanced waste management systems, have better-developed recycling infrastructure, allowing for more effective implementation of EoW criteria. For example, countries like Germany or the Netherlands have advanced sorting, separation, and processing systems that facilitate control over the quality of materials obtained from recycling. On the other hand, in countries with less developed infrastructure (e.g., some Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland), limited availability of technology and investment in the recycling sector may hinder the fulfillment of these criteria.
    • Different Regulatory Approaches: The introduction of EoW in some countries may be more restrictive than in others, depending on national regulations concerning environmental protection and public health. COM (2023) indicates that countries such as Denmark or Sweden apply stricter standards for recycling and waste processing, which increases the certainty that materials that cease to be considered waste are safe for the environment and health. Meanwhile, in other countries, where regulations may be less stringent, there is a risk that materials that formally meet EoW criteria may contain hazardous substances or not meet the appropriate quality standards.
    • Harmonizing Regulations: One of the key challenges authors highlight is the need for harmonizing regulations across the EU. López-Portillo et al. (2021) points out that differences in the approach to implementing EoW criteria may lead to problems in the EU’s internal market, where materials considered non-waste in one country may be treated differently in other member states. This, in turn, may lead to issues related to the trade of secondary materials and their cross-border flow.
  • Challenges of Harmonizing EoW
    The harmonization of EoW faces several challenges, which include:
    • Technological Issues: Differences in waste processing and recycling technology can make it difficult to ensure uniform quality standards for recovered materials in different countries. Countries with more advanced technologies may implement EoW regulations more quickly and effectively.
    • Regulations on Hazardous Substances: There could be differences at national level whether wastes are classified as hazardous or not. This can, in consequence impact how waste is treated and which materials can achieve non-waste status. COM (2023) notes that varying standards for chemicals may cause materials considered safe in one country not to meet the standards in another.
    • Management of Transboundary Waste: The flow of waste and secondary materials between EU member states presents an additional challenge. Problems may arise when materials considered non-waste in one country are transported to another, where regulations may be more restrictive. The need to adapt to different standards and regulations in individual countries complicates the creation of a single market for secondary materials.
  • The Importance of a Circular Economy
    Literature on EoW criteria often links them to the concept of the circular economy (CE). Studies such as Renfors (2024) and Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) analyze how EoW integrates into broader efforts to reduce the use of primary raw materials and promote recycling. Authors emphasize that effective implementation of EoW can contribute to reducing pressure on natural resources and cutting CO₂ emissions, which directly relates to the achievement of the EU’s climate goals.
  • Challenges with Hazardous Substances
    One of the main concerns raised in the literature on EoW criteria is the presence of hazardous substances in recycled materials. Articles such as Pivnenko & Astrup (2016) and Xu Pan (2022) highlight that chemical contaminants, including hazardous substances, can hinder the recycling and reuse process. Authors suggest that effective identification and elimination of these substances before the material is deemed “non-waste” is crucial for ensuring environmental and health safety.
  • Implementation in Poland
    Poland, as an EU member, implements EoW criteria according to EU regulations, though the literature on how these principles function in the Polish context is limited. Hryb and Ceglarz (2021) and IOŚ-PIB (2021) analyze the implementation of the Waste Framework Directive in Poland, pointing out issues related to recycling infrastructure, law enforcement, and low public awareness regarding the circular economy. The literature also emphasizes challenges related to the control and monitoring of materials deemed to meet EoW criteria, particularly in the context of hazardous waste. Several authors suggested that the EoW regulation in Poland will be an empty provision, without a significant impact on waste management practices (den Boer et al., 2017). Recently, additional EoW criteria have been developed in Poland for asphalt rubble waste (MCE, 2021) and waste generated in the process of energy combustion of fuels (MCE, 2022).
  • Future Challenges and Perspectives
    The literature on the future of EoW criteria and their role in the circular economy highlights the need for further harmonization of regulations within the EU and the improvement of recycling-related technologies. Hahladakis and Iacovidou (2018) suggest that modern technologies, such as automatic waste sorting and better material processing techniques, could contribute to more effective implementation of EoW criteria.

Summary/Conclusions
The End-of-Waste Criteria are an essential tool in promoting sustainable development and the circular economy. A key element of effective implementation of EoW criteria is the harmonization of regulations within the EU. The literature and experiences indicate key challenges, such as managing hazardous substances and differences in the implementation of regulations across various EU countries, including Poland. Despite these difficulties, further harmonization of regulations and the development of technology may contribute to the more efficient realization of these principles in the future.

This and other issues are being discussed in the Life Fit for Reach 2 project. Would You like to find out how our project can help You with REACH – fill in the form and we will contact You shortly.

Bibliografia:

  1. Geissdoerfer, Martin, Paulo Savaget, Nancy M.P. Bocken, i Erik Jan Hultink. 2017. “The Circular Economy – A New Sustainability Paradigm?” Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
  2. Hahladakis, John N., i Eleni Iacovidou. 2018. “Closing the Loop on Plastic Packaging Materials: What is Quality and How Does it Affect Their Circularity?” Science of the Total Environment 630: 1394-1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.330.
  3. Xu Pan, Christina W.Y. Wong, Chunsheng Li, 2022, Circular economy practices in the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) industry: A systematic review and future research agendas, Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132671.
  4. IOŚ-PIB, 2021, GOSPODARKA ODPADAMI KOMUNALNYMI W POLSCE. Analiza możliwości i barier zagospodarowania odpadów z tworzyw sztucznych, pochodzących z selektywnego zbierania odpadów komunalnych, a kwestie GOZ, Warszawa,  https://www.teraz-srodowisko.pl/media/pdf/aktualnosci/11386-Raport-Gospodarka-odpadami-komunalnymi-w-Polsce.pdf
  5. López-Portillo, M.-P., Martínez-Jiménez, G., Ropero-Moriones, E. Saavedra-Serrano, M. C., 2021, “Waste treatments in the European Union: A comparative analysis across its member states” Heliyon, 7(12): 1-11, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08645.  
  6. Pivnenko, K. i Astrup T.  F.  2016. “The challenge of chemicals in material lifecycles”, Waste Management,  56:1-2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.016.
  7. Hryb, W. & Ceglarz, K., 2021, „Odpady komunalne w aspekcie gospodarki o obiegu zamkniętym.” Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej, Gliwice, https://repolis.bg.polsl.pl/dlibra/publication/81045/edition/72010/content
  8. COM(2023) 304 final; REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS identifying Member States at risk of not meeting the 2025 preparing for re-use and recycling target for municipal waste, the 2025 recycling target for packaging waste and the 2035 municipal waste landfilling reduction target, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2023%3A304%3AFIN&qid=1686220362244 .
  9. Renfors, S.-M. (2024), “Education for the circular economy in higher education: an overview of the current state”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2023-0270
  • E. den Boer, A. Gawłowski, K. Godlewska, M. Górski, R. Szpadt, B. Środa, H. Marliere, M. Kruś, A. Piotrowska, J. Bujny, T. Mądry., 2017, “Utrata statusu odpadu – rzeczywiste ułatwienie czy recyklingowa fikcja?” Logistyka Odzysku nr 2 (23), str. 23-33,
  • COM(2023) 304 final; REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS identifying Member States at risk of not meeting the 2025 preparing for re-use and recycling target for municipal waste, the 2025 recycling target for packaging waste and the 2035 municipal waste landfilling reduction target, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2023%3A304%3AFIN&qid=1686220362244 .
  • Delgado Sancho L, Catarino A, Eder P, Litten D, Luo Z, Villanueva Krzyzaniak A., 2009, End-of-Waste Criteria. EUR 23990 EN. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): European Commission; . JRC53238, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC53238
  • Geissdoerfer, Martin, Paulo Savaget, Nancy M.P. Bocken, i Erik Jan Hultink. 2017. “The Circular Economy – A New Sustainability Paradigm?” Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
  • Hahladakis, John N., i Eleni Iacovidou. 2018. “Closing the Loop on Plastic Packaging Materials: What is Quality and How Does it Affect Their Circularity?” Science of the Total Environment 630: 1394-1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.330.
  • Hryb, W. & Ceglarz, K., 2021, „Odpady komunalne w aspekcie gospodarki o obiegu zamkniętym.” Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej, Gliwice, https://repolis.bg.polsl.pl/dlibra/publication/81045/edition/72010/content
  • IOŚ-PIB, 2021, GOSPODARKA ODPADAMI KOMUNALNYMI W POLSCE. Analiza możliwości i barier zagospodarowania odpadów z tworzyw sztucznych, pochodzących z selektywnego zbierania odpadów komunalnych, a kwestie GOZ, Warszawa,  https://www.teraz-srodowisko.pl/media/pdf/aktualnosci/11386-Raport-Gospodarka-odpadami-komunalnymi-w-Polsce.pdf
  • López-Portillo, M.-P., Martínez-Jiménez, G., Ropero-Moriones, E. Saavedra-Serrano, M. C., 2021, “Waste treatments in the European Union: A comparative analysis across its member states” Heliyon, 7(12): 1-11, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08645
  • MCE, 2021, Regulation of the Minister of Climate and Environment of December 23, 2021, on specifying detailed criteria when certain types of asphalt rubble waste cease to be waste.
  • MCE, 2022, Regulation of the Minister of Climate and Environment of October 27, 2022, on specifying detailed criteria when certain types of waste generated in the process of energy combustion of fuels cease to be waste.
  • Pivnenko, K. i Astrup T.  F.  2016. “The challenge of chemicals in material lifecycles”, Waste Management,  56:1-2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.016.
  • Renfors, S.-M. (2024), “Education for the circular economy in higher education: an overview of the current state”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2023-0270
  • Xu Pan, Christina W.Y. Wong, Chunsheng Li, 2022, Circular economy practices in the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) industry: A systematic review and future research agendas, Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132671.

#CircularEconomy #WasteManagement #EoW #endofwaste #endofwastecriteria #Recycling #FitforREACH #Fit4RREACH

Health Effects of Chemical Exposure at Work

The health impacts of chemical exposure can be categorized into local and systemic effects. Local effects are typically immediate and involve irritation or damage to the point of contact, such as the skin, eyes, or respiratory tract. Systemic effects, on the other hand, may result from the absorption of chemicals into the bloodstream, affecting internal organs over time.

For instance, exposure to solvents like benzene can cause both acute effects, such as dizziness or headaches, and chronic effects, including bone marrow damage and leukemia (Smith, 2010). Some chemicals, like asbestos, are known to cause cancer after prolonged exposure, while others may have teratogenic or mutagenic effects, impacting reproductive health or causing genetic mutations in offspring.

Risk Assessment and Control Measures

The risk assessment process is a critical component of managing chemical hazards in the workplace. It involves identifying hazardous substances, evaluating the potential for exposure, and implementing control measures to reduce or eliminate the risk to workers. According to European Union directives and the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, employers are required to conduct regular risk assessments to ensure a safe working environment.

Employers must also ensure that employees are equipped with adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves, respirators, and protective clothing, to minimize direct exposure to harmful chemicals. Additionally, engineering controls such as ventilation systems, chemical storage protocols, and spill containment measures are essential to maintain a safe workplace.

For over 500 chemical substances, permissible exposure limits (PELs) have been established to regulate workplace exposure and protect workers from long-term health consequences. Employers must monitor the air quality and ensure that these limits are not exceeded.

Regulatory Guidelines and Best Practices

Compliance with safety regulations and standards is essential for mitigating the risks associated with chemical exposure. Safety Data Sheets (SDS) provide critical information on the properties of chemicals, their hazards, and recommended protective measures. Employers must make these documents available to all employees who work with or around hazardous substances.

It is the responsibility of the employer to:

  • Ensure that employees are informed about the risks associated with chemical use.
  • Provide appropriate training on the handling and disposal of chemicals.
  • Establish emergency procedures in case of accidental spills, leaks, or exposure.

In addition to workplace safety regulations, international guidelines such as the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) aim to standardize the communication of chemical hazards globally.

Conclusion

Ensuring the safe handling of chemical substances is a shared responsibility between employers and employees. Through comprehensive risk assessments, proper use of protective equipment, adherence to regulatory standards, and regular monitoring, it is possible to significantly reduce the dangers posed by chemicals in the workplace. By fostering a culture of safety and compliance, we can protect workers from the short- and long-term health risks associated with chemical exposure.

Would You like to find out how the Fit for REACH project can help You with safe handling of chemicals – please fill in this contact form shortly and we will contact You very soon.

References:

  1. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Dangerous substances in workplaces: OSHwiki. European Union, 2021. https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/dangerous-substances.
  2. European Chemicals Agency. Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria. Application of the CLP criteria, Part4: Environmental Hazards v.6. 2024. https://echa.europa.eu/view-article/-/journal_content/title/part-4-of-the-guidance-on-the-application-of-the-clp-criteria.
  3. ILO, 2021, “Exposure to hazardous chemicals at work and resulting health impacts: A global review”, International Labour Office – Geneva, ISBN: 978-9-22-034219-0 (https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@lab_admin/documents/publication/wcms_811455.pdf)
  4. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories: 29 CFR 1910.1450. OSHA, 2023. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1450.
  5. Smith, Martyn T. “Advances in understanding benzene health effects and susceptibility.” Annual Review of Public Health 31 (2010): 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103646.

Permissible Levels of Harmful Factors for Health in the Work Environment (MACs, MASTCs, MACCs, MAIs)

Text in Polish

Exposure to harmful factors at work can negatively affect workers’ health. Therefore, it is crucial to adhere to the applicable regulations. Through proper protection of health and life in hazardous working conditions, it is possible to reduce the occurrence of occupational diseases and workplace accidents.

Employers are responsible for ensuring safe and hygienic working conditions.

One of the elements of protecting workers from the negative effects of harmful factors is adhering to the established permissible occupational exposure levels for health-hazardous factors, known as hygienic norms. These norms are based on scientific data regarding a specific harmful factor and its health effects.

Hygienic norms have been defined for harmful chemical and dust factors present in the work environment (expressed by the maximum allowable concentrations – MACs, maximum allowable short-term concentrations – MASTCs, and maximum allowable ceiling concentrations – MACCs), as well as harmful physical factors (expressed by maximum allowable intensities – MAIs) . All these terms are defined in the Regulation of the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy of June 12, 2018, regarding the maximum permissible concentrations and intensities of harmful factors for health in the work environment (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1286, as amended):

  • MACs – Time-weighted average concentration, the impact of which on a worker during an 8-hour workday and a weekly work schedule, as defined by the Labor Code, should not cause negative health changes for the worker or future generations over their professional career.
  • MASTCs – Short-term average concentration that should not cause adverse health changes if present in the work environment for no more than 15 minutes and no more than twice during a shift, with an interval of at least one hour.
  • MACCs – A concentration that, due to health or life risks, must not be exceeded at any time in the work environment.
  • MAIs – The highest permissible intensity of a physical harmful factor for health, established as exposure levels that should not cause adverse health effects for workers or their future generations throughout their professional career.

In Poland, the system of setting MACs, MASTCs, MACCs, and MAIs values has been in place since 1983. The main body responsible for this is the Interministerial Commission for Maximum Allowab le Concentrations and Intensities of Harmful Factors for Health in the Work Environment, appointed by the Prime Minister. Members of this commission develop proposals for hygienic norms based on expert documentation, considering health criteria and risk assessment. These proposals are submitted to the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy. Once approved, the maximum allowable concentrations and intensities are published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Poland in the form of a regulation. These values are legally binding for all sectors of the national economy .

Currently applicable MACs, MASTCs, and MACCs values are included in the annex to the July 2024 regulation of the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy from June 24, 2024, amending the regulation on maximum permissible concentrations and intensities of harmful factors for health in the work environment (Journal of Laws 2024, item 1017). This annex replaces Annex 1 to the June 12, 2018, regulation and has been in force since August 10, 2024, except for positions listed in §2 of the regulation, which have different effective dates. One example is the popular preservative “Post-reaction mass of 5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one and 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (3:1)” (CAS 55965-84-9), for which the MACs and MASTCs values take effect from April 5, 2024. The MAIs values have not been changed in the June 24, 2024, regulation, meaning that the MAIs values listed in Annex 2 of the June 12, 2018, regulation remain in effect.

Would You like to find out how our project can help You with REACH – fill in the form and we will contact You shortly: https://forms.gle/ySzqcv6mKmCeb7Sx7

References