Hazards of chemicals in general may be of phys-chem nature (eg. flammability, explosivity, oxydability, corrosivity to metals, relating to health (toxicity, corrosivity to living tissues, or impacting the environment (ecotoxicity).
About phys-chem hazards, a number of still persisting misleading messages are flowering in the literature (even scientific), among them absence of combustibility or "non flammability". Non combustibility is even mentioned in the terms of reference in our MOU of COST EXIL, which is actually not true. Combustibility /flammability are terms they should either refer to definitions that would be proposed by language dictionnaries (this would lead to very generic definitions like : flammable : capable to burn with flames, or combustible : capable of sustaining a combustion process. Most of the time, in a risk assessment context, these terms refer to definitions given in specific regulations or standards (eg. flammability class rating as given in the so-called CLP EU Regulation that refer to flash point triggering values), and as scientists, we should keep this in mind. I would also suggest you to refer to internaitonnaly recognised ISO 13943 document (late issue published in 2008), entitled fire vocabulary as an interesting document. May be a useful action we might promote in WP would be a guidance on how phys-chem properties in relation with safety should be addressed, for more consistent promotion of sustainable use of ILS from a safety perpective ?
I am interested to get your feedback on that. You may see our recent publications on theses issues in :
Marlair et al, Sep. Pur. Tech., 97 (2012) 228-234
Diallo et al, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, 2012, 51(7) 3149-3156 + DB in supplementary information
Diallo et al, Energy and Env. Sci (2013)
L. Chancelier et al, Phys Chem Chem Phys, 2014, 16 1967-1976
Looking forwarrd to seeing your comments on that
