# Case Study on Secondary Building Materials
## 3 Results
### Assessment of PAH-Containing Soil-like Material
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|p{56.9 pt}|} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Soil-like Material**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Sigma\)**16 EPA PAH**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Sigma\)**15 EPA PAH** *  } & & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{**Evaluation of Potential for Utilization**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & \(\Sigma\)**15 EPA PAH** *  & \(\Sigma\)**15 EPA PAH** *  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Sigma\)**15 EPA PAH** *  } & \multirow{2}{*}{**PAH**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Further Captions**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Overall**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Column Test** & & & & \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **L/S 2 [\(\mu\)g/L]** & & & & \\ \hline AUE 4 & 5.73 & 0.14 & 0.17 & & & \\ \hline AUE 5 & 4.38 & 0.08 & 0.05 & & & \\ \cline{3-8} AUE 6 & 5.40 & 0.10 & 0.06 & & & \\ \cline{3-8} BAG 5 & 8.34 & 0.09 & 0.15 & & **N. Zn. No** \\ \cline{3-8} BAG 6 & 10.49 & 0.17 & 0.09 & & **N. Zn. No** \\ \hline BAG 7 & 3.30 & 0.11 & 0.09 & & **N. Zn. No** \\ \cline{3-8} BAG 8 & 5.46 & 0.16 & 0.12 & & **Pb. Cd. Cu. Ni. Zn. No** \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 4.03 & 0.09 & 0.06 & & **N. Zn. No** \\ \hline BER 2 & 2.19 & 0.17 & 0.06 & & **N. Zn. No** \\ \hline BSG 1 & 6.96 & 2.29 & 0.34 & & **Cr. No. Sb** \\ \hline BSG 2 & 3.95 & 0.14 & 0.11 & & **N. Sb** \\ \hline STB 2 & 8.39 & 0.16 & 0.16 & & **Pb. Na. Zn. Sb** \\ \cline{3-8} STB 3 & 10.40 & 0.11 & 0.07 & & **Pb. Na. Cd. Cu. Pb. Ti** \\ \cline{3-8} STB 4 & 8.84 & 0.13 & 0.28 & & **Sb. Sc.** \\ \hline STB 6 & 3.25 & 0.16 & 0.16 & & **Pb. Sc.** \\ \hline STB 7 & 3.23 & 0.13 & 0.05 & & **Cr. Sb. Sc.** \\ \cline{3-8} STB 12 & 3.32 & 0.25 & 0.42 & & **Cr. Sb. Sc.** \\ \hline STB 14 & 1.14 & 0.12 & 0.18 & & **Pb. Sc.** \\ \hline STB 16 & 4.10 & 0.04 & 0.08 & & **Zn** \\ \hline STB 21 & 4.71 & 0.11 & 0.19 & & **Cr. Ni. Sb** \\ \hline UB/STB 1 & 8.64 & 1.13 & 0.17 & & **Cr. Ni. Sb** \\ \cline{3-8} UB/STB 2 & 1.45 & 1.34 & 0.17 & & **Cr. Sb. Sc.** \\ \cline{3-8} UB/STB 5 & 8.81 & 0.04 & 0.05 & & **As. Pb. Cd. Cu. Ni.** \\ \cline{3-8} Legend & \(\times\)2\(\times\) PIV & leaching limit value kept & utilization allowed & & \\ \cline{3-8}  & up to 3\(\times\) PLV & & & **N. Zn** \\ \cline{3-8}  & \(\times\) PLV & & & **N. Zn** \\ \cline{3-8}  & \(\times\) PLV & & & **N. Zn** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Overview of the utilization potential of the soil-like materials investigated. Color-coding refers to traffic light logic (PLV = precautionary limit value for total content). With regard to the type of the soil-like materials, dredged material and urban soils (in particular urban subsoils) are often not suitable for further recycling. Soil materials with proportions of tailings (BER) exhibit very specific pollutant inventories, mainly due to their respective origin, which does not allow for a general assessment of this material type based on the data obtained in this study. Of the two banquet peeling materials (BSG) examined in more detail, one material would be eliminated for utilization. Especially for the soils from urbanized areas (STB), urban subsoils (UB/STB), and dredged materials (BAG), the permitted sulfate concentration in the eluate was frequently and sometimes considerably exceeded, which could imply restrictions for the utilization of such material types and has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Good prospects for an extension of the utilization options according to the new rules of the German Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Decree [21] can be observed, especially for alluvial soils (AUE).