600281019
CONCENTRATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR
HAZARDOUS AQUEOUS WASTE-TREATMENT
by
Alan J. Shuckrow, Andrew P. Pajak,
and Jerome W. Osheka
Touhill, Shuckrow and Associates, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PAj 15237
Contract No. 68-03-2766
Project Officer
Stephen C. James
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-1S)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room J570
Chicago, -IL 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commerical products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
CONCENTRATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR
HAZARDOUS AQUEOUS WASTE TREATMENT
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes an ongoing program to evaluate and
verify several selected concentration techniques for hazardous
constitutents of aqueous waste streams. In the first phase of
the project, data was obtained regarding the performance of unit
processes for concentrating the hazardous constituents. Applica-
tions are expected in the treatment of ground and surface waters
affected by the disposal of hazardous wastes.
In conjunction with gathering data on the unit processes,
data were obtained on the composition of the waste streams to
which the processes could be applied.
The second phase involved a stepwise evaluation of the po-
tential applicability of the candidate technologies to the types
of wastes identified earlier. Technology profiles describing
the pertinent unit processes and current applications were pre-
pared. These technology profiles formed the basis for an initial
screening of the applicability of individual technologies to con-
centration of hazardous constituents of aqueous wastes. At this
point, certain technologies were eliminated from further consid-
eration for reasons discussed in the individual technology pro-
files. Remaining technologies were carried forward for more de-
tailed review. Compounds identified in the waste streams fell
into one of thirteen chemical classes: alcohol, aliphatic, amine,
aromatic, halocarbon, metal, miscellaneous, PCB, pesticide, phe-
nol, phthalate, or polynuclear aromatic.
The next step in the evaluation process was an extensive
literature review which focused on the technologies which sur-
vived the initial screening and upon chemical compounds in the
classes given above.
Since it was evident that in most cases no single unit pro-
cess would be sufficient in itself to adequately treat the di-
verse waste streams in question, five candidate process trains
were formulated as being most broadly applicable to the types of
waste streams identified. A desktop analysis then was performed
to assess the ability of each process train to treat each of
three waste streams. Results of these evaluations provide a
basis for making an initial judgment on the applicability of a
given concentration technology to specific situations in the ab-
sence of experimental data. Results also were used to select
iv
-------
ABSTRACT (continued)
and arrange technologies in priority order for experimental study
in the ongoing third phase.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Con-
tract No. 68-03-2766 by Touhill, Shuckrow and Associates, Inc.
under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers the period March 1, 1979 to
April 30, 1980.
v
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract iv
Figures xi
Tables xii
Acknowledgments xiii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
Waste Streams 3
Concentration Technology 4
3. Chemical Treatability Summary 6
4. Waste Stream Identification and Characterization. . . 35
Problem Types 35
Waste Stream Composition 37
Waste Constituent Classification 37
5. Technology Evaluation Approach 46
6. Technology Profiles 49
Biological Treatment 49
Process Description 49
Process Applications 52
Process Potential 52
Carbon Adsorption 53
Process Description 53
Process Applications 54
Process Potential 55
Catalysis 55
Process Description 55
Process Applications 56
Process Potential 56
Centrifugation 57
Process Description 57
Process Applications 57
Process Potential 58
Chemical Precipitation 59
Process Description 59
Process Applications 59
Process Potential , 59
Crystallization 60
Process Description : 60
Process Applications 60
Process Potential 61
VI1
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
6. Technology Profiles (cont.)
Density Separation. ............... 61
Process Description 62
Sedimentation ..... 62
Flotation ................ 62
Process Applications. ............ 63
Sedimentation . 63
Flotation 63
Process Potential ........ 63
Sedimentation 63
Flotation 63
Dialysis and Electrodialysis 64
Process Description 64
Process Applications 64
Process Potential 65
Distillation 65
Process Description ............. 65
Process Applications. ............ 66
Process Potential ......... 66
Evaporation .......... 66
Process Description 66
Process Applications 67
Process Potential ....... 67
Filtration 67
Process Description 67
Granular Media. 68
Flexible Media 68
Process Applications 69
Process Potential 69
Flocculation 69
Process Description ............. 69
Process Applications 70
Process Potential .............. 70
Ion Exchange. .......... . 71
Process Description ...... 71
Process Applications 71
Process Potential 72
Resin Adsorption 72
Process Description 72
Process Applications 73
Process Potential 74
Reverse Osmosis 74
Process Description .... 74
Process Applications 76
Process Potential 76
Solvent Extraction. 76
Process Description 76
Process Applications 77
Process Potential 77
viii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
6. Technology Profiles (cont.)
Stripping 77
Process Description 77
Process Applications 78
Process Potential ... 78
Ultrafiltration 79
Process Description 79
Process Applications SO
Process Potential •• • 80
7. Literature Review 81
Description 81
Literature Summary 83
Biological Treatment 83
Alcohols 83
Aliphatics 83
Amines 84
Aromatics 84
Ethers 84
Halocarbons 84
Metals 85
Pesticides 85
Phenols 85
Phthalates 85
Polynuclear Aromatics 86
Chemical Coagulation 86
Membrane Process - Reverse Osmosis 86
Membrane Process - Ultrafiltration. ...... 87
Stripping 88
Solvent Extraction 88
Sorption Process - Carbon Adsorption 89
Alcohols 89
Aliphatics 90
Amines 90
Aromatics 90
Ethers 91
Halocarbons 91
Metals 91
PCBs 91
Pesticides 92
Phenols 92
Phthalates 92
Polynuclear Aromatics 92
Sorption Process - Resin Adsorption 92
Alcohols 93
Aliphatics 93
Amines 93
Aromatics 94
Halocarbons 94
PCBs 94
ix
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
7. Literature Review
Literature Summary
Sorption Process - Resin Adsorption (cont.)
Pesticides 94
Phenols . 95
Phthalates. 95
Polynuclear Aromatics .......... 95
Sorption Process - Miscellaneous Adsorbents . 95
Metals. ... ........ 95
PCBs 96
8. Process Trains 97
Evaluation of Unit Processes. . 97
Summary . 97
Discussion of Selected Processes. ........ 101
Biological Treatment . 101
Chemical Coagulation 103
Sorption Processes . 104
Membrane Processes. ............. 106
Stripping Processes 106
Formulation of Process Tranins 107
Process Train 1 . 108
Process Train 2 ......... 110
Process Train 3 ..... 110
Process Train 4 113
Process Train 5 113
Evaluation of Process Trains 116
References 126
Appendices
A. Entities Contacted 139
B. Site Characterization Data 141
C. Chemical Treatability ......... 161
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Schematic of biological/carbon sorption
process train 109
2 Schematic of carbon sorption/biological
process train Ill
3 Schematic of biophysical process train 112
4 Schematic of membrane/biological process
train 114
5 Schematic of stripping/carbon sorption
process train 115
6 Waste stream categorization matrix 117
XI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Chemical Treatability Summary .......... 8
2 Contaminant Classification System ........ 39
3 Summary List of Contaminants Reported ...... 40
4 Wastewater Characterization - Site 010 120
5 Wastewater Characterization - Site 026 122
6 Wastewater Characterization - Synthetic
Leachate 124
A-l Entities Contacted 139
B-l Summary of Reported Water Contamination
Problems 142
C-l ' Chemical Treatability 163
Xll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the considerable help and
constructive suggestions provided by Dr. C.J. Touhill during the
course of the data collection and evaluation efforts.
Special thanks go to the Project Officer, Mr. Stephen C.
James, for his able advice and assistance during the course of
this work.
Xlll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Indiscriminate past disposal practices - the placement of
waste chemicals in nonsecure ponds, lagoons, and landfills -
have created serious environmental and public health problems.
Indeed, it has become evident that contamination from unsecured
industrial waste storage and disposal sites is a widespread
problem. Often, this contamination manifests itself in the form
of hazardous leachates, and contaminated ground and surface wa-
ters. These contaminant streams are diverse in terms of compo-
sition and concentration - varying from site to site, from loca-
tion to location within a site, and often over time at any given
location. Some contaminant streams contain a broad spectrum of
organic and inorganic constituents, while others have only a few
compounds of concern.
Regardless of whether contaminant streams are associated
with active or abandoned sites, the need to detoxify/decontami-
nate these hazardous aqueous wastes sometimes arises. Moreover,
since contaminant streams often are relatively dilute, a pre-
processing or concentration step prior to detoxification or dis-
posal may be necessary. However, hazardous aqueous waste treat-
ment for this application is not a routine operation. Little
information on and/or experience with concentration technology
applied to hazardous leachate or contaminated groundwater exists.
This report describes portions of an ongoing project to e-
valuate and verify several selected concentration techniques for
hazardous constituents of aqueous waste streams. The three year
project entails literature search/data acquisition, desktop
technology evaluations, and experimental investigations to eval-
uate and adapt appropriate technologies for the applications of
interest. Literature search and desktop evaluations have been
completed and are reported herein. At the time of this writing,
experimental evaluations of selected concentration technologies
are underway.
The major thrust of the initial efforts were twofold:
1) to obtain and compile data on the composition of actual con-
taminant streams which may require or could benefit from treat-
ment by the concentration technologies; and 2) to collect and
compile existing data on candidate concentration technologies.
-------
Subsequent efforts involved assessing the ability of vari-
ous technologies to concentrate hazardous constituents present
in aqueous contaminant streams previously identified. This as-
sessment was based upon characteristics of both the technologies
and the contaminant streams. As a result of this evaluation/as-
sessment, several process trains judged to have broad applica-
bility were conceptualized for subsequent experimental study.
Succeeding sections of this report discuss the data gather-
ing efforts, stepwise technology evaluations, and process train
formulation efforts.
Because of the large quantity of information involved, de-
tailed data on waste stream composition and on the treatability
of 505 chemical compounds are contained in the appendices. To
provide quick reference on the potential applicability of a
technology to a particular compound, a summary table on chemical
treatability is contained in the main body of the report.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
WASTE STREAMS
• The most widespread hazardous waste problem faced by the
public sector is contamination from unsecured waste dis-
posal sites - generally in the form of leachates and
contaminated ground and surface waters.
• There is no such thing as a "typical" hazardous waste
problem - each site is unique.
• Wastes encountered are diverse in terms of composition
and concentration - varying from site to site and often
varying over time at any given site.
• Some waste streams contain a broad spectrum of organic
and inorganic compounds, while others have only a few
constituents of concern.
• Waste streams identified in this study primarily fell
into one of two composition categories: high organic-
low inorganic or low organic-high inorganic.
• Twenty-seven problem sites were identified in this
study. The number of different problem sites where var-
ious contaminant classes were reported is as follows:
Alcohol 2
Aliphatic 4
Amine 2
Aromatic 8
Halocarbon 9
Metal 15
Miscellaneous* 11
PCB 2
Pesticide 7
Phenol 7
Phthalate 2
Polynuclear Aromatic 5
• Actual or threatened legal proceedings almost invariably
* See Table 2 for definition of this category
3
-------
restrict the availability of data on the- nature of the
problem and effectiveness of cleanup operations.
CONCENTRATION TECHNOLOGY
• Only a limited number and range of unit operations have
been applied in the treatment of hazardous aqueous
wastes, even though concentration technologies have been
used for other applications.
• Activated carbon has been used almost exclusively for
concentration of organics in the limited number of larg-
er scale hazardous waste treatment operations.
• Concentration technology performance and operating data
for industrial process wastes containing a variety of
pollutants usually are reported using a surrogate param-
eter such as TOC or COD. Specific compound removal data
are available only for a very limited number of
materials.
* Limited specific information is available through ven-
dors because much of their work is considered propri-
etary and/or confidential.
• Most available data on specific compound removal has
been generated in laboratory and pilot scale experimen-
tal studies.
* Much of the experimental data on chemical treatability
has^ been generated from pure compound systems. Removal
from multicomponent systems may differ substantially.
• High analytical costs associated with specific compound
identification will continue to restrict the data base.
• Several concentration processes are promising for treat-
ment of hazardous aqueous wastes. However, for the ap-
plication of interest, it is unlikely that any single
unit process will be sufficient. In most instances,
process trains must be utilized.
• Concentration technologies judged to have the greatest
broad spectrum potential are chemical precipitation,
flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, biological
treatment, carbon adsorption, and res'in adsorption.
• Reverse osmosis, stripping, and ultrafiltration are be-
lieved to have more limited and specialized applicabil-
ity.
-------
Ion exchange for removal of inorganic species also may
have potential but usually, competing processes such as
chemical precipitation are more economical.
Since hazardous waste contamination problems differ sub-
stantially from place-to-place, treatability studies in
some form are almost always a prerequisite to selection
of an optimum treatment approach.
-------
SECTION 3
CHEMICAL TREATABILITY SUMMARY
An extensive amount of information on the treatability of
hundreds of chemical compounds by various concentration technol-
ogies was collected. This information has been assembled in
Appendix C which is organized primarily by concentration technol-
ogy with the treatability of individual compounds organized ac-
cording to chemical compound classification. The following con-
centration technologies are addressed in Appendix C:
Process
Biological
Coagulation/Precipitation
Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Stripping
Solvent Extraction
Carbon Adsorption
Resin Adsorption
Miscellaneous Sorbents
Process Code No.
I
II
III
IV
V
VII
IX
X
XII
The chemical classification system used is described in detail
later in this report; the following chemical classes are ad-
dressed in Appendix Cs
Chemical Classification
Alcohol
Aliphatic
Amine
Aromatic
Ether
Halocarbon
Metal
PCB
Pesticide
Phenol
Phthalate
Polynuclear Aromatic
Classification Code No.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
I
J
K
L
M
A total of 505 different chemical compounds are addressed in
Appendix C.
-------
To provide a quick reference on the treatability of each of
these 505 compounds, a concise summary of information contained
in Appendix C has been prepared and is presented in Table 1.
Compounds are arranged in Table 1 in alphabetical order accord-
ing to their chemical classification. Process and chemical
classification code numbers are identical to those in Appendix C
For each compound, a summary statement describing its treatabil-
ity is given with information on treatability by more than one
concentration technology provided for the majority of compounds.
Many compounds are known by several names. Attempts were made
to use preferred or generic names according to The Merck Index.
However, in some cases it was necessary to use the names which
were used in the reference documents. Users of Table 1 are ad-
vised to check for compounds under several potential alphabetic
listings.
An example of a typical entry in the table is that for dec-
anol which reads "IX 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1." This should be
interpreted to mean that in the referenced study, carbon adsorp-
tion effected complete removal of decanol which was initially
present at a concentration of 100 yg/1.
-------
TABLE 1 CHEMICAL TREATABILITY SUMMARY
CHEMICAL
A. ALCOHOLS
Ally Alcohol
n-Amyl Alcohol
(1-Pentanol)
Borneol
Butanol
Sec-Butanol
Tert-Butanol
1, 4-Butanediol
Cyclohexanol
Decanol
Dimethylcyclo-
hexanol
1,2-Ethanediol
Ethanol
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX 22% reduction @ 100 mg/1
I toxic @>350 mg/1
IX 72% reduction @ 1000mg/l
I 90% reduction
I 70-100% reduction
IX 53-100% reduction @ 0.1
to 1000 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
I 98% reduction
I 98% reduction
IX 30% reduction @ 1000mg/l
I 99% reduction
I 96% reduction
IX 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
X 100% reduction @ lOOpg/l
IX 100% reduction @ lOOjjg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
I 92% reduction
I depressed performance
@ 484 mg/1
I 70-100% reduction @ up
to 1000 mg/1
[II <20-100% reduction
@ 1000 mg/1 - dependent
upon membrane
REF
35
99
35
81
56,81,99
100,101
20,35,72
20
81
81,101
35
81
81
20
20
20
20
81
103
100,101
103
18,30
CHEMICAL
Ethanol (con't)
Ethylbutanol
2-Ethylbutanol
2-Ethylhexanol
2-Ethyl-l-Hexanol
Furfuryl Alcohol
m-Heptanol
1-Hexanol
m-Hexanol
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Methanol
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
VII 7% reduction @ 286 mg/3
IX 10% reduction §1000mg/l
I 75-100% reduction
IX 86% reduction @1000mg/l
I 75-85% reduction
IX 98% reduction @ 700mg/3
IX 100% reduction @100pg/3
X 100% reduction QlOOpg/]
I 97% reduction
IX 100% reduction @100yg/]
X 100% reduction @100yg/]
I 70-100% reduction
IX 96% reduction @1000ug/3
IX 42% reduction ©lOOOng/]
I 70-100% reduction
IX 13% reduction @1000pg/]
I 30-85% reduction
III 0-40% reduction @ 1000
mg/1 - dependent upon
membrane
IX 4-33% reduction @15-
1000 mg/1
REF
27
20
56,100,
101
35
56
35
20
20
81
20
20
56,100
35
35
56,81,
100,101
35
56,65,
100,101
103
18,30
35,72
(continued)
•CO
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
4-Methylcyclo-
hexanol
Octanol
Pentanol
Pentarythritd
Phenyl methyl
carbinol
Propanol
i-Propanol
m-Propanol
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 94% reduction
I 30-75% reduction
IX 100% reduction @ lOOyg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
IX 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction @ 100ug/l
I No toxic effect
I 85-95% reduction
IX 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
19% reduction @ 1000mg/l
X 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
III 20-100% reduction @ 1000
mg/1 - dependent upon
membrane
I 99% reduction
REF
81
100,101
20
20
20
20
104
101
20,35
20
18,30
81
CHEMICAL
B. ALIPHATICS
Acetaldehyde
Acetic Acid
Acetone
Acetone
Cyanohydrin
Acetonitrile
Acetylglycine
Acrolein
Acrylic Acid
Acrylonitrile
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 30-95% reduction
IX 12% reduction @1000mg/l
III <20-80% reduction @100C
mg/1 - dependent upon
membrane
IX 24% reduction @100Cmg/l
I 50-100% reduction
III 15-100% reduction @100C
mg/1 - dependent upon
membrane
IX 22% reduction @1000mg/l
IX 30-60% reduction (§100-
1000 mg/1
•
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Readily oxidized @ 500
mg/1
VII Extractable w/xylene
IX 30% reduction @1000mg/l
I 50-95% reduction
IX 64% reduction @1000mg/l
I 70-100% reduction
V Could be flash
evaporated (confci
REF
56,65,
100
35
18,30
35
100,102
103
18,30
35
72
103,106
107
90
35,90
56,100,
101
35,90
56,90
107
90
nued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Acrylonitrile
(cont)
Adipic Acid
Alanine
Ammonium Oxa-
late
Amyl Acetate
Butanedini-
trile
Butanenitrile
Butyl Acetate
Butyl Acrylate
Butylene Oxide
Butyraldehyde
Butyric Acid
Calcium
Gluconate
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
VII Extractable w/ethyl
ether
I Readily oxidized
@ 1000 mg/1
I Readily degraded
@ 500 mg/1
I 92% reduction
IX 88% reduction @ 985 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1; also
reported to be readily
but slowly oxidized
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1; also
reported to be readily
but slowly oxidized
IX 85% reduction @ 1000mg/l
IX 96% reduction @ 1000mg/l
I Degraded very slowly
IX 53% reduction @ 1000mg/l
I 50-95% reduction; rapid-
idly oxidized
IX 60% reduction @ 1000mg/l
100% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction § 100pg/l
I Rapidly oxidized
REF
90
106
103
81
35
106,107
106,107
35
35
107
35
56,100
106,107
20,35
20
103
CHEMICAL
Caproic Acid
Caprolactam
Citric Acid
Crotonaldehyde
Cyc lohexanolone
Cyclohexanone
Cyclopentanone
Cystine
L-Cystine
Decanoic Acid
Dicyclopentadiene
Diethylene Glycol
Diisobutyl Ketone
Disopropyl Methyt
phosphonate
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX 90-98% reduction
@ 0.1-1000 mg/1
X 50% reduction @1000mg/l
I 94% reduction
I Biodegradable; de-
pressed 02 consumption
I 90-100% reduction
IX 46% reduction @1000mg/l
I 92% reduction
I 96% reduction
IX 67% reduction @1000mg/l
I 96% reduction
I Completed inhibited Q£
consumption @ 1000 mg/1
I Slowly oxidized
@ 1000 mg/1
IX 100% reduction @100yg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
IX Found to vaporize
I 95% reduction
IX 26% reduction @1000mg/l
IX 100% reduction @300mg/l
IX 98% reduction
@ 2680 pg/1
1 r^r\t~\ -fr- 4
REF
20,35
20
81
103
56,100
101
35
81
81
35
81
103
107
20
20
86
81
35
35
86
r*n a/-! \
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Dimethyl
Sulfoxide
Dipropylene
Glycol
2,3-Dithia-
butane
Dodecane
Dulcitol
Erucic Acid
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl
Acrylate
Ethylene
Glycol
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
Formaldehyde
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
III 63-88% reduction
@ 250-1000 mg/1
IX 16% reduction @ lOOOmg/]
I 100% reduction @ 120yg/]
IX 100% reduction @ lOOug/]
X 25% reduction @ 100 yg/]
I Slightly inhibitory
@ 1700 mg/1
I Oxidized @ 500 mg/1
I 90-100% reduction
IX 50% reduction @ 1000mg/l
I 90-100% reduction
IX 78% reduction @ 1015mg/l
I 97% reduction
IX 7% reduction @ 1000mg/l
I 90-100% reduction
I Conflicting data; remov-
able & inhibitory @ 720-
3000 mg/1
III <20-80% reduction 01000
mg/1 dependent upon
membrane
IX 9% reduction @ 1000 mg/]
REF
18
35
65
20
20
109
107
56,100
101
35
56,100
101
35
81
35
56,100
101
103,104
18,30
35
CHEMICAL
Formamide
Formic Acid
Glutamic Acid
Glycerol
Glycerine
Glycine
Heptane
Heptanoic Acid
Hexadecane
Hexylene Glycol
Hydracrylonitrile
Isobutyl Acetate
Isophorone
I soprene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Slowly oxidized
@ 500 mg/1
I Rapidly oxidized
@ 720 mg/1
IX 24% reduction QlOOOmg/]
I Readily oxidized
III 20-100% reduction
@ 1000 mg/1 dependent
upon membrane
I Readily oxidized
@ 720 mg/1
I Rapidly oxidized
@ 720 mg/1
I 90-100% reduction
IX 10% reduction @100ug/l
X 50% reduction @100pg/l
IX 100% reduction @100yg/]
X 25% reduction @100ug/l
IX 61% reduction @1000mg/l
I 0-10% reduction
IX 82% reduction @1000mg/l
I 93% reduction
VII Extractable w/ethyl
ether
IX 86% reduction @ 500-
1000 mg/1 (conti
REF
107
107
35
103
18,30
103
103
56,100
101,106
20
20
20
20
35
100
35
81
90
72
nued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Isopropyl
Acetate
Lactic Acid
Laurie Acid
L-Malic Acid
DL-Malic Acid
Malonic Acid
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Butyl
Ketone
Methyl
Decanoate '
Methyl
Dodecanoate
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
Methyl Hexade
canoate
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX 68% reduction @ 1000mg/l
I Rapidily oxidized
<§ 720 mg/1
I Slowly oxidized @500mg/l
IX 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
I Rapidly oxidized
@ 500 mg/1
I Oxidized after 10-16 hr
lag period
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
III 4-80% reduction @ 1000
mg/1 dependent upon
membrane
IX 26% reduction @ 1030 mg/1
IX 81% reduction @ 988 mg/1
IX 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
IX 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
VII 69-88% reduction
@ 12,200 mg/1
IX 47% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
IX 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
REF
35
7
107
20
20
107
107
107
18,30
35
35
20
20
20
20
27
35
20
20
CHEMICAL
Methyl Isoamyl
Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
Methyl Octadeca-
noate
Methyl Propyl
Ketone
Myristic Acid
Nitrilotriacetate
Octadecane
Octanoic Acid
Oleic Acid
Oxalic Acid
Pentane
Pentanedinitrile
Pentani tr i le
Propanedinitrile
Propanenitrile
B-Propriolactone
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX 85% reduction @ 986 mg/1
IX 85% reduction @1000mg/l
IX 100% reduction @100pg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
IX 70% reduction @1000mg/l
IX 100% reduction @100pg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
I >90% reduction @500mg/l
after acclimation
IX 100% reduction @100pg/l
X 25% reduction @ 100pg/l
IX 50% reduction @ 100 pg/1
X 90% reduction @ 100 pg/1
I Inhibitory
I Inhibitory© 250 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Slowly oxidized or
toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
REF
35
35
20
20
35
20
20
111
20
20
20
20
109
103
106
106,107
106
106
106
108
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Propionalde-
hyde
Propionic Acid
Propyl Acetate
Propylene
st i ~rj~tfn. 1
Glycoi
Propylene
Oxide
Pyruvic Acid
Sodium Alkyl
Sulfate
Sodium Lauryl
Sulfate
Sodium-N-
Oleyl-N-
Methyl Taurate
Sodium a Sulfo
Methyl
Myristate
Tannic Acid
Tetradecane
Tetraethylene
Glycoi
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX 28% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
IX 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
33% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
IX 75% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
IX 12% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
IX 26% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
IX 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
I Readily degraded
I Rapidly oxidized
I Readily oxidized
I Readily oxidized
I Inhibitory
IX 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
X 50% reduction @ 100 yg/1
IX 58% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
REF
35
20,35
20
35
35
35
20
20
112
112
112
112
109
20
20
35
CHEMICAL
Thioglycollic Acid
Thiouracil
Thiourea
Triethylene
Glycoi
Urea
Urethane
Valeric Acid
Vinyl Acetate
C. AMINES
Acetanilide
Allylamine
p-Aminoacetanilide
m-Aminobenzoic
Acid
o-Aminobenzoic
Acid
p-Aminobenzoic
Acid
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Inhibitory
I Very slowly oxidized
@ 500 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I 98% reduction
IX 52% reduction @1000mg/l
I Inhibitory @ 1200 mg/1
I Inhibitory
IX 80-100% reduction
@ 0.1-1000 mg/1
X 50% reduction @ 100 yg/1
IX 64% reduction @1000yg/l
I 94% reduction
IX 31% reduction @1000mg/l
I 93% reduction
I 98% reduction
I 98% reduction
I 96% reduction
REF
103
108
109
81
35
103
108
20,35
20
35
81
35
81
81
81
81
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
m-Aminotoluene
o-Aminotoluene
?-Aminotoluene
Aniline
Benzamide
Benzidine
Benzylamine
Butanamide
Butylamine
m-Chloroani-
line
o-Chloroani-
line
p-Chloroani-
line
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 98% reduction
I 98% reduction
I 98% reduction
I Inconsistant data} 100%
reduction & inhibitory
reported @ 500 mg/1
III 3-100% reduction @ 1000
mg/1 dependent on
membrane
IX 75-100% reduction
@ 0.1-1000 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
I Initially inhibitory
Slowly degraded @ 500 mg/]
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/lj
not reduced @ 1.6 pg/1
IX Adsorbed
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
E Slowly oxidized @ 500 mg/1
tX 52-100% reduction
@ 0.1-1000 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
[ 97% reduction
[ 97% reduction
[ 96% reduction
REF
81
81
81
81,92,
108
18,30
20,35
20
107
108,81
i3a
107
20,35
20
81
81
81
CHEMICAL
Cyclohexylamine
Dibutylamine
Di-N-Butylamine
Diethanolamine
Diethylenetriamine
Dihexylamine
Diisopropanolamine
Dimethylamine
2,3-Dimethylani-
1 "i n^
O. XI 1C
2 , 5-Dimethylani-
line
3 , 4-Dimethylani-
line
Dime thy Initros-
amine
Di-N-Propylamine
Ethylenediamine
N-Ethylmorpholine
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX 100% reduction @100yg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
IX 100% reduction @100pg/l
X 100% reduction @100yg/l
IX 87% reduction @ lOOOmg/3
I 97% reduction
IX 28% reduction @ 996mg/l
IX 29% reduction @ 1000mg/3
IX 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
X 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
IX 46% reduction @ 1000mg/l
IX 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
I 96% reduction
I 96% reduction
I 76% reduction
IX Not adsorbed
IX 80% reduction @ 1000mg/l
I 98% reduction
IX 11% reduction @ 1000mg/l
IX 47% reduction @ 1000mg/l
REF
20
20
20
20
35
81
35
35
20
20
35
20
20
81
81
81
31
35
81
35
35
.
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
2-Fluorenamine
Hexylamine
2-Methyl-5-
Ethylpyridine
N-Methyl
Morpholine
Monoethanol-
amine
Monoisopro-
panolamine
Morpholine
B-Napthylamine
o-Nitroaniline
?-Nitroaniline
Octylamine
Pentanamide
p-(Phenylazo)
ciniline
Phenylenedia-
mine
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
Slowly biodegraded
@ 500 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 ug/1
100% reduction @ 100 ug/1
X 89% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
X 42% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
X 7% reduction© 1012 mg/1
X 20% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
CX 100% reduction @ 100 ug/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
CX Adsorbed
[ <99.9% reduction
@ 18.5 mg/1
[ <99.9% reduction
@ 6.7 mg/1
CX 100% reduction @ 100 ug/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
I Slowly oxidized @ 5OOmg/J
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
REF
108
20
20
35
35
35
35
20
20
31
58
58
20
20
107
108
113
CHEMICAL
m-Phenylenedia-
mine
o-Phenylenedia-
mine
p-Phenylenedia-
mine
Piperidine
Pyridine
Pyrrole
Thiocetamide
Tributylamine
2,4, 6-Trichloro-
aniline
Triethanolamine
D. AROMATICS
Acetophenone
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 60% reduction
I 33% reduction
I 80% reduction
IX 100% reduction @100ng/l
X 100% reduction @100ug/l
IX 53% reduction @1000mg/l
IX 100% reduction @100ug/l
X 100% reduction @100ug/l
I Inhibitory @ 100 mg/1
IX 100% reduction @100pg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
I Readily degraded
@ 500 mg/1
IX 33% reduction @1000mg/l
IX 50-92% reduction
@ 0.1-1000 mg/1
X 100% reduction @100ug/
REF
81
81
81
20
20
35
20
20
103
20
20
92,113
35
20,35
20
(continued)
Ul
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
sec-Amy Iben-
zene
tert-Amylben-
zene
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene Sul-
£ onate
Benzene , To-
luene, Xylene
(BTX)
Benzene thiol
Benzil
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Conflicting data; re-
ported to be toxic
also 99% reduction
IX 50-99% reduction
@ 0.1-1000 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
I 90-100% reduction @ up
to 500 mg/1
V 95-99% reduction
VII 97% reduction @71-290mg/:
IX 60-95% reduction
@ 1 pg/1 to 1500 mg/1
I Slowly oxidized @500mg/l
X 99% reduction
@ 20-30 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
IX 50% reduction© 100 pg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
REF
113
113
81,108,
109
20,35,72
20
56,100
101,114
13,90
27
3,21,31,
35,38,72
90
108
32
108
20
20
CHEMICAL
Benzoic Acid
Benzanitrile
3 ,4-Benzpyrene
sec-Butylbenzene
ter t-Bu ty Ibe n ze ne
Chloranil
Chlorobenzene
l-Chloro-2-
Nitrobenzene
Cumene
1,2,4,5-Dibenz-
pyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 95-100% reduction
IX 91-100% reduction
@ 0.1-1000 mg/1
X 100% reduction @100yg/l
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Inhibitory § 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 10 mg/1
I 100% reduction @200mg/l
III 97-100% reduction
@ 360 mg/1
V Steam strippable
VII 99% reduction w/chloro-
form solvent
IX 50-95% reduction
@ 1-416 mg/1
IX Adsorbed
-
IX 100% reduction @100yg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I 100% reduction @200mg/l
V Air & steam strippable
VII Extractable
IX 95-100% reduction
REF
56,81
20,35
20
106
106
113
113
101
66
90
64,90
90
21,64,
90
21
20
20
108 .
66,92
90
90
20,90
9 0.1-416 mg/1 (contlnued)
en
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
m-Dichloro-
benzene(cont)
o-Dichloro-
benzene
p-Dichloro-
benzene
1,2-Dichloro-
benzene
1,3-Dichloro-
benzene
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
3,3'-Dichloro-
benzidine
2,4-Dichloro-
phenoxyacetic
Acid
2 , 6-Dichloro-
phenoxyace ti c
Acid
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
I 100% reduction @ 200 mg/1
V Air & steam strippable
VII Extractable
IX 95-100% reduction
@ 0.1-1000 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
I 100% reduction @ 200 mg/1
V Steam strippable
VII Extractable
IX 95-100% reduction
@ 0.1-416 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 ug/1
V 70% reduction
V 80% reduction
V 90% reduction
IX 60% reduction
IX Adsorbed
I No reduction @ 174 mg/1
I No reduction @ 178 mg/1
REF
20
66
90
90
20,90
20
66
90
90
20,90
20
64
64
64
64
31
115
115
CHEMICAL
2 , 4-Dichloropro-
pionic Acid
Dime thy laniline
(Xylidine)
7,9-Dimethyl-
benzacridine
7,10-Dimethyl-
benzacridine
Dinitrobenzene
3,5-Dinitro-
benzoic Acid
2,4-Dinitro-
phenylhydrazine
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
2,6-Dinitro-
toluene
Ethylbenzene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I No reduction @ 186 mg/1
IX 94% reduction @ 380 yg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
III 7-81% reduction @ 30
mg/1 dependent upon
membrane
I 50% reduction
III 3-91% reduction @ 30mg/]
dependent upon membrane
I 90-100% reduction
@ 0.39-188 mg/1
VII Extractable
IX 95% reduction @ 416 mg/1
VII Extractable
IX 95% reduction @ 416 mg/1
I 90-100% reduction
@ 0.192-105 mg/1
II 56% reduction @ 153 mg/1
w/alum
V 80-93% reduction
REF
115
6
108
108
8
81
18
81,90
90
90
90
90
21,56,
100,101
114
21
13,64,
90
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Ethylbenzene
( corit)
Hexachloro-
benzene
Hydroquinone
Hydroxyben-
zenecarbonit-
rile
Isophorone |
2-Methylben-
zenecarbonit-
rile
3-Methylben-
zenecarbonit-
rile
4-Methylben-
zenecarboni t-
rile
4 , 4 "-Me thy lene
Bis-(2-Chlo-
roaniline)
Methylethyl-
pyridine
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
VII 97% reduction
IX 50-84% reduction
@ 1-115 mg/1
I No reduction @ 200 mg/1
III 52% reduction @ 638 mg/1
V Steam strippable
VII Ex tractable
IX 95% reduction @ 416 mg/1
III 2-80% reduction
@ 1000 mg/1
IX 83% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
IX 97% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
IX Adsorbed
I 10-30% reduction
REF
27,90
21,35
64,90
66,92
90
64
90
90
18,30
35
106
35,90
106
106
106
31
100
CHEMICAL
m-Ni trobenzalde -
hyde
o-Nitrobenzalde-
hyde
p-Nitrobenzalde-
hyde
Nitrobenzene
m-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
o-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
p-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
Nitrof luorine
m-Nitrotoluene
o-Nitrotoluene
p-Nitrotoluene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 94% reduction
I 97% reduction
I 97% reduction
I Reported to be toxic
@ 500 mg/1; 96-100% re-
duction @ 58-530 pg/1
II 34% reduction @ 160 pg/1
w/alum
V Steam strippable
@ 450-2160 mg/1
VII Extract able
IX 95% reduction
@ 1-1023 mg/1
I 93% reduction
I 93% reduction
I 92% reduction
I Slowly oxidized
@ 500 mg/1
I 98% reduction
I 98% reduction
I 98% reduction
REF
81
81
81
21,58
81,108
21
64
90
21,35,
90
81
81
81
108
81
81
81
(continued)
00
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Paraldehyde
Pentamethyl-
benzene
m-Propyl-
benzene
Pyridine
Sodium Alkyl-
benzene
Sulfonate
Styrene
Styrene Oxide
1,2,3,4-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
Toluene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 30-50% reduction
IX 74% reduction @ 1000 rag/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Very slowly oxidized
§ 37.5 mg/1
IX 47-86% reduction
@ 500-1000 mg/1
I Slowly oxidized
I 70-100% reduction
V 98-99% reduction
VII >93% reduction
IX 55-97% reduction
@ 20-200 rng/1
IX 95% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
I 74% reduction @ 200 mg/1
I 80% reduction @ 200 mg/1
I @ 200 mg/1, 80% reduction
@ 500 mg/1 very slowly
oxidized
I 48-100% reduction @ 8pg/l
to 500 mg/1; 500 mg/1
was inhibitory
REF
100
35
113
114
35,72
112
100,101
13
27
21,35
72
35
66
66
66,113
56,65,
100,101,
106,108,
114
CHEMICAL
m-Toluidine
Toxaphene
1,2, 3-Trichloro-
benzene
1,2, 4-Trichloro-
benzene
1,3,5-Trichloro-
benzene
2,4, 6-Trichloro-
phenoxyacetic
Acid
2,4, 5-Trichloro-
phenoxypropionic
Acid
2,4,6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
V 73-92% reduction
VII 94-96% reduction
@ 41-44 mg/1
IX 79-98% reduction
@ 0.12-317 mg/1
I 100% reduction
IX >99% reduction @ 155pg/l
I 100% reduction @ 200mg/l
V 50% reduction
VII Extr actable
IX 70-100% reduction
@ 0.1-416 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
I 100% reduction @ 200mg/l
I 100% reduction @ 200mg/l
I 50% reduction @ 53 mg/1
I 99% reduction
@ 107.5 mg/1
IV 80-93% TOC reduction
@ 200 mg/1 TOC
IX Adsorbed
X 99% reduction
@ 81-116 mg/1
REF
13,90
27,90
6,35
90
92
66
66
64,90
90
20,64
90
20
66
66,92
115
115
10
2,40
2,40
(continued)
I-1
vo
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
2,6,6-Tri-
nitro toluene
Xylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
E. ETHERS
bis(2-Chloro-
isopropyl)
Ether
bis(Chloro-
ethyl) Ether
bis (Chlorois-
opropyl ) Ether
Butyl Ether
Dichloroiso-
propyl Ether
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 50-84% reduction @100mg/l
I 92-95 reduction
@ 20-200 ug/1
VII >97% reduction
IX 68-99% reduction
@ 0.14-200 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
III 47-94% reduction
@ 250 mg/1 dependent
upon membrane
IX 100% reduction
VII Extractable
IX 50% reduction @ 94 yg/1
VII Extractable w/ethyl
ether & benzene
IX 100% reduction @ 197 mg/1
IX 100% reduction
@ 1008 mg/1
REF
116
65
27
6,72
113
113
113
18
90
90
90
90
35
35
CHEMICAL
Diethyl Ether
Diethylene Glycol
Monobutyl Ether
Diethylene Glycol
Monoethyl Ether
Ethoxytriglycol
Ethylene Glycol
Monobutyl Ether
Ethylene Glycol
Monethyl Ether
Ethylene Glycol
Monohexyl Ether
Acetate
Ethylene Glycol
Monohexyl Ether
Ethylene Glycol
Monomethyl Ether
Ethyl Ether
Isopropyl Ether
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
III 9.5-90% reduction
@ 1000 mg/1 dependent
upon membrane
IX 83% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
IX 44% reduction @ 1010 mg/1
IX 70% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
IX 56% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
IX 31% reduction @ 1022 mg/1
IX 66% reduction @ 100 mg/1
IX 87% reduction @ 975 mg/1
IX 14% reduction @ 1024 mg/1
III <20-100% reduction
@ 1000 mg/1 dependent
upon membrane
I 70-95% reduction
IX 80% reduction @ 1023 mg/1
REF
18
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
30
56, IOC
101
35
(continued)
to
o
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
F. HALOCAKBONS
Bromochloro-
me thane
Bromodichloro-
me thane
Bromoform
Bromome thane
Carbon Tetra-
chloride
Chloral
Chloral
Hydrate
Chloroe thane
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX Adsorbed
V Air & steam strippable
VII Soluble in most organics
IX Adsorbed
X Adsorbed @ 2 mg/1
I 100% reduction
@ 0.4-1.9 ug/1
IX 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
X 100% reduction @ 100yg/l
/ Air strippable
/II Soluble in most organics
CX Adsorbed
C 100% reduction @ 177 pg/1
El 51% reduction @ 144 pg/1
w/alum
CX Adsorbed
X Adsorbed
V Steam strippable @693mg/l
/II 49% reduction @15,200mg/l
V 90% reduction by air
stripping
VII Extractable w/alcohol &
aromatic s
IX Adsorbed
REP
21
90
90
21,46
46
65
20,46
20,46
90
90
90
21
21
6,21,90
32
95
27
90
90
90
CHEMICAL
Chloroethylene
Chloroform
Chlorome thane
)ibromochloro-
ne thane
)ichlorodifluoro-
me thane
3ichloroethane
L,l,-Dichloro-
ethane
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
V Air strippable
VII Soluble in most
organics
IX Adsorbed
V Steam strippable
@ 140 mg/1
IX Adsorbed
X Adsorbed
V Air strippable
VII Soluble in most
organics
V Air & steam strippable
VII Extractable w/organics
ether, & alcohols
IX Adsorbed
X Adsorbed
VII Extractable w/organics
ethers, & alcohols
IX Adsorbed @ 12 yg/1
V 90% reduction w/air
stripping
VII Extractable w/alcohols
& aromatics
IX Adsorbed
X Adsorbed
REF
90
90
90
95
21,46
32,46
90
90
90
90
21,46
90
46
90
6,21
90
90
46,90
46
^,,mJ \
(O
H
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
1,2-Dichloro-
e thane
(also see
Ethylene
Bichloride)
Dichloroethy-
lene
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene
1,2-Dichloro-
ethylene
1,2-trans-Di-
chloroethy-
lene
Dichlorofluo-
rome thane
3ichloro-
ne thane
L,2-Dichloro-
propane
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Reduced
V Air & steam strippable
VII Extractable w/alcohol
& aromatics
IX 81% reduction @1000mg/l
X Adsorbed
VII >99% reduction @1500ppm;
Kerosene & CIQ-C^ ef-
fective solvents
V Air S steam strippable
VII Extractable w/alcohols,
aromatics, S ethers
IX Adsorbed
IX Adsorbed
X Adsorbed
V Air & steam strippable
VII Soluble in most
organics
IX Adsorbed
IX Adsorbed
V 90% reduction w/air
stripping. Steam strip-
pable @ 800 mg/1
VII Soluble in most
organics
IX Adsorbed
V Air & steam strippable
REF
65
90,95
90
90
46
27,95
90,95
90
90
46
46
90
90
90
90
90,95
90
90
90
CHEMICAL
1,2-Dichloro-
propane ( cont)
1,2-Dichloro-
propylene
Ethylene Chloride
Ethylene Chloro-
hydrin
Ethylene Dichlo-
ride
(also see
1; 2-Dichloro-
e thane)
Hexachlorobuta-
diene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
VII Soluble in most
organics
IX 93% reduction
@ 1000 mg/1
V Air & steam strippable
VII Soluble in most
organics
IX Adsorbed
VII Kerosene and CiQ-Ci2
organics effective
solvents
VII 21% reduction
@ 1640 mg/1
V 99% reduction
@ 8700 mg/1
VII 94-100% reduction
@ 23-1804 mg/1 w/kero-
sene & Cjg-C^
organics
IX 81% reduction
@ 1000 mg/1
X Adsorbed
V Air & steam strippable
VII Soluble in most
•
organics
IX 100% reduction
@i nn u/-r /i
JLUU My/ -i-
X 100% reduction
@ 100 Mg/1
REF
90
90
90
90
90
95
27
66,95
95
35,95
32
90
90
20
20
to
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Hexachlorocy-
clopentadiene
Hexachloro-
e thane
Methylene
Chloride
Pentachloro-
ethane
Perchloro-
ethylene
Propylene
Dichloride
Tetrachloro-
e thane
1,1,1,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetra-
chloroe thane
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
V Polymerizes w/heat
VII Extractable w/aromatics,
alcohols, & ethers
IX 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
I 80-88% reduction
@ 10-430 yg/1
IX 73% reduction @ 190 yg/1
VII 100% reduction w/kero-
sene solvent @ 10 mg/1
V Steam strippable
@ 15 mg/1
VII Extractable w/kerosene
& CiQ-Ci2 solvents
IX 93% reduction @ 1000 mg/1
VII Kerosene & Cin-Cio
J. U i £-
organics provided 95%
IX 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
V Steam strippable
@ 513 mg/1
V Difficult to steam strip
VII Extractable w/aromatics,
alcohols, & ethers
IX Adsorbed
REF
90
90
20
20
65
6
95
95
95
35
95
20
20
95
95
90
90
CHEMICAL
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
me thane
Tribromome thane
Trichloroacetic
Acid
Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloro-
ethane
1,1,2-Trichloro-
ethane
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
V 90% reduction by air
& steam stripping
VII Soluble in most organics
IX Adsorbed
X Adsorbed
V 90% reduction by air
s steam stripping
VII Soluble in most organics
V Air & steam strippable
VII Soluble in most organics
IX Adsorbed
III 25-49% reduction
@ 250 mg/1 dependent
upon membrane
VII 97-99% reduction
w/kerosene & CiQ-C\2
solvents
I >90% reduction
@ 8-79 ng/1
V Air & steam strippable
VII Extractable w/alcohols
& aromatics
IX Adsorbed
X Adsorbed @ 551 ug/1
I <99% reduction
@ 1305 yg/1
V Air & steam strippable
REF
90
90
46,90
46
90
90
90
90
21,90
18
95
65
90,95
90
90
46
58
90,95
(continued)
K)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roe thane ( cont)
Trichloro-
ethylene
Prichlorofluo-
rome thane
rrichloro-
ne thane
L,2,3-Tri-
:hloropropane
7inyl Chloride
Vinylidene
Chloride
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
VII Extractable w/aromatics
methanol, & ether
IX Adsorbed
I 99% reduction
@ 78-214 pg/1
II 40% reduction @ 103pg/l
w/alum
V Air & steam strippable
VII 75% reduction w/kero-
sene & CIQ-C^ solvents
IX 99% reduction @ 21 jjg/1
VII Extractable w/alcohols
& ethers
IX Adsorbed
V Air & steam strippable
VII Soluble in most
organ ics
IX 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction § 100pg/l
I 100% reduction @ 8 jjg/1
VII 92% reduction w/kerosene
& Ci0-Cj2 solvents
@ 13 mg/1
REF
90
90
21,65
21
95
90,95
6,90
90
90
90
90
20
20
65
95
CHEMICAL
G. METALS
Antimony
Arsenic
4-5
Arsenic (As )
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
II 28,62,65% reduction
@ 600 pg/1 w/alum, lime
ferric chloride coagu-
lants
II 76-90% reduction @5mg/l
w/ferric sulfate & lime
coagulants
IX No reduction @ 1.1 pg/1
XII 96% reduction @ 25 mg/1
w/silicon alloy adsor-
bent
II 94-97% reduction
@ 21-25 mg/1 w/alum &
lime coagulant
I Inhibitory @ >100 mg/1
II 36-99% reduction
@ 0.08-5 mg/1 w/lime,
alum, ferric sulfate
III 87-99% reduction
@ 0.8-9.2 mg/1
IX No reduction @ 32 yg/1
II 98-99% reduction
@ 100 pg/1 w/alum, lime
S ferric chloride
II 94-96% reduction
@ 600 pg/1 w/alum, lime
& ferric chloride
REF
39
63,64
64
90
109
39,63
64
18
64
39,90
39
m., 3 \
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Cadmium
Chromic Acid
Chromium
Chromium
(Cr )
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Inhibitory @ 1-10 mg/1
II 45-98% reduction @ 9yg/l-
5 mg/1 w/lime, ferric
chloride & ferric sulfate
III 90-99% reduction
@ 0.1-1.0 mg/1
VI Foam fractionation
w/sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
IX 6-37% reduction
@ 1.8-29 pg/1
XII 96% reduction @ 25 mg/1
w/silicon alloy
adsorbent
III 85% reduction @ 200 mg/1
I 27-78% reduction
@ 0.8-4 mg/1
II 27-54% reduction
@ 0.1-5 mg/1 w/lime
III 85-98% reduction
@ 1-12 mg/1
VI Reduction possible using
quartenary ammonium salts
IX 37-43% reduction
@ 41-84 yg/1
XII 100% reduction @ 300mg/l
w/high clay soil
adsorbent
I Complete removal
REF
65,90,
109
39,63,
64
18
90
64,82
90
24
122
16,64
18
90
64
90
123
CHEMICAL
+3
Chromium (Cr )
(cont)
+6
Chromium (Cr )
Cobalt
Copper
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
II 98-99% reduction
@ 0.7-5 mg/1 w/ferric
sulfate, lime, & fer-
ric chloride
IX 5-48% reduction
@ 100 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 100 mg/1
II 22-65% reduction
@ 0.7-5mg/l w/ferric
sulfate, lime & fer-
ric chloride
IX 16-36% reduction
@ 100 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ 0.08 mg/1
II 18-91% reduction
@ 500-800 mg/1
I 7-77% reduction
@ 0.2-10 mg/1; reported
to be inhibitory
@ >0.5 mg/1
II 67-98% reduction
@ 0.2-15 mg/1 w/alura,
lime, ferric sulfate
coagulants
III 95-100% reduction
@ 0.6-12 mg/1
IV 82% reduction @0.44mg/l
VI Foam fractionation
w/sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
IX 8-96% reduction @ 0.05-
REF
39,63
72
109
39,63
72
124
39
118,122
124,125
16,37,
63,64,
90
18
59
90
64,72
100 mg/1 (continued)
Ln
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Copper (cont)
Iron
Iron (Fe+2)
Iron (Fe+3)
Lead
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
XII 96-100% reduction
@ 300 mg/1 w/silicon
alloy & high clay soil
adsorbents
I 62% reduction @ 0.6mg/l
soluble iron
II 26-99% reduction
(§0.2-10 mg/1 w/lime &
ferric chloride
coagulants
III 100% reduction @ 12 mg/1
IV 85% reduction @ 6.8 mg/1
IX 45-68% reduction
@ 40-207 ng/1
I Inhibitory @ > 100 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ >100 mg/1
I Inhibitory @ >10 mg/1
II 43-99% reduction
@ 0.02-5 mg/1 w/lime,
ferric sulf ate, & alum
coagulants
III 98-100% reduction
@ 0.9-12 mg/1
VI Foamfractionation w/sod-
ium dodecylbenzene
sulf ate
IX 13-93% reduction
@ 100 mg/1; no reductior
@ 5-22 pg/1
XII 96% reduction w/silicon
alloy adsorbent; red-
wood bark also tried
REF
90
126
16,63,
64
18
59
64
109
109
109,124
39,63,
64,90
18
90
64,72
90
CHEMICAL
Manganese
fercury
tolybdenum
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Conflicting data;
>10 mg/1 inhibited
while 12-50 mg/1 also
reported to stimulate
II 18-98% reduction
@ 0.04-5 mg/1 w/lime &
ferric sulf ate coagu-
lants
IV 89% reduction© 4. 9mg/l
IX 1-50% reduction
@ 0.002-100 mg/1
I Conflicting data; 51-
58% reduction @5-10mg/l
& inhibitory @ any
concentration
II 25-98% reduction
@ 0.001-5 mg/1 w/lime
& ferric chloride
coagulants
VII 99% reduction @ 2 mg/1
w/high molecular weigh;
amines & quartenary
salts
IX 80-99% reduction
@ 0.001-100 mg/1 w/GAC
& PAC plus chelating
agent
XII >99% reduction using
silicon alloy adsorbent
II No reduction w/alum &
lime; 68% reduction
w/ferric chloride
REF
109,12^
39,63
59
64,72
127,13:
39,63,
64
90
64,72
87,90
90
39
@ 600 pg/1 (continued)
cr*
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
10
CHEMICAL
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 0-42% reduction
@ 0.3-10 mg/1
II 10-100% reduction
@ 0.9-5 mg/1 w/alum,
lime, & ferric sulfate
III 93-97% reduction
@ 12 mg/1
IX 4-52% reduction@100mg/l
II 0-80% reduction
@ 0.002-100 mg/1 w/lime,
alum, & ferric chloride
coagulants
IX 96% reduction @ 500 mg/1
after GAC & lime
precipitation
II 38-98% reduction
@ 0.006-500 mg/1 w/lime,
alum, & ferric chloride
coagulants
I No affect @ 5-50 ng/1
II 30-60% reduction
@ 500 pg/1 w/lime, alum,
& ferric chloride
coagulants
IX 84% reduction after GAC
& lime precipitation
II 92-98% reduction
@ 500 vg/1 w/lime, alum.
& ferric chloride
coagulants
KEF
118,122,
125.128,
1^9
16,39,
63,90
18
72
39,64,
90
90
39,64
90
124
39,90
90
39
CHEMICAL
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
PROCESS - TREATABILITY.
II 96-98% reduction
@ 500 Mg/1 w/lime, alum,
& ferric chloride
coagulants
II 57-97% reduction
@ 500 pg/1 w/lime, aluir
& ferric chloride
coagulants
I Reported to be inhibi-
tory @ 0.08-1 mg/1;
also 13-91% reduction
reported @ 0.3-10 mg/1
II 1% reduction w/alum;
37-100% reduction
@ 0.3-5 mg/1 w/lime &
ferric chloride
coagulants
III 97-100% reduction
@ 9-32 mg/1
IV 79% reduction© 1.8 mg/1
IX 61-81% reduction
<§ 0.4-0.6 mg/1
XII 99% reduction @ 10 mg/1
w/silicon oxide & cal-
cium oxide slags as
absorbents
REF
39
39
90,109
118,122
124,128
131
16,39,
63,64
90
18
59
64
90
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
I. PCB's
Arochlor 1242
Arochlor 1254
Arochlor 1254
and 1260
PCB ' s
(unspecified)
J. PESTICIDES
Aldrin
Aminotriazole
Atrazine
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX 98-99% reduction @45pg/l
IX 94-99% reduction
@ 11-160 pg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 23-60% reduction
@ 1-25 pg/1
XII 73% reduction w/PVC
chips; 37% reduction
w/polyurethane foam
adsorbent
IX 100% reduction
@ 1-400 pg/1
I Not significantly
degraded
III 100% reduction
IX 98-100% reduction
@8-100 yg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
I Not significantly
degraded
III 84-98% reduction
REF
8,22,38,
66
8,20,22,
38,66
20,22
57
57
6
121
18
6,8,20,
38
20
121
18
CHEMICAL
Atrazine (cont)
Cap tan
Chlordane
Chlorinated
Pesticides
(unspecified)
2,4-D Butyl ester
2,4-D & related
herbicides
2,4-D-Isoctyl-
ester
ODD
DDE
DDT
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
X 100% reduction@100pg/l
III 99-100% reduction
@ 689 pg/1
I Slightly degraded
IX 97-100% reduction
@ 13-1430 pg/1
X 79% reduction
@ 33-118 mg/1
IX 100% reduction @ lOOpg/]
X 100% reduction @ 100pg/3
X >95% reduction
@ 20-1500 pg/1
I Biodegradable
IX 99.8% reduction @ 56pg/l
III 100% reduction
IX >97% reduction @ 38 pg/i
I Not significantly
degraded
II 98% reduction @ 10 pg/1
w/alum coagulant
III 100% reduction
IX >99% reduction
@ 10-100 pg/1
X. 100% reduction @ 100pg/l
I rtr-vtrt- "i
REF
20
18
121
6
49
20
20
32
121
3,38,66
18
B"D o £. a
, 38 ,66
121
6
18
6,8,20
38,66
20
nil A/3^
10
oo
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
DDVP
Diazinon
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin &
Heptachlor
Per bam
Heptachlor
Heptachlor-
epoxide
Herbicides
(unspecified)
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
Degraded
Not significantly
degraded
II 88-98% reduction
Not significantly
degraded
I 55% reduction @ 10 yg/1
w/alum coagulant
II 100% reduction
IX 75-100% reduction
@ 19r60 pg/1
I Not significantly
degraded
II 35% reduction @ 10 yg/1
w/alum coagulant
IX 80-99% reduction
@ 10-62 yg/1
K >97% reduction
@ 0.1-2 mg/1
I Biodegradable
I Slightly degraded
@ 500 mg/1
III 100% reduction
EX >99% reduction @ 6-80)jg/l
III 99.8% reduction
IX 90-99% TOC reduction
REF
92
92,121
18
121
6
18
6,8,38,
66
121
6
6,8,38,
66
32
121
121
18
6
18
38
CHEMICAL
Herbicide Orange
Kepone
Lindane
Malathion
Maneb
Methyl Parathion
Parathion
Pentachlorophenol
(Also see phenols
Propoxur
Randox
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 77% reduction @1380mg/l
IX 100% reduction
§ 4000 Mg/1
I Not significantly
degraded
II <10% reduction @ 10 ug/1
w/alum coagulant
III >99% reduction
IX 30->99% reduction
@ 10 yg/1
I Not significantly
degraded
III >99% reduction
I Biodegradable
I Not significantly
degraded
III >99% reduction
I Not significantly
degraded
II 5% reduction @ 10 yg/1
w/alum
III >99% reduction
IX >99% reduction @ lOyg/
I Not significantly
degraded @ 75-150 mg/1
I Biodegradable
III 72-99% reduction
( iT\r\ +• i
REF
81
6
121
6
18
6
92,121
18
121
92,121
18
92,121
6
18
6
121
92
18
YMH^J^ i
M
10
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Tetraethyl
Py ropho spha te
Thanite
Toxaphene
2,4,5-1 ester
2,4,5-Tri-
chlorophenoxy-
acetic Acid
Trifluralin
Ziram
Zireb
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Not significantly
degraded
I Biodegradable
IX 97-99% reduction
@ 36-155 pg/1
X >99% reduction
@ 70-2600 pg/1
II 65% reduction @ 10 pg/1
w/alum coagulant
IX 80-95% reduction
@ 10 pg/1
I Slightly degraded
@ 150 mg/1-99% reduction
after 7.5 days aeration
III 100% reduction
I Slightly degraded
I Slightly degraded
REF
121
121
6,8,38
32
6
6
115
18
121
121
CHEMICAL
K. PHENOLS
Bisphenol A
Brine phenol
Butyl Phenol
4-Chloro-3-
Methylphenol
2-Chloro-4-
Nitrophenol
Chlorophenol
m-Chlorophenol
2-Chlorophenol
o-Chlorophenol
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
X >94% @ 900 mg/1 when pH
adjusted
X 99% reduction of phenol
@ 10-400 mg/1
IX 95% reduction @ 300 pg/1
I Toxic @ 50-100 mg/1
Inhibitory but slowly
degradable @ <50 mg/1
VII Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol, & nitrobenzene
IX 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pgA
I 72% reduction
V Steam strippable
I 100% reduction @ 200 rag/]
X Adsorbed
I 90-95% reduction
@ 150-200 mg/1
III 66% reduction
VII Extractable w/diisopro-
pylether, benzene,
butylacetate, & nitro-
benzene
I 96-100% reduction
REF
23
33
6
90,
102
90
20
20
81
90
66
66
90
90
90
66,81
@ 200 mg/1
(continued)
OJ
o
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
p-Chlorophenol
Cresol
m-Cresol
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
2,4-Diaminp-
phenol
2 , 4-Dibromo-
phenol
Dichlorophenol
2,3-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,5-Dichloro-
phenol
2,6-Dichloro-
phenol
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 96-100% reduction
@ 200 mg/1
IX 96% reduction @ 230 yg/1
I 96% reduction
VII 91% reduction @ 291 mg/1
I 95% reduction
VII 90-99% reduction
@ 307-890 mg/1
I 96% reduction
/II 91% reduction @ 291 mg/1
E 83% reduction
K Adsorbed
< Adsorbed
IX 100% reduction @ 100 yg/l
X 100% reduction § 100 yg/l
I 98-100% reduction
@ 60-200 yg/l
X 100% reduction @ 430 mg/1
XII Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol, & nitrobenzene
I 100% reduction @ 200 mg/1
1 99% reduction § 64 mg/1
REP
66,81
6
81
27
81
27
81
27
81
33
33
20
20
81,90,
115
66
90
66
115
CHEMICAL
Dimethylphenol
2, 3 -Dime thy 1-
phenol
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
2,5-Dimethyl-
phenol
2,6-Dimethyl-
phenol
3 , 4-Dimethyl-
phenol
3,5-Dimethyl-
phenol
4 , 6-Dinitro-2-
Methylphenol
2 , 4-Dinitrophenol
B-Napthol
m-Nitrophenol
o-Nitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX >99% reduction
@ 1220 yg/l
I 96% reduction
I 94% reduction
VII Extractable w/benzene
& alcohol
I 94% reduction
I 94% reduction
I 98% reduction
I 89% reduction
IX 100% reduction @ lOOpg/]
VII Extractable w/benzene
& acetone
I 85% reduction
VII Extractable w/benzene
& alcohol
IX Adsorbed
X 100% reduction @ lOOyg/1
I 95% reduction
I 97-98% reduction
VII Extractable w/benzene
& alcohol
REF
6
81
81
90
81
81
81
81
20
90
81,117
90
21
20
81
58,81
90
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
p-Nitrophenol
4 -N i tr ophe nol
Nonylphenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
Phenol
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 95-99% reduction
X >99% reduction
@ 700-1800 mg/1
III Removable
VII Extractable w/benzene
& alcohol
IX Adsorbed
I 26% reduction @ 200 mg/1
VII Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol & nitrobenzene
IX 100% reduction @ 10 mg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
I 62-100% reduction @ 5-
500 mg/1; reported to be
inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
III -6 - 100% reduction
@ 1-1000 mg/1 dependent
upon membrane
IV 75% reduction @ l-100mg/l
V Steam strippable
VII 4-98% reduction
@ 67-8800 mg/1
IX 80-100% reduction
@ 0.1-1200 mg/1
X >99% reduction
@ 500-5000 mg/1
REF
58,81
23,33
90
90
21
66,92
90
6,21
20
58,66,
88,90,
92,106,
108,118,
119
18,30
54,90
54
90
27,90
6,20,21
35,38,
72,90,
23,33
CHEMICAL
p-Phenylazophenol
Resorcinol
Sodium Pentachlo-
rophenol
2,3, 5-Trichloro-
phenol
2,4,5-Trichloro-
phenol
2,4, 6-Trichloro-
phenol
Trimethylphenol
Xylenol
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
IX 100% reduction @100yg/l
X 100% reduction @100yg/l
I No reduction @ 15 mg/1
I 100% reduction @2 OOmg/1
I 99% reduction @ 19 mg/1
I 100% reduction @ 20-
200 mg/1; reported to
be inhibitory @ 50-
200 mg/1
VII Extractable. w/benzene,
alcohol, nitrobenzene
IX 100% reduction @100pg/l
X 100% reduction
@ 0.1-510 mg/1
IX 92% reduction @ 130 yg/J
VII 96% reduction @ 227 rag/]
REF
108
20
20
120
66,92
115
66,90,
102,115
90
20
20,66
6
27
-_. j \
w
to
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
L. PHTHALATES
Bis(2-Ethyl-
hexyl) Phtha-
late
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
Dibutyl
Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl
Phthalate
Diethyl
Phthalate
Diethylhexyl
Phthalate
Di(2-ethyl-
hexyl) Phtha-
late
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I 70-78% reduction @ 5mg/l
II 80-90% reduction @ 0.5-
3.5 ng/1 w/aluminum
sulfate coagulant
VII Extractable w/ethyl
ether & benzene
IX >98% reduction @ 1300ng/l
I Biodegradable
VII Extractable w/ethyl
ether & benzene
IX 100% reduction @ 100 fig/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 yg/1
I Biodegradable @ 200 mg/1
[I 60-70% reduction
@ 2.5-4.5 pg/1 w/alumi-
nura sulfate
VII Extractable w/ethyl
ether & benzene
[I Biodegradable
>/II Extractable w/ethyl
ether & benzen
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
[ 50-70% reduction
REF
90
90
90
5,90
90
90
20 -
20
90
90
90
90
90
20
100
CHEMICAL
Dimethyl Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl
Phthalate
Isophthalic Acid
Phthalimide
Phthalic Acid
M. POLYNUCLEAR AR
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Qegradable; 100% re-
duction @ 215 pg/1
II 15% reduction @ 183pg/l
w/alum
VII Extractable w/ethyl
ether & benzene
IX 100% reduction @100yg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
I Biodegradable @ 63 mg/1
VII Extractable w/ethyl
ether & benzene
I 95% reduction
I 96% reduction
I 97% reduction
)MATICS
X 100% reduction @100pg/
II Precipitated w/alum
II Precipitated w/alum
I Toxic @ 500 mg/1
VII Extractable w/toluene
REF
21,90
21
90
20
20
90
90
81
81
81
20
90
90
108
90
u>
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
CHEMICAL
Benzanthracene
11,12-Benzo-
f luoranthene
Benzoperylene
1,12-Benzo-
perylene
Benzo(a) -
pyrene
Biphenyl
D-Chloram-
phenicol
2-Chloro-
napthalene
Chrysene
Cumene
a,ot-Diethyl-
stilbenediol
9,10-Dimethyl-
anthracene
9,10-Dimebhyl-
1, 2-benzan-
thracene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
I Slowly oxidized @ 500mg/l
II Separable by gravity or
sand filtration
II Separable by gravity or
sand filtration
I Biodegradable
II Separable by gravity or
sand filtration
II Separable by gravity or
sand filtration
IX 100% reduction § 100 pg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
I 86% reduction
II Precipitated w/alum
II Separable by gravity &
sand filtration
IX 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
X 100% reduction @ 100 pg/1
I Inhibitory
I Degradable @ 500 mg/1
I Slowly oxidized
@ 500 mg/1
REF
108
90
90
90
90
90
20
20
81
90
90
20
20
108
108
108
CHEMICAL
Dime thy Inaptha-
lene
1,1,-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
1,2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
Fluoranthrene
7-Methyl-l,l-
benzanthracene
20-Methylchol-
anthrene
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
2 , 3-o-Phenylene
Pyrene
Pyrene
PROCESS - TREATABILITY
IX 80% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
IX Adsorbed
I 28% reduction @ 341pg/l
IX 80% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
I Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
I Toxic or inhibitory;
able to undergo slow
biological oxidation
@ 500 mg/1
I 85-95% reduction;
Inhibitory @ 500 mg/1
II Separable by gravity
or sand filtration
V Air strippable by 50:1
volume of air
IX 70% reduction
IX 80% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
II Separable by gravity
or sand filtration
II Separable by gravity
or sand filtration
IX 80% reduction @ 100pg/l
X 100% reduction @100pg/l
REF
20
20
31
81
20
20
108
108
56,101,
108
90
90
31,64
26
20
90
90
20
20
-------
SECTION 4
WASTE STREAM IDENTIFICATION
AND CHARACTERIZATION
PROBLEM TYPES
One of the early activities undertaken in this project was
an effort to identify actual hazardous aqueous waste problems
faced by the public sector which might benefit from the applica-
tion of concentration technology. This effort was accomplished
primarily through personal contacts with governmental entities
and companies involved in hazardous waste management since little
published information existed. Appendix A contains a list of
entities contacted. In many cases there were several contacts
within the entity listed.
Individuals contacted were queried about major problems known
to them in terms of hazardous materials in aqueous solutions and
specifically, priority pollutants. The predominant response was
that discharge from waste storage and disposal sites were the
biggest problem.
Responders indicated that these discharges, generally leach-
ate, were becoming more numerous and severe, and will become more
prevalent as wastewater pretreatment regulations are enforced and
greater volumes of residues containing concentrated hazardous
materials are produced. Because of the current deficiency in the
number of controlled landfills, many sludges and hazardous mate-
rials will not receive adequate disposal, and additional dis-
charge and leachate problems can be expected.
Even though there is no such thing as a typical hazardous
waste problem, and each site is unique, problems generally can
be grouped into three broad categories: 1) land disposal sites;
2) container storage and disposal sites; and 3) lagoons.
Land disposal sites range from simple dumps to fully secured
chemical landfills, and can be actively operated or abandoned
and inactive. Although there are landfills devoted exclusively
to industrial wastes, many co-dispose municipal and industrial
liquids, sludges and solid wastes together. Responsibilities
and assignment of potential liabilities for active landfills are
fairly clear, but for inactive or abandoned sites responsibility
35
-------
usually devolves to some governmental entity.
Container storage and disposal sites represent a considerable
problem. Only recently has the magnitude and potential danger
been recognized. In some cases, containers have been breached
and concentrated wastes flowed into surface and ground waters.
This has been a cause for grave concern, because some container
disposal sites encompass many acres and thousands of barrels,
drums, tanks, etc. Many containers are in various stages of
progressive failure, thus constituting potential problems of
enormous magnitude and complexity. For example, conjunctive dis-
posal of containers of corrosive, reactive, flammable, and toxic
materials could result in breaching in "domino" fashion if there
is failure and leakage from very few. Examples of such situa-
tions have been uncovered during the interviews. In one case,
excavation of buried drums ceased after several underground
detonations.
Most lagoons which cause problems are unlined. Evidence
that the integrity of a disposal lagoon has been breached is
found as ground or surface water contamination. Such contamina-
tion occurs by: 1) vertical percolation, 2) overland flow, or
3) flood flushing. In the case of vertical percolation, wastes
are transported through the porous lagoon bottom, through the
soil vadose zone, and into the ground water table. Overland
flow involves a combination of horizontal percolation and chron-
ic lagoon overflows to surface water. In contrast, flood flush-
ing entails acute release of lagoon contents because of an ex-
treme rainfall event or dike failure.
Occasional discharges of hazardous wastes to municipal sew-
erage systems have been reported. These generally resulted from
spill incidents, either accidental or intentional. While some
such discharges have been porblems, those interviewed regarded
the leachate and discharge problem as being far more important.
Three other potentially significant problems were considered
for inclusion in this project: 1) drum and container contents,
2) waste-contaminated lagoon contents, and 3) sludges. In the
first two instances, although neither is dilute, often the wastes
can be concentrated further. On the other hand, sludges were
deemed important to this project only in terms of the degree to
which they are leached or their liquid component drains to ground
and/or surface water.
Upon consideration of all of the available information, it
was decided to focus primarily on leachate and contaminated
ground and surface waters associated with hazardous waste
disposal sites. This decision largely was based upon the fact
that leachate contamination is believed by knowledgeable indi-
viduals to be the largest and most pressing of the cited prob-
lems. Moreover, little available data exists on leachate
36
-------
treatment for hazardous waste repositories and industrial dis-
posal sites. Thus, this project can contribute to plugging the
information gap.
WASTE STREAM COMPOSITION
Having set the focus of the project on leachates, and con-
taminated ground and surface waters, an effort was launched to
obtain composition data on known problem sites. This effort was
complicated by several factors: 1) little published information
exists, 2) record-keeping and reporting procedures for hazardous
waste problems are sketchy, 3) actual or potential litigation
causes data to be restricted, 4) because of lack of funding only
the most severe problems have received attention, and 5) high
analytical costs associated with specific organic compound iden-
tification often causes measurement and reporting of surrogate
parameters such as TOC, COD, and BOD.
Despite the above cited problems, it was possible to obtain
composition data on leachates, and contaminated ground and sur-
face waters in the proximity of 27 sites containing hazardous
wastes. Much of the obtained data is unpublished.
Because of the large quantity of data, this information is
summarized in Appendix B, Table B-l. In addition to data on the
27 sites, this table contains summary data on 43 industrial dis-
posal sites which were surveyed in a previous study (127). There
is a wide variation from site to site in the detail and complete-
ness of the data contained in Table B-l since relatively few
waste streams have been well characterized. Nevertheless, this
data compilation represents the best available information and
is believed to be one of the most complete available at this
time.
Study of the compiled data shows that wastes encountered are
diverse in terms of composition and concentration. Some contain
a broad spectrum of organic and inorganic materials, while oth-
ers may have only a limited number of compounds. A wide vari-
ability in waste composition is observed from site to site.
Moreover, waste composition often is highly variable at any giv-
en site with respect to both time and location.
WASTE CONSTITUENT CLASSIFICATION
Because of the large number of chemicals and possible combi-
nations and permutations of constituents in hazardous waste
streams, it would be desirable to employ predictive techniques
to forecast the behavior of chemicals present in such waste
streams. Unfortunately, no proven method exists to accurately
predict the removability of all of the potential chemical
37
-------
constituents of hazardous aqueous waste streams.
Nevertheless, some grouping or classification of waste
stream constituents was deemed desirable to extend the useful-
ness of the data and facilitate the evaluation of concentration
technology. Therefore, a contaminant classification system was
formulated as given in Table 2. This classification system was
based upon the twelve groups of compounds that were used to
classify the 129 priority pollutants that resulted from the 1976
Flannery Consent Decree (NRDC vs. Train, June 1976). The
slightly modified categories given in Table 2 were considered a
better reflection of compounds actually detected at identified
hazardous waste contamination sites. All of the identified con-
stituents of the actual hazardous waste streams given in Table
B-l have been classified according to this system. The results
of this classification effort together with an indication of the
frequency of identification of each constituent is given in
Table 3. The number of different sites where compounds in each
classification were identified is given below:
Alcohol 2
Aliphatic 4
Amine 2
Aromatic 8
Halocarbon 9
Metal 15
Miscellaneous 11
PCB 2
Pesticide 7
Phenol 7
Phthalate 2
Polynuclear Aromatic 5
This classification system was used to aid in the technolo-
gy screening effort as described in a subsequent section of this
report.
38
-------
TABLE 2
CONTAMINANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
1. Alcohol
2. Aliphatic
3. Amine
4. Aromatic - nonhalogenated and halogenated aromatic
compounds
5. Ether
6. Halocarbon - halogenated aliphatic compounds
7. Metal
8. Miscellaneous - including selected priority pollutants,
pH, BOD, TOC, COD, chloride, sulfate,
phosphate, and other parameters
generally used to characterize
wastewaters
9. PCB
10. Pesticide
11. Phenol - including chloro and nitro phenols
12. Phthalate
13. Polynuclear Aromatic
39
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY LIST OF CONTAMINANTS REPORTED
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Alcohol
Aliphatic
Amine
Aromatic
CONTAMINANT
Chlorobenzyl alcohol
Ethanol
2-ethylhexanol
Isopropanol
Methanol
Acetone
Dicyclopentadiene
Diisopropylmethylphosphonate
2-ethylhexanol
3-heptanone
Hexachlorocylohexane*
alpha isomer*
beta isomer*
gamma isomer*
delta isomer*
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Paraffins
Pinene
benzylamine or o-toluidine
n-nitrosodiphenylamine
m-acetonylanisola
Aniline
Benzaldehyde
Benzene *
Benzene hexachloride
Benzoic acid
Camphene
Camphor
Chloraniline
o-chloroaniline
CONCENTRATION
RANGE REPORTED
P
56.4 mg/1
19,000 - 23,000 pg/1
<0.1 mg/1
42.4 mg/1
50.3 mg/1
80 - 1200 pg/1
400 - 3600 pg/1
ND - 4500 pg/1
ND - 1300 pg/1
ND - 600 pg/1
ND - 70 pg/1
ND - 600 pg/1
ND - 120 pg/1
2000 pg/1
P
P
<10 - 471 pg/1
190 pg/1
<3 - 1357 pg/1
140 - 870 pg/1
P
6 - 7370 pg/1
P
<3 - 12,311 pg/1
P
<10 - 7571 pg/1
<10 - 86 pg/1
ND - 360 pg/1
NO. OF SITES
REPORTED
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
CONTAMINANT
CONCENTRATION
RANGE REPORTED
NO. OF SITES
REPORTED
Aromatic
(continued)
Chlorobenzaldehyde
Chlorobenzene*
4-chloro-3-nitro benzamide
p-chloronitrobenzene
Chloronitrotoluene
p-chlorophenyl methyl
sulfide
p-chlorophenyl methyl
sulfone
p-chlorophenyl methyl
sulfoxide
2,6-dichlorobenzamide
Dichlorobenzene*
Dimethyl aniline
m-ethylaniline
Ethyl benzene*
Hexachlorobenzene*
p-isobutylamisola or
p-acetonylanisola
Limonene
Nicotinic acid
o-nitroaniline
p-nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene*
Styrene
Toluene*
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene*
Trimethylbenzene
Xylene
4.6 - 4620 pg/1
440 - 8700 pg/1
460 - 940 yg/1
ND - 460 pg/1
<10 - 68 pg/1
<10 - 40 pg/1
<10 - 53 pg/1
890 - 30,000 pg/1
<10 - 517 pg/1
<10 - 6940 pg/1
<10 - 7640 pg/1
3.0 - 470 pg/1
32 - <100 pg/1
<3 - 86 pg/1
P
P
170,000 - 180,000 pg/1
32,000 - 47,000 pg/1
ND - 740 pg/1
P
<5 - 31,000 pg/1
<10 - 28 pg/1
P
P - 3300 pg/1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
CONTAMINANT
CONCENTRATION
RANGE REPORTED
NO. OF SITES
REPORTED
Halocarbon
ro
Ci, alkyl cyclopentadiene
Bromodichloromethane*
Chloroform*
GS substituted cyclopenta-
diene
Dibromochloromethane*
1,1-dichloroethane*
1,2-dichloroethane*
trans-1,2-dichloroethane*
1,1-dichloroethylene*
1,2-dichloroethylene*
Dichloromethane*
Dichloropropene*
Hexachlorobutadiene*
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene*
Octachlorocyclopentene
Perchloroethylene*
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane*
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethylene*
Tetrachloromethane*
Tribromomethane*
Trichloroethane*
1,1,1-trichloroethane*
1,1,2-trichloroethane*
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethylene*
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Trichloromethane*
Vinyl chloride*
ND - 35 yg/1
0.02 - 4550 yg/1
3.9 yg/1
<5 - 14,280 yg/1
2.3 - 330 yg/1
25 - 8150 yg/1
28 - 19,850 yg/1
0.2 pg/1
3.1 - 6570 yg/1
P
<20 - 109 yg/1
<100 yg/1
<100 yg/1
ND - 1000 yg/1
<5 - 1590 yg/1
<1 - >50,000 yg/1
23 - 590 yg/1
<1 - 25,000 yg/1
0.2 yg/1
P - 490 yg/1
1.6 - 532 yg/1
<5 - 870 yg/1
<3 - 10,000 yg/1
760 - 260,000 yg/1
<5 - 18 yg/1
<1 - <10,000 yg/1
140 - 32,500 yg/1
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
2
4
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
4
2
3
3
1
1
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metal
Miscellaneous
CONTAMINANT
Ag*
Al
As*
Ba
Be*
Bo
Ca
Cd*
Co
Cr*
Cu*
F
Fe
Hg*
K
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni*
Pb*
Sb*
Se*
Zn*
Alkalinity, as CaCo$
BOD 5
Cl
CN
COD
color
Halogenated Organics
CONCENTRATION
RANGE REPORTED
1-10 pg/1
0.124 mg/1
0.011 - >10,000 mg/1
0.1 - 2000 mg/1
0.007 mg/1
0.624 mg/1
164 - 2500 mg/1
0.005 - 8.2 mg/1
0.01 - 0.22 mg/1
<0.001 - 208 mg/1
0.001 - 16 mg/1
0.14 - 1.3 mg/1
0.090 - 678 mg/1
0.0005 - 0.007 mg/1
6.83 - 961 mg/1
25 - 453 mg/1
0.01 - 550 mg/1
0.1 - 0.24 mg/1
4.6 - 1350 mg/1
0.02 - 48 mg/1
0.001 - 19 mg/1
2 mg/1
0.003 - 0.59 mg/1
0.024 - 240 mg/1
20.6 - 5400 mg/1
42 - 10,900 mg/1
3.65 - 9920 mg/1
0.0005 - 14 mg/1
24.6 - 18,600 mg/1
50 - 4000
0.002 - 15.9 mg/1
NO. OF SITES
REPORTED
2
1
6
5
1
1
4
6
1
7
9
1
6
7
3
3
4
3
5
4
6
1
4
10
3
3
6
2
5
1
1
(continued)
U)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
CONTAMINANT
CONCENTRATION
RANGE REPORTED
NO. OF SITES
REPORTED
Miscellaneous
(continued)
Hardness, as
Heavy Organics
Light Organics
MBAS
NH3-N
700 - 4650 mg/1
0.01 - 0.59 mg/1
1.0 - 1000 mg/1
0.24 mg/1
<0.010 - 1000 mg/1
0. 65 mg/1
N02~N
NO3-N
Oil & Grease
PH
<0.010 -
mg/1
SOC
Specific Conductance
SS
Sulfide
TDS
temperature
TKN
TOC
Total Inogranic Carbon
Total P
Total Solids
Aroclor 1016*/1242*
Aroclor 1016*/1242*/1254*
Aroclor 1242*/1254*/1260*
Aroclor 1254*
0.010 - <.l mg/1
90 mg/1
^3 - 7.9
<0.010 - 2.74 mg/1
1.2 - 505 mg/1
4200 mg/1
80 - 2000 mg/1
<3 - 1040 mg/1
<0.1 mg/1
1455 - 15,700 mg/1
58 - 63°F
<1 - 984 mg/1
10.9 - 4300 mg/1
71 mg/1
<0.1 - 3.2 mg/1
1 5 9 - 1730 mg/1
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
7
4
4
1
2
4
1
4
1
4
7
1
2
1
PCB's
110 - 1900 pg/1
66 pg/1 - 1.8 g/1
0.56 - 7.7 pg/1
70 pg/1
1
1
1
1
Pesticide
Aldrin*
Carbofuran
DDT*
Dieldrin*
<2 - <10 yg/1
P
4.28 - 14.26 pg/1
<2 - 4.5 pg/1
2
1
1
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
CONTAMINANT
CONCENTRATION
RANGE REPORTED
NO. OF SITES
REPORTED
Pesticide
(continued)
Endrin*
Heptachlor*
Kepone
Nemagon
<2 - 9 yg/1
573 yg/1
2 mg/1
<1 - 8 yg/1
1
1
1
1
Phenol
Ul
p-2-oxo-n-butylphenol
o-sec-butylphenola
p-sec-butylphenola
2-chlorophenol*
DimethyIphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol*
l-ethylpropylphenola
Isoprophylphenola
o-nitrophenol*
Pentachlorophenol*
Phenol*
Phenols*
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
<3 - 1546 yg/1
<3 - 83 yg/1
<3 - 48 yg/1
3 yg/1 - 20 yg/1
<3 yg/1
10 - 99 yg/1
<3 yg/1
<3 - 8 yg/1
8600 - 12,000 yg/1
2.4 mg/1
<3 - 17,000 yg/1
0.008 - 54.17 yg/1
P
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
Phthalate
Phthalate esters
Phthalates*
P
P
1
1
Polynuclear
Aromatic
Biphenyl napthalene
Methyl napthalene
Napthalene*
Petroleum oil
Phenanthrene* or anthracene
Polynuclear aromatics
<10 - 290 yg/1
<10 - 66 yg/1
P
<10 - 670 yg/1
3400 yg/1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND
P
a
*
not detected
present, but
structure no
Priority PoltLutant
not quantified
; validated by actual compounld
-------
SECTION 5
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION APPROACH
An iterative approach was deemed to be the most effective
means of evaluating technologies with potential application to
concentration of hazardous constituents of aqueous waste streams.
Moreover, although it was recognized that, ultimately, process
trains must be evaluated, it was considered most reasonable to
begin with an examination of unit processes. Thus, unit pro-
cesses were screened in increasing levels of detail until there
was sufficient justification to either reject or carry forward
the process. Technologies which survived the screening then
were incorporated in process trains which were subjected to desk-
top analysis of their ability to treat actual waste streams.
Waste streams were selected from those identified in the pre-
viously described waste stream characterization portion of this
study.
The initial step in the evaluation consisted of identifying
technologies with potential application to concentration of haz-
ardous constituents of aqueous wastes. Thus, early in the pro-
ject, the following list of candidate technologies was
developed:
Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Catalysis
Centrifugation
Chemical Precipitation
Crystallization
Density Separation
Dialysis/Electrodialysis
Distillation
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculation
Ion Exchange
Resin Adsorption
Reverse Osmosis
Solvent Extraction
Stripping
Ultrafiltration
Technology profiles then were prepared for each of the
46
-------
candidate unit processes. The focus of this step was on the
characteristics of the technology without regard to specific
waste streams to be treated. Factors considered in development
of the technology profiles included:
state of development,
range of technology application,
process flexibility,
process reliability,
economic and engineering constraints in technology
modification and application
start-up requirements,
efficiency,
specific limitations,
energy requirements,
form of concentrated material, and
environmental acceptability.
Technology profiles formed the basis for the initial screen-
ing of the applicability of individual technologies to concen-
tration of hazardous constituents of aqueous wastes. At this
point, certain technologies were eliminated from further con-
sideration for reasons discussed in the individual technology
profiles. Remaining technologies were carried forward for more
detailed review.
The next step in the evaluation process was an extensive
literature review which focused on the technologies which sur-
vived the initial screening and upon chemical compounds in the
classes identified in the preceding section of this report as '
having been identified as constituents of actual hazardous
aqueous waste streams.
Since it was evident that no single unit process would be
sufficient in itself to adequately treat the diverse waste
streams in question, five candidate process trains were formu-
lated as being most broadly applicable to the types of waste
streams identified in Table B-l. In addition, two actual waste
stream compositions were selected from this table for use in the
next step in the technology screening. A third waste stream
composition was hypothesized subsequent to examination of all of
the available composition data. It is believed that the three
selected waste stream compositions cover a range of constituents
and concentrations representative of actual problems likely to
be encountered.
A desktop analysis then was performed to assess the ability
of each of the five process trains to treat each of the three
waste streams.
Simultaneously, selected vendors were requested to evaluate
the ability of their technology to adequately treat the three
waste streams in question.
47
-------
The results of these evaluations provide a basis for making
an initial judgment on the applicability of a given concentra-
tion technology to specific situations in the absence of exper-
mental data. In addition,- these evaluations were utilized to
select and arrange technologies in priority order for experimen-
tal study in the next phase of this project.
Subsequent sections of this report discuss each of the
steps in the technology evaluation in detail.
48
-------
SECTION 6
TECHNOLOGY PROFILES
This section contains brief descriptions of each of the can-
didate technologies together with an initial assessment of the
potential applicability of each technology to concentration of
hazardous constituents of aqueous waste streams. The focus here
is on the characteristics of the technology without regard to
specific waste streams to be treated.
Each technology is described and past applications are in-
dicated. No attempt has been made to provide detailed informa-
tion on the theory, design or operation of the technologies
since such information is readily available in standard texts
and design manuals. Rather, the basic features of the technolo-
gies are highlighted and the potential for the application of
interest is assessed.
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Process Description
Biological treatment involves the utilization of microorgan-
isms to decompose organic matter present in wastewater. The
microorganisms metabolize the organic matter to yield energy for
snythesis, motility and respiration. Biological utilization of
organic compounds involves a series of enzyme-catalyzed reac-
tions. Simple dissolved or soluble organic compounds are readily
incorporated into the cells of microorganisms and oxidized.
When microbial cells come into contact with complex organics,
extracellular enzymes are released outside the cells to hydrolyze
high molecular weight materials into diffusible fractions, en-
abling their transport through the cell wall for assimilation.
Thus the larger, more complex organic compounds are metabolized
at a much slower rate. Although microorganisms may be adapted
and grown on many types of organic materials, there are some
complex organic compounds that will not be removed by biological
oxidation; and these are called "refractory" organic compounds.
Inorganics may be partially removed from the liquid phase
and concentrated in the biomass during biological treatment
through the mechanism of adsorption. However, inorganics are not
destroyed by biological treatment and, in fact, at higher
49
-------
-concentrations may be inhibitory to biological processes.
Biological systems can take a variety of forms. A primary
distinction is the mode of respiration and synthesis - aerobic
or anaerobic. Aerobic biological processes employ microorganisms
which require oxygen for their existence while anaerobic process-
es are carried out in the absence of oxygen. The former process-
es proceed more rapidly and produce larger quantities of biomass
residual than the latter.
Three types of aerobic systems are of primary concern in
the current context: trickling filter, activated sludge, and
lagoons.
1. Trickling Filter Process - The trickling filter process con-
sists of a fixed bed of supporting media (e.g., crushed rock,
plastic medica, redwood slats), upon which a biological slime
layer is grown. Wastewater is intermittently or continuously
applied to the top of the filter and flows downward through the
filter, passing over the layer of microorganisms. Dissolved
organic material and nutrients in the wastewater are taken up by
the zoogleal film layer for utilization by the microbial popula-
tion. Oxidized end products are released back to the liquid. A
trickling filter will operate properly as long as the void spaces
are not clogged by solids or excessive growth of the biological
film layer. The biological film layer grows and gradually in-
creases in thickness to the point that hydraulic shear force
from the downward flow of wastewater causes portions of the film
layer to slough off the filter media.
2. Activated Sludge Process - The activated sludge process, in
one of its several modifications, is probably the most commonly
used aerobic biological waste treatment process. It is depen-
dent upon the maintenance of a flocculant suspension of micro-
organisms which is dispersed in intimate contact with the waste
to be treated. In operation of the activated sludge process,
wastewater containing soluble organic compounds is fed to an
aerobic reactor (aeration tank) which furnishes (1) air required
by microorganisms to biochemically oxidize the waste organics,
and (2) mixing to insure intimate contact of microorganisms with
the organic waste. The aerobic reactor contents are referred to
as mixed liquor. In the vigorously mixed aerobic reactor, the
organic wastes are metabolized to provide energy and growth fac-
tors for the production of more microorganisms with the release
of carbon dioxide and water as metabolic end products. Organic
waste compounds are thus degraded to innocuous end products and
microorganisms. Mixed liquor flows from the aeration tank to a
sedimentation tank, which provides quiescent settling to allow
separation of the biological solids from the treated wastewater.
The treated and clarified water is collected and discharged as
process effluent. Most of the settled biological solids are
recycled as return activated sludge back to the aerobic reactor
50
-------
to provide an activated mass of microorganisms for continuous
treatment of incoming wastewater. Some of the settled biological
solids are wasted to maintain a proper balance in the population
of microorganisms in the mixed liquor of the aerobic reactor.
Recycling and wasting of biological solids (microorganisms) from
the reactor assures a proper ratio of incoming waste to the pop-
ulation of microorganisms (food to microorganisms, or F/M ratio),
which is critical to efficient biodegradation of soluble organic
waste compounds.
3. Lagoons - The use of lagoons as a biological treatment tech-
nique provides an attractive option where land costs are rela-
tively low. Several types of lagoons are possible, but they all
share some basic features.
A long residence time for the incoming wastewater (in excess
of 7-10 days) provides sufficient time for sedimentation of sol-
ids to occur. The long residence time provides an opportunity
for biological decomposition of degradable organic material. In
some lagoons, mechanical aeration may be provided to enhance oxy-
gen concentrations; other lagoons may provide no aeration, but
may rely solely upon natural processes such as air-water trans-
port, and photosynthetic oxygen production by algae. In the
latter types of lagoons, especially in deeper situations, the
lagoon bottom may become anaerobic, and some of the properties
described for anaerobic processes may pertain.
Climatic conditions may limit the application of lagoons to
areas or seasons where icing conditions do not prevail.
The capability of anaerobic biological processes to degrade
many organic compounds is less than that of aerobic processes,
as is the rate of degradation. However, anaerobic biological
processes are attractive for the more readily degraded compounds
in concentrated form, inasmuch as the relative energy costs may
be less for these processes, as compared with aerobic biological
processes, and they offer the possibility for energy recovery in
the form of methane gas production. Furthermore, rather than
producing excess sludge, as in the aerobic processes, the anaero-
bic processes generally may be operated at levels of negligible
solids production.
Anaerobic degradation typically has been used for treatment
of sludges. However, more recently attention has been given to
treatment of aqueous organic wastes of widely varying strengths
by anaerobic processes. Instead of stirred, sealed reactors as
used for sludge digestion, upflow anaerobic filters generally
are used. Filters may be packed with a support medium for anaer-
obic microorganisms to become attached or use a configuration
which encourages formation of a high density floating sludge
blanket. During the residence in the reactor, solids and complex
organic materials in the waste are broken down to organic acids
51
-------
and alcohols. These acids are then biologically converted to
methane and carbon dioxide, which may be withdrawn as a gas. The
methane may be used on-site, or sold as fuel. A portion of the
methane^ may be used to maintain the reactor at elevated tempera-
tures.
Process Applications
Biological treatment has been applied successfully to a wide
variety of aqueous waste streams with organic contaminants.
Trickling filters have been used by many municipalities for
the treatment of domestic wastewater. In addition they are re-
garded as especially suitable for the treatment of high strength
wastes prior to other biological or physical-chemical processes.
They have been used extensively in the treatment of cannery,
pharmaceutical, and petrochemical wastes. Treatment of refinery
wastewaters containing oil, phenol and sulfide is a common
application.
The activated sludge process has been used extensively in
municipal wastewater treatment. Industrial applications include
treatment of wastes from canneries, breweries, pulp and paper
mills, petrochemical plants, refineries, textile mills, steel
mills, and pharmauceutical plants.
Lagoons have been utilized to treat the same categories of
waste streams and organic species as the activated sludge
process.
Anaerobic processes have been used in the treatment of high-
strength organic wastes, municipal wastewater sludges, and agri-
cultural and municipal solid wastes. The broadest application
has been for the treatment of sludges generated in the treatment
of municipal sewage. Recently the anaerobic filter process or
modifications of the process have been used to treat pharmaceu-
tical, petrochemical, coal gasification, and other organic
wastes. Full and laboratory scale studies using industrial
wastes have examined a broad range of operating conditions; or-
ganic loading rates have ranged from 240 to 4000 kg COD/M3/day
(15 to 250 Ib COD/1000 ft3/day) and empty bed liquid retention
times have ranged from 0.33 to 14 days. While anaerobic diges-
ters commonly are heated to 35 C, or above, to increase the rate
of biological decomposition, researchers have reported minimal
temperature influence on anaerobic filter performance in the
10° to 30°C range.
Process Potential
Biological processes are, in general, the most cost-effec-
tive techniques for treating aqueous waste streams containing
organic constituents. Moreover, biological processes have been
52
-------
applied successfully at full scale to a wide variety of indus-
trial wastes. Environmental impacts associated with biological
processes are limited. Probably of greatest concern in this
regard is the potential release of volatile organic compounds to
the atmosphere as a result of aeration.
For biological decomposition of organic materials of a haz-
ardous nature, many of which are toxic to microbial flora at
high concentrations, it is necessary that the system be allowed
to acclimate to the waste to be treated prior to routine opera-
tion of the process.
The activated sludge process, in one of its modifications,
appears to have the greatest potential for the application of
interest because it can be controlled to the greatest extent and
best lends itself to the development of an acclimated culture.
However, anaerobic filtration because of ease of operation, min-
imal sludge production, and energy efficiencies merits consider-
ation in many situations. Thus, biological treatment is judged
to be a viable technology which must be considered for treatment
of hazardous aqueous wastes containing organic constituents.
CARBON ADSORPTION
Process Description
Activated carbon removes materials from water by the pro-
cess of adsorption. Since adsorption is a surface phenomenon,
the very large surface area associated with activated carbon,
typically 500-1400 m2/g, makes it a very effective adsorbent.
Pores, created during the activation process, exist through-
out the carbon particles and account for the very high surface-
to-size ratio. The greatest portion of this surface area is
contributed by pores of molecular dimensions. Thus, pore struc-
ture in addition to surface area is a major factor in the ad-
sorption process. Pore size distribution defines the size dis-
tribution of molecules which can enter the carbon particle to be
adsorbed. Therefore, the carbon adsorption process is dependent
upon the physical characteristics of the carbon and the molecu-
lar size of the adsorbate.
For the most part, activated carbon surfaces are non-polar
in nature. Thus, activated carbon will sorb most organic com-
pounds to some extent but is most effective for the least polar
and least soluble organic compounds. Inorganic electrolytes are
not sorbed effectively.
Other factors which affect the adsorption process include
the characteristics of the liquid phase (e.g., pH and tempera-
ture) and the contact time between the liquids and the carbon
adsorbent.
53
-------
The ^adsorption process is reversible which makes possible
regeneration and reuse of activated carbons in many situations.
Thermal regeneration is the most commonly used approach.
Activated carbon can be employed either in a granular or
powdered state to effect treatment of wastewaters. Powdered car-
bon treatment usually involves suspension of the carbon in the
wastewater in a stirred container and subsequent separation of
the carbon-wastewater via a sedimentation process. Potential
advantages associated with powdered activated carbon include:
• the cost of powdered carbon on a per pound basis is less
than that of granular carbon,
• powdered carbon will equilibrate with the wastewater in
a fraction of the time required by granular carbon,
» powdered carbon is easily slurried and transported, and
can be supplied on demand by metering pumps,
• powdered carbon dosage can be rapidly changed to accomo-
date varying feed organic strength, and
• powdered carbon system requires a fraction of the carbon
inventory required by granular carbon systems.
Development of powdered activated carbon technology has
lagged behind that of granular carbon primarily as a result of
lack of efficient regeneration systems. In addition, powdered
activated carbon is sometimes difficult to separate from suspen-
sion and larger doses may be required than for granular systems
achieving the same ..level of treatment.
Granular carbon applications are by far the more common.
In this mode, the carbon is contained in a column or bed and the
wastewater is passed through the contactor. After the capacity
of the carbon bed is exhausted, the carbon may be removed and
regenerated. Commonly, regeneration is accomplished by dewater-
ing the carbon and then heating to a temperature of 815-925°C to
volatilize and combust the adsorbed material.
One other treatment method involving the use of activated
carbon exists. This technique involves the addition of powdered
activated carbon to the mixed liquor in an activated sludge aera-
tion basin to effect improvement in pollutant removal. Thus,
this approach is a combined biological-carbon process. Regener-
ation of the carbon may be accomplished by thermal or wet oxida-
tion techniques.
Process Applications
Activated carbon technology has been used for municipal
54
-------
water purification, municipal wastewater treatment, industrial
wastewater treatment, sugar decolorization,.and purification of
fats, oils, foods, beverages and Pharmaceuticals. Recently,
activated carbon has been used successfully in several emergency
hazardous material spill response operations.
Contaminants removed in municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment operations include BOD, COD, TOC, color, chlorophenols,
cresol, cyanide, insecticides, phenol, polyethers, polynitro-
phenol, p-nitrophenol, p-chlorobenzene, resorcinol, TNT, toluene,
xylene, and other organic chemicals.
Process Potential
Activated carbon adsorption is a well developed technology
which has a wide range of potential waste treatment applications.
It is especially well suited for the removal of mixed organic
contaminants from aqueous wastes. Numerous examples of full
scale waste treatment applications exist.
No serious environmental impacts are associated with carbon
systems employing regeneration. If regeneration is not carried
out, impacts could result from the disposal of carbon contami-
nated with hazardous materials.
Energy requirements for systems employing thermal reactiva-
tion could be significant - approximately 14,000-18., 600 kJ/kg of
carbon (6,000-8,000 Btu per pound).
Unit costs for carbon adsorption can vary widely depending
upon the waste to be treated, the adsorption system, and the
regeneration technique. It has been shown to be an economical
approach in numerous instances.
In the current context, carbon adsorption must be consid-
ered a viable candidate for treatment of hazardous aqueous
wastes containing organic contaminants. Granular activated car-
bon is the most well developed approach. However, combined bio-
logical-carbon systems appear promising for this application.
CATALYSIS
Process Description
A catalyst is an agent which accelerates the rate of a
chemical reaction without itself being chemically altered at the
end of the reaction. Catalysis, therefore, is not a process but
rather is a means of enhancing any process which relies upon
chemical transformations. In the current context, it is most
applicable in improving the rate of chemical detoxification and
degradation reactions. Thus, catalysis does not represent a
means of concentrating wastewater constituents and is not
55
-------
considered a concentration technology.
Process Applications
Catalysts are used in a number of chemical reactions in-
cluding oxidation, reduction, polymerization, hydration, dehy-
dration, hydrolysis, isomerization, dehydrogenation, cracking,
and others. Waste treatment applications have included:
• cyanide destruction with activated carbon and copper
catalysts
• chlorinated organic pesticide destruction using metallic
couples such as zinc/copper, iron/copper, and aluminum/
copper; and pesticide dechlorination using nickel
catalysts
• catalytic oxidation of domestic wastewater with propri-
etary catalysts and aqueous organic wastes with copper
chromate catalyst
• oxidation of sulfides with iron and copper catalysts
• oxidation of aqueous phenolic wastes with Raney nickel
catalysts and ferrous iron catalysts
• decomposition of sodium hypochlorite solutions with
cobalt hydroxide catalyst
• isomerization of maleic acid into less water soluble
fumaric acid with a hydrogen chloride or sulfuric acid
catalyst.
Generally, catalysts are applied selectively based upon process-
es and pollutants of concern.
Costs of the catalyst are only a small part of the overall
waste treatment process. Generally, the catalytic process per-
mits lower temperature or pressure operation, therefore, capital
and operating costs may actually be lower than the non-catalytic
process. Costs are dependent upon the application with the only
valid cost comparisons being between the catalyzed and non-
catalyzed process.
Process Potential
Several potential applications of catalysis to waste treat-
ment have been identified but commercial practicality has not
been demonstrated.
Catalysts generally are very selective and, while poten-
tially applicable to destruction or detoxification of a given
56
-------
^component of a complex waste stream, do not have broad spectrum
applicability.
In view of the above and the fact that catalysis is not a
concentration technology, it was dropped from further consider-
ation in this study.
CENTRIFUGATION
Process Description
Centrifugation involves the application of centrifugal
force to effect mechanical solid-liquid or liquid-liquid sepa-
ration via sedimentation or filtration within the centrifuge
vessel. Several types of centrifuges are available - - tubular,
disc, conveyor bowl, vertical basket, conical screen, and push-
er to name a few. Raw wastewater or sludge characteristics such
as particle size and solids concentration as well as desired
product consistency should be considered when selecting the ap-
propriate centrifuge.
Process Applications
Centrifugation as a solid/liquid separation process gener-
ally is used to process dilute sludges consisting of 2-5% solids.
Typically, a dewatered sludge of 15-50% solids can be produced,
although drier cakes are possible. Applications include:
• removal of particles and pigment from lacquers, enamels,
and dye pastes
• separation of microorganisms from fermentation broths
and solvent extracts from antibiotic broths
• recovery of metal particles from film soap and spent
catalysts, and deoiling of metal chips
• recovery of crystalline solids from brine solutions, and
ethylenediamine liquors and acrylonitrile wastewaters.
• dewatering of waste sludges e.g., domestic wastewater
and scrubber sludges, separation of acid sludges from
acid treatment of petroleum stocks
• removal of meat tissue from animal fats and pulp skins,
and seeds in food processing
• dewatering of oil/water separator bottoms
Centrifugation also has been applied to separate liquids of
different densities. Typical applications include:
57
-------
• separation of oil and water mixtures;
• clarification of oils, extracts, and food products; and
• separation of wash water from fats and oils in vegetable
and fish oil refining and purifying.
Centrifugation has greatest applicability for the dewater-
ing of sludges and slurries. It cannot provide solids removal
from aqueous waste sufficient for direct discharge of the cen-
trate. The process has several advantages:
• demonstrated operation;
• versatile;
. compact, self-contained process;
• reasonable cost, low operating labor requirements;
• capable of dewatering problem sludges with minimal
chemical modification;
• minimal secondary air pollution effects; and
• compatible with waste recovery
Disadvantages include:
• incomplete treatment of aqueous wastes;
• treatment of centrate may be difficult;
• a non-selective and non-destructive physical process;
and
• possibility of high maintenance requirement when
abrasive materials are processed.
Costs are comparable with other sludge dewatering alterna-
tives such as vacuum and pressure filtration and in typical in-
stances range from $22-50/tonne of dry solids ($20-45/ton).
Process Potential
Centrifugation is a viable ancillary process for sludge
dewatering in an overall wastewater processing train. It may
also have limited application for separating, liquids of differ-
ent densities. Because its chief application would be as an
ancillary process to support some primary concentration tech-
nique, it was not evaluated in detail.
58
-------
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
Process Description
Chemical precipitation is a process whereby some or all of
a dissolved substance is transformed into a solid phase as the
result of a chemical reaction and is thereby removed from solu-
tion. Most common precipitation reactions involve the removal
of inorganic ionic species from aqueous solution.
Precipitation is accomplished in wastewater treatment by
adding appropriate chemicals to the solution and mixing rapidly.
Once the chemicals are dispersed throughout the solution, pre-
cipitation reactions generally are very rapid. However, the
particles formed may remain very small in which case additional
treatment will be necessary to promote particle growth (floccu-
lation) prior to separation of the solid and liquid phases.
Typically precipitation is accomplished by the addition of
lime, sodium hydroxide, aluminum salts, iron salts, carbonates,
or soluble sulfides. In some instances, oxidation of the waste
may result in the precipitation of the oxidized species (e.g.,
iron). Choice of the chemical to be used is dependent upon the
nature of the waste stream and the material to be removed.
Process Applications
Precipitation techniques primarily have been used to re-
move metals and certain anionic species such as phosphates,
sulfates, and fluorides. Numerous industrial applications ex-
ist. Examples include treatment of wastes from iron and steel
mills, aluminum manufacturing, copper smelting and refining,
metal finishing, and inorganic chemicals industry. Species re-
ported to be removed by precipitation reactions include arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, fluoride, lead, manganese, mercury,
and nickel.
Process Potential
Precipitation processes have been in full scale operation
for many years. The technique can be applied to almost any
liquid waste stream containing a precipitable hazardous con-
stituent. Required equipment is commercially available. Asso-
ciated costs are relatively low and thus, precipitation can be
applied to relatively large volumes of liquid wastes. Energy
consumption also is relatively low.
Precipitation processes result in the production of a wet
sludge which must be further processed prior to ultimate dis-
posal. In some instances, the potential for material recovery
from this sludge exists. However, very often, non-target ma-
terials are precipitated together with the material of interest
59
-------
thus complicating or eliminating the feasibility of material
recovery.
Usually, simple treatability studies must be carried out
prior to applying the process to a waste stream to determine the
chemical of choice, the degree of removal, and the required
chemical dose.
In most instances, precipitation is considered to be the
technique of choice for removal of heavy metals from aqueous
hazardous wastes.
CRYSTALLIZATION
Process Description
Freeze crystallization is a technique which involves freez-
ing an aqueous solution containing dissolved salts. Relatively
pure ice crystals form and the salts are concentrated in the re-
maining brine solution. Ice crystals are mechanically separated
from the brine, washed, and melted to yield fresh water. The
remaining brine must be further treated or disposed of in some
acceptable manner.
Basically, the process consists of: 1) heat exchange to
cool the waste stream, 2) freezing using vacuum flash/vapor com-
pression or secondary refrigerant freezing, 3) washing of the
salts from the ice crystal, 4) melting of the ice to yield clean
water, and 5) energy recovery to cool the incoming water and re-
cover refrigerant. Major problems relate to the crystal/brine
separation step and washing salt from the crystals. Also, be-
cause freeze point is influenced by waste stream composition, the
process is very sensitive to fluctuations in waste stream compo-
sition. Difficulty has been experienced in making rapid operat-
ing adjustments to waste stream composition changes.
There are several claimed advantages to the process:
• because freezing is by direct contact with the refriger-
ant there is no heat transfer surface or membrane to be
fouled
• at low temperatures, corrosion problems are minimized
and less expensive materials can be used in construction
• volatiles can be separated from product water and con-
densed in the melting phase.
Process Applications
Demonstration scale testing of freeze crystallization has
been carried out for desalination of seawater. However, only
60
-------
limited laboratory scale testing of the process on industrial
wastes has been accomplished. There are no commercial applica-
tions of the process. Since AVCO Corporation's efforts in the
mid-1970's there has been little or no research conducted.
Industrial wastes which have been tested include:
cooling tower blowdown
electronics plant waste
ammonium nitrate wastes
weak sulfuric acid wastes
pulp mill hot caustic extract
solutions of acetic acid, methanol, and aromatic acids
metal plating rinsewaters
arsenal redwater
Unsuccessful attempts also have been made to treat sludges at
eutectic temperatures.
Experimental studies have utilized waste streams ranging
from 0.003% to 10% TDS. Dissolved metal ions, cyanides, and
organics theoretically are treatable provided that the waste
stream has a component that freezes. Work has not been attempt-
ed on fully organic waste streams.
Energy requirements for desalination are high when compared
to membrane processes but lower than evaporation processes, the
two major competing desalination techniques.
Process Potential
AVCO Corporation has stated that the inability of the pro-
cess to respond to changing wastewater characteristics and its
operational complexity were primary reasons for abandoning its
research efforts.
Since this process has not been reduced to practice, there
is no ongoing research and past efforts have not been successful,
this process was judged to have little potential for the appli-
cation of interest and thus was dropped from further considera-
tion.
DENSITY SEPARATION
In the current context, density separation is construed to
include the process of sedimentation and flotation because they
are the most commonly used techniques for solids/liquids separa-
tion in wastewater treatment.
61
-------
Process Description
Sedimentation
Sedimentation is a physical process whereby suspended sol-
ids are separated from the liquid phase as a result of gravita-
tional and inertial forces. Essentially, the technique consists
of providing sufficient time and space for solid particles to
settle out of a liquid stream. Usually, this is accomplished in
special tanks, chambers or ponds designed to provide the neces-
sary time and quiescent conditions to allow solids to settle.
A means for physically removing the settled solids as a slurry
or sludge usually is provided.
Although sedimentation processes may be batch or continuous,
continuous processes are the most common in wastewater treatment
applications.
Sedimentation frequently is used in conjunction with chem-
ical precipitation, coagulation, and flocculation processes.
Flotation
The term flotation describes the process of converting sus-
pended, colloidal or emulsified substances to floating matter.
This may be brought about by the introduction of minute air bub-
bles into the liquid phase. These air bubbles attach to the
solid particles and the buoyant force of the combination is suf-
ficient to cause the particles to rise to the surface where they
form a floating layer which is removed by skimming.
Air bubbles may be formed either by injecting air into the
liquid waste under pressure with a subsequent release of pres-
sure to atmospheric, or by saturating the waste with air at at-
mospheric pressure and then subjecting the waste to a vacuum
which causes the release of dissolved air in the form of fine
bubbles. Coagulant aids are sometimes added to the waste to
assist the agglomeration of solids.
As a solids removal method flotation has several
advantages:
• both light solids and greases, as well as heavy solids
may be removed in the same apparatus,
• the sludge formed is usually more easily handled, and
• the presence of relatively high concentrations of oxygen
in the waste helps promote the oxidation of organic com-
ponents of the waste.
On the other hand, there are several attendant disadvantages
62
-------
of the process:
• both investment costs and operating costs are relatively
high,
• because of the complexity of the equipment, maintenance
costs are somewhat high, and
• the pressure type has high power requirements.
Process Applications
Sedimentation
Sedimentation has a long history of use in many applica-
tions. It is widely used in municipal and industrial water pur-
ification and wastewater treatment operations. Sedimentation is
used in conjunction with chemical precipitation in all of the
applications discussed under that topic.
Flotation
Flotation has been used successfully in the treatment of
refinery wastes, food processing wastes, meat packing wastes,
and paper manufacturing wastes. In general, its greatest appli-
cation is to wastes containing oil or grease.
Process Potential
Sedimentation
Sedimentation processes have been in use for many years,
are easy to operate, are low cost, and consume little energy.
Required equipment is relatively simple and commercially avail-
able. The process can be applied to almost any liquid waste
stream containing settleable material. It is considered to have
high potential for the application of interest. However, it is
an ancillary process which will be utilized primarily in con-
junction with some other concentration technique such as chemi-
cal precipitation. Alternatively, it may be used as a pretreat-
ment technique prior to another process such as carbon or resin
adsorption.
Flotation
Flotation is a proven solids/liquids separation technique
for certain industrial applications. It is characterized by
higher operating costs and more skilled maintenance requirements
than gravity sedimentation. Power requirements also are higher.
This technique is judged to be potentially applicable but prob-
ably only in situations where the wastewater contains high con-
centrations of oil and grease.
63
-------
DIALYSIS AND ELECTRODIALYSIS
Process Description
Dialysis is the transfer of small solute molecules in a
waste stream through a semipermeable membrane into a wash stream
flowing along the opposite side of the membrane. The transfer
is driven by the concentration gradient between feed stream and
wash stream. Factors controlling diffusion include membrane
characteristics, membrane area, concentration gradient, and
temperature. Membranes are capable of passing salts and small
organic species while retaining colloids and higher molecular
weight compounds. Dialysis treatment produces two output
streams both being more dilute than the feed stream. The dialy-
sate (treated feed stream) generally still will contain a higher
concentration of solute than the diffusate (resulting wash
stream). Thus, the process is of value in wastewater treatment
if the dialysate or diffusate can be recovered and reused. The
process does not provide volume reduction.
Membranes may be tubular, flat sheets, or hollow fiber con-
figurations of cellulosic or synthetic resin materials. Mem-
brane evaluation factors include transfer rate, mechanical
strength, durability, resistance to chemical degradation, ther-
mal stability and cost.
Electrodialysis is similar to dialysis, however, a direct
electric current is the driving force causing charged ions to
pass through or be rejected by membranes which are either anion
or cation permeable. Staging or alternate stacking of anion and
cation permeable membranes separated by spacers results in feed
stream separations into dilute and concentrated streams. By
concentrating salts in the brine stream, the process provides
volume reduction. Membranes are formulated of synthetic ion
exchange resins cast or copolymerized in sheet form.
Process Applications
For dialysis to work, the concentration gradient must be
large; therefore, the process is applicable only to waste
streams with high concentrations of low molecular weight dis-
solved species. Caustics and mineral acids dialyze readily;
however, to minimize potential membrane degradation, the mem-
brane must be carefully selected. Industrial waste treatment
applications have included separation of caustic soda from hemi-
cellulose waste, separation of soluble impurities from spent
acid electrolyte in electrolytic copper refining, recovery of
sulfuric acid in several industries, and separation of salts
from proteins and other biocolloids in pharmaceutical manufac-
turing.
The process has several disadvantages in hazardous waste
64
-------
treatment- including the need for pretreatment -to minimize plug-
ging, membrane erosion, and film or sludge formation on membrane
surfaces; a low transfer rate; applicability only to concentrat-
ed waste streams; and generation of two dilute output streams.
Electrodialysis is applicable to aqueous wastes containing
moderately high concentrations of inorganic salts (1000-5000
mg/1). The process can yield a brine stream containing up to
10,000 mg/1 salt and a product stream of 100-500 mg/1 salt. The
most frequent application has been production of potable water
from brackish water. It also has been used to concentrate sea-
water for salt production; to remove mineral constituents from
organic process streams, e.g., the desalting of whey, de-ashing
of sugars, and washing of photographic emulsions. Laboratory
and pilot scale applications include treatment of secondary sew-
age effluent, acid mine drainage, demineralization of cooling
waters, and treatment of plating liquors and rinses to salvage
metals and acids.
An advantage of electrodialysis is that costs are moderate,
but they are heavily dependent upon volume treated and amount of
salt removed because of the fixed removal capabilities of a giv-
en stack of membranes. The process, however, has a limited
range of applicability in terms of wastewater salts concentra-
tion and types of solutes which can be concentrated.
Process Potential
Neither process has been judged to have much applicability
to aqueous hazardous waste treatment in the current context.
They are not well suited to mixed constituent waste streams and
both rely heavily on recovery and reuse of at least one product
stream to offset costs. Dialysis should not be considered to
be a concentration technology. Neither process was evaluated
further.
DISTILLATION
Process Description
Distillation may be carried out in a variety of ways but
usually involves boiling a mixture of liquids to produce a vapor
that is rich in the lower boiling point components of the orig-
inal mixture. The vapor may be condensed and recovered or re-
cycled in part to the distillation system. Distillation can be
carried out in a series of stages which in the limit can ap-
proach a complete separation of the components.
Distillation is expensive and energy intensive. It proba-
bly can be justified only in cases where valuable product re-
covery is feasible.
65
-------
Process Applications
Distillation has wide industrial application in petroleum
refining, organic chemical manufacture and purification, and
solvent recovery. Treatment of waste by distillation is limited.
The only hazardous waste materials which feasibly can be treated
are liquid organics such as organic solvents and halogenated
organics. Some specialized applications include:
waste oil re-refining,
methylene chloride recovery,
ethylbenzene separation from styrene, and
waste solvent recovery.
Process Potential
Distillation is judged to have limited applicability to
treatment of dilute aqueous hazardous wastes because of its high
cost and energy requirements. Therefore, it has been dropped
from further consideration.
EVAPORATION
ProcessDescription
Evaporation is the process of vaporization of a liquid from
a solution or slurry as the result of application of heat energy.
It is applied in situations where one of the components of the
system is not appreciably volatile. Products of evaporation are
a relatively pure condensed solvent and a concentrate rich in
the nonvolatile component.
Evaporation differs from distillation in that the vapor
usually is a single component and even when it contains more
than one component, no attempt is made to fractionate the vapor.
Usually, heat is supplied by condensing steam in a heat ex-
changer that is an integral part of the evaporation unit. Com-
monly, evaporation units are operated under some degree of vac-
uum to reduce the boiling temperature. Evaporation often is
carried out in a series of stages or effects. Since large
quantities of vapor are produced, it often is economically ad-
vantageous to use the vapor produced in one stage as the heating
medium for a subsequent stage. Thus, multiple effect evapora-
tion often is practiced.
Evaporation, usually, is not econmically feasible for solu-
tions having a low solids content. Equipment, costs are high and
operating costs may become excessive for the concentration of
very dilute solutions. Potential operational problems include
salt buildup on heat exchange surfaces, foaming, and solids de-
composition.
66
-------
Process Applications^
Evaporation is a proven, well-developed process which is
utilized in some form by virtually every industry. Waste treat-
ment applications include radioactive wastes, TNT wastes, photo-
graphic chemical dye wastes, paper mill wastes, molasses distill-
ery wastes, and metal plating wastes. Often product recovery is
associated with industrial waste treatment schemes which employ
evaporation.
Process Potential
Evaporation is not expected to have broad application to
the treatment of aqueous hazardous wastes containing moderately
volatile organic constituents (BP 100°C-300°C). These organics
cannot be easily separated in a pretreatment stripper and will
appear in the condensate from the evaporator to some extent de-
pending on their volatility. Therefore, good clean separation
of these organics is not possible without post-treatment of the
condensate.
The major disadvantages of evaporation are high capital and
operating costs, and high energy requirements. This process is
more adaptable to wastewaters with high concentrations of pol-
lutants than to wastewaters with low concentrations of pollut-
ants.
In view of the above, evaporation was dropped from further
consideration for the application of interest.
FILTRATION
Process Description
Filtration is a process for separation of solids from
fluids by passage of the fluids through a porous medium. The
solids are retained by the filtering medium itself and/or by
solids already trapped on the medium. The fluid may be gaseous
or liquid but, in the current context, only liquid/solids sepa-
rations are of interest.
Many types of commercially available filtration systems
exist. An important factor in selection of the type of filtra-
tion system is the desired objective. If the intent is to pro-
duce a purified liquid stream, a different type of filtration
system would be selected than if the objective was to concen-
trate the solids prior to subsequent processing or disposal.
Filtration systems may be classified according to the po-
rous medium used. Generally used filter media fall into one of
two classes: (1) granular media, and (2) flexible media.
67
-------
Granular Media
Granular media filters usually consist of beds of sand or
sand and coal within a basin or tank and supported by an under-
drain system. Filtration is accomplished by passage of the
waste stream through the bed. Through a complex process that
may involve several mechanisms, particles are trapped on top of
and within the bed. As this occurs, the porous nature of the
bed is reduced thus, either reducing the filtration rate at con-
stant pressure or increasing the amount of pressure required to
maintain the filtration rate. At some point the filter must be
removed from service and backwashed to scour the solids from the
media. The spent backwash water containing the suspended solids
must be collected and further treated or disposed in some manner.
Granular media filters primarily are used to produce a high
quality water low in suspended solids. These systems cannot ef-
fectively filter liquids having high suspended solids concentra-
tions because backwash frequently becomes excessive.
Flexible Media
Flexible media filters are characterized by the flow of a
waste stream through a fine medium such as cloth or close mesh
screen. Solids build up on the medium as a cake which then
serves as the true medium for further filtration.
The flow through filters of this type is induced by a pres-
sure difference across the filter media. One type of filter
commonly used in the chemical industry is the plate-and-frame
filter which consists of alternating hollow frames that serve to
contain the retained filter cake. Pressed against this frame
are plates which support the filter cloth and which are provided
with drainage channels for carrying off the liquid filtrate.
When the frames are completely filled with cake, the plates and
frames are separated and the cake removed.
Leaf filters consist of cloth supported on thin hollow
grids stacked in a cylindrical pressure vessel. Liquid filtrate
passes through the cloth and is discharged through passages in
the leaf units.
Several types of continuous filters are available which
have the advantage of requiring much less labor for operation.
Basically they involve the use of a rotating hollow drum covered
with filter cloth supported by a screen backing. As the drum
slowly rotates on its horizontal axis, the lower segments of the
drum dip into a tank containing the slurry to be filtered. The
piping is arranged so that a vacuum can be applied in the im-
mersed section of the drum from the inside pulling the filtrate
into the section and leaving cake on the outer surface of the
drum. The vacuum will produce a partial dewatering of the cake.
68
-------
At a suitable point in the drum rotation, the cake is scraped
from the drum. Filter aids are sometimes added to the slurry
to improve the filterability, provided that recovery of uncon-
taminated solids is not the prime objective of the operation.
These types of filters primarily are used for dewatering
sludges rather than for producing a purified liquid.
Process Applications^
Filtration is a process with a long history of use in num-
erous industrial processes, and municipal and industrial water
and wastewater treatment operations. Often filtration is used
in conjunction with precipitation, flocculation, and sedimenta-
tion processes to effect improved solids removal efficiency.
Filtration has been used as a polishing step following pre-
cipitation and sedimentation to remove arsenic, cadmium, chro-
mium, lead, nickel, and zinc.
As a dewatering technique, filtration has been utilized ex-
tensively to dewater biological and chemical wastewater treat-
ment sludges.
Process Potential
Filtration is a well developed process currently being used
in a wide variety of applications. A wide spectrum of filtra-
tion systems are commercially available. The economics of fil-
tration are reasonable for many applications. Energy require-
ments are relatively low and operational parameters are well
defined. Therefore, filtration is judged to be a good candidate
for the application of interest. However, it is not a primary
treatment process but rather will be used to support other pro-
cesses either as a polishing step subsequent to precipitation
and sedimentation or as a dewatering process for sludges gener-
ated in other processes.
FLOCCULATION
Process Description
Flocculation, as used herein, is the process by which
small particles suspended in a liquid are made to aggregate into
larger particles which are more readily settled. Generally,
flocculation is accomplished by the addition of chemicals to the
suspension under a high degree of turbulence to effect rapid and
thorough mixing. This rapid mixing is followed by a period of
gentle stirring to promote particle growth.
Flocculating chemicals include alum, lime, iron salts, and
organic polymers (polyelectrolytes). The inorganic flocculants
69
-------
react to form large, fluffy precipitates or floe particles which
act to enmesh small particles creating larger, more settleable
particles.
Flocculation may be employed in situations where it is de-
sired to remove suspended solids originally present in the waste-
water or solids formed in a preceding precipitation process. For
example, sulfide precipitation of some metals results in the
formation of a relatively stable colloidal suspension. Alum
and/or polyelectrolytes can be used to effect flocculation of the
metal sulfide precipitates.
Flocculation usually is used in conjunction with precipita-
tion and sedimentation. Indeed, many of the inorganic floccu-
lants make use of precipitation reactions. Once the precipitate
has been formed and the suspended particles have been flocculated,
they can be separated from the liquid by sedimentation.
Process Applications
Flocculation has a long history of use in numerous municipal
and industrial water and wastewater treatment applications. It
has been used in conjunction with precipitation to remove arsenic,
cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, lead, magnesium, mercury, and
nickel. In addition, it is used in in many water and wastewater
treatment systems to remove suspended solids. Inasmuch as many
pollutants such as pesticides and PCBs are often adsorbed to par-
ticulate matter in suspension, flocculation in conjunction with
sedimentation can result in the removal of the associated pollut-
ants.
Process Potential
Flocculation is a relatively simple process to operate and
has been in use for many years. Necessary equipment is commer-
cially available. Both costs and energy consumption are rela-
tively low. The process can be applied to almost any aqueous
waste stream containing precipitable and/or suspended material.
Flocculation must be carried out in conjunction with a
solid/liquid separation process, ususally sedimentation. Often,
flocculation is preceded by precipitation.
Flocculation is judged to be a viable candidate process for
hazardous aqueous waste treatment, particularly where suspended
solids and/or heavy metal removal is an objective. It may be
used in conjunction with sedimentation as a pretreatment step
prior to a subsequent process such as activated carbon adsorption.
In most instances, the applicability of the technique, the
flocculating chemicals to be used, and the chemical dose can be
judged based upon experience and simple laboratory treatability
70
-------
tests.
ION EXCHANGE
Process Description
Ion exchange involves a reversible interchange of ions be-
tween an insoluble, solid salt (ion exchanger) and a solution of
electrolyte in contact with the ion exchanger. Thus, in an ion
exchange process, certain ionic species are removed from solution
and replaced by ions of the same sign which are released from the
exchange matrix.
Ion exchange materials may be natural minerals or zeolites,
or may be snythetic substances specially prepared for specific
properties. They generally contain a large number of soluble
ionic functional groups at the surface. At these locations, the
ion exchange reaction occurs. It is possible to alter selectiv-
ity of these materials towards inorganic and organic materials
by altering the physical and chemical characteristics of the
exchangers.
Commonly, ion exchange media are contained in columns or
beds. Liquid which is relatively free of suspended solids is
passed through the beds until the effluent concentration of the
material which is being removed exceeds a desired value. At
that point the exchanger must be regenerated. This is accom-
plished by passing a regenerant solution containing a high con-
centration of the ion originally associated with the exchanger
through the bed. The exchanger thus is converted back to its
original form and the pollutant, at elevated concentrations, is
transferred to the regenerant solution. Used regenerant must be
recovered for reuse by additional processing or disposed of in
an acceptable manner. Usually, the bed is rinsed with a small
volume of water to remove excess regenerant prior to the next
service cycle.
Process Applications
Ion exchange can be used to remove both cations and anions.
Because organic species frequently interact with the exchangers
and cause operational problems, most applications of interest in
the current context have involved inorganic species.
The - ion exchange process has been used for many years to
soften water. It also has a long history of use in industrial
water purification.
Ion exchange is used extensively in the electroplating in-
dustry for treatment of rinse waters containing chromium, cyanide,
and nickel. It also has been used as a polishing step in pro-
cesses designed to treat aqueous metal finishing wastes.
71
-------
Other applications include:
• removal of iron, aluminum, and chromium III from
chromic acid plating bath liquors,
• removal of aluminum from strong phosphoric acid/nitric
acid solution,
• removal of various species from radioactive wastes, and
• removal of ammonia from biologically treated municipal
wastewater.
Process Potential
Ion exchange is a proven process with a long history of use.
It will remove dissolved salts, primarily inorganics, from aque-
ous solutions. For many applications, particularly where product
recovery is possible, ion exchange is a relatively economical
process. Also, it is characterized by low energy requirements.
Ion exchange is judged to have some potential for the appli-
cation of interest in situations where it is necessary to remove
dissolved inorganic species. However, other competing processes
- precipitation, flocculation, and sedimentation - are more
broadly applicable to mixed waste streams containing suspended
solids, and a spectrum of organic and inorganic species. These
competing processes also usually are more economical. Thus, the
use of ion exchange probably would be limited to situations where
a polishing step was required to remove an inorganic constituent
which could not be reduced to satisfactory levels by preceding
treatment processes. Therefore, while ion exchange is believed
to have some potential for the current application, it is not a
process which should receive primary consideration.
RESIN ADSORPTION
Process Description
Resin adsorption functions according to the same principles
associated with carbon adsorption. That is, physical and chemi-
cal forces cause sorption of the solute onto the resin's surface.
A major difference between resin and carbon adsorption is that
because adsorption forces are weaker, resins can be chemically
rather than thermally regenerated. This provides an opportunity
to recover sorbed materials. Another difference is that, while
activated carbon sorbs nonpolar compounds most readily, resin
surfaces can be produced to be either hydrophobic or hydrophilic
and thus be applicable to nonpolar or polar molecules.
Two basic types of synthetic resin adsorbents are available,
polymeric and the newer carbonaceous. The polymeric adsorbents
72
-------
are nonpolar with an affinity for nonpolar solutes in polar sol-
vents or of intermediate polarity capable of sorbing nonpolar
solutes from polar solvents and polar solutes from nonpolar sol-
vents. Carbonaceous resins have a chemical composition which is
intermediate between polymeric adsorbents and activated carbon
and are available in a range of surface polarities. As with ac-
tivated carbon, pore size distribution and surface area affect
the sorption process. These characteristics vary for the differ-
ent resins. Surface areas range from 100-700 m2/g, generally
less than activated carbon.
Resins are used in manner comparable to granular activated
carbon, i.e. in beds or columns with wastewater passed through
the contactor. After sorbent capacity has been exhausted, spent
sorbents generally are regenerated by steam, acid, caustic, or
organic solvent (methanol, ethanol, acetone - - although it is
highly flammable, isopropanol, and others) washing. Subsequent
separation of the desorbed solute from the wash stream permits
recovery of the solute. Credit for solute recovery may offset
the severalfold higher initial cost of resins relative to carbon.
Chemical regeneration also minimizes scale problems when waste
streams high in inorganic solids are treated. It is claimed that
resins, especially carbonaceous resins, have longer service lives
than carbon because of greater resistance to attrition.
Process Applications
Resin sorption technology is not as well developed as carbon
sorption and therefore, process applications are more limited.
One application which has been examined is the treatment of muni-
tions wastewaters primarily because solvent rather than thermal
regeneration was more desirable. Other applications have in-
cluded color removal from paper mill bleach effluents, dyestuff
production plants, water supplies, and in the food and pharma-
ceutical industries; phenol removal and recovery; pesticide man-
ufacture wastewater treatment; removal of organics in the pro-
duction of ultra-pure water; removal of chlorinated hydrocarbons
in vinyl chloride manufacturing; and removal of chlorinated hy-
drocarbons from contaminated groundwater. Laboratory studies
have shown that phthalate esters, aldehydes and ketones, alcohols,
chlorinated aromatics, aromatics, esters, amines, chlorinated al-
kanes and alkenes, and pesticides are adsorbable by resins. Res-
ins adsorbed certain amines and aromatics better than activated
carbon did.
Resin adsorption has greatest applicability when:
• color due to organic molecules must be removed
• when solute recovery is practical or thermal
regeneration is not practical
73
-------
• where selective adsorption is desired
• where low leakages are required
• where wastewaters contain high levels of dissolved
inorganics
Process Potential
Because of selectivity, rapid adsorption kinetics, and chem-
ical regenerability, resins have a wide range of potential appli-
cations. The primary disadvantage is high initial cost; although,
this may be offset if recovery of the solute is practical. Costs
for resins recently have been quoted to be $11-33 per kg ($5-15 per
pound). While not economically competitive with carbon for high
volume, high concentration, mixed constituent wastes, benefits
may be gained by sequential resin and carbon adsorption.
Energy requirements are heavily dependent upon whether sol-
ute recovery from the wash media is practiced. Without solute
recovery, energy costs account for 5% of operating costs; however,
with solute recovery using distillation, energy costs could ac-
count for 50% of operating costs.
As with activated carbon, the only major environmental im-
pacts relate to the regeneration process. If not reused, spent
regenerant requires disposal, frequently by incineration or
land disposal.
Resin sorption has been judged to be a viable candidate for
treatment of hazardous aqueous organic wastes. The technology,
however, has not been as well defined as carbon adsorption.
REVERSE OSMOSIS
Process Description
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a salt removal process which has
been intensively developed over the past 15 years for treatment
of both brackish water supplies and wastewaters.
A natural phenomenon known as osmosis occurs when solutions
of two different concentrations are separated by a semi-permeable
membrane such as cellophane. Water tends to pass through a semi-
permeable membrane from the more dilute side to the more concen-
trated side, thus producing equal dissolved solids concentrations
on both sides of the membrane. The ideal osmotic membrane per-
mits passage of water molecules but prevents passage of ions such
as sodium and chloride. For example, if a solution of sodium
chloride in water is separated from pure water by means of a
semi-permeable membrane, water will pass through the membrane in
both directions, but it will pass more rapidly in the direction
74
-------
of the salt solution. At equilibrium, the quantity of water
passing in either direction is equal, and the pressure is de-
fined as the osmotic pressure of the solution having that partic-
ular concentration of dissolved solids.
The magnitude of the osmotic pressure depends on the concen-
tration of the salt solution and its temperature. By exerting
pressure on the salt solution, the osmosis process can be re-
versed. When the pressure on the salt solution is greater than
the osmotic pressure, fresh waster diffuses through the membrane
in the opposite direction to normal osmotic flow--hence the name
for the process, reverse osmosis.
Many materials have been studied for possible use as mem-
branes for water and wastewater purification and related separa-
tion and concentration procedures. The most widely used membrane
developed to date is simply a modified cellulose acetate film.
Polyamide materials and polyarylsulfones are more recent devel-
opments .
The semi-permeable membrane acts to retain the ions such as
sodium and chloride on the brackish water side, while permitting
pure or nearly pure water to pass through the membrane. The
properties of a membrane that permit water molecules to pass
through but will not permit the flow of salt ions are not clearly
understood. It is believed not to be simply a molecular filter-
ing action even though individual water molecules are smaller
than most of the ions of concern.
The water flux through the membrane is dependent upon the
applied pressure, while the salt flux is not. As the pressure
of the feed water is increased, the flow of water through the
membrane should increase while the flow of salt remains essen-
tially constant. It follows that both the quantity and the
quality of the product water should increase with increased
driving pressure.
Operating plants carry out the reverse osmosis principle in
several different process designs and types of membrane configu-
rations. There are four types of membrane systems which have
been used:
1. spiral wound,
2. hollow fine fiber,
3. tubular, and
4. plate and frame module.
The first three types are in commercial production and are cur-
rently in use in operating plants. The plate and frame approach
is not an efficient use of membrane surface area.
Membranes are susceptible to chemical attack and fouling,
75
-------
and the flow systems are susceptible to plugging and erosion.
Therefore, it is common to preprocess feed water to remove oxi-
dizing materials, oils, greases, and particulates. Typical pre-
treatments incl'ude carbon adsorption, chlorination, pH control,
and filtration as dictated by the nature of the feed water. Cel-
lulose acetate membranes are typically operated at pressures of
2760-4140 kN/m2 (400-600 psi) to produce flux rates of 0.204-
0.815 m3/m2.d (5-20 gal/day/ft2).
Process Applications
Probably the most extensive use of reverse osmosis to date
has been in the production of purified water from brackish or
seawater. Other applications include preparation of rinse water
for use in semiconductor and electronic manufacturing, and rec-
lamation of chemicals and water from electroplating rinse waters.
To a limited extent reverse osmosis has been used in treatment of
sulfite pulping wastes, textile dying wastes, and pharmaceutical
wastes.
Process Potential
Reverse osmosis is a relatively new process which has been
reduced to practice for some applications. A number of competi-
tive suppliers of reverse osmosis systems exist. Energy require-
ments for commercially available systems are about 7.61 x 106 -
9.51 x 106 J/m3 of product water (8-10 kwh/1000 gal). Reverse
osmosis is a relatively costly process but it is capable of pro-
ducing high purity water. The principal application is to con-
centration of dilute solutions of inorganic and some organic
solutes.
The state of development of the process is such that it is
necessary to conduct extensive bench and pilot scale testing
prior to almost any potential application to ascertain feasi-
bility.
Reverse osmosis in its present state of development is
judged to have limited potential for the application of interest.
Its use probably will be limited to polishing operations subse-
quent to other more conventional processes.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Process Description
Solvent extraction as used herein is the separation of con-
stituents of a liquid solution by contact with a solvent that is
immiscible with the liquid. Components of the original solution
are transferred to the solvent for subsequent recovery or re-
moval. Recovery and reuse of the solvent usually is dictated by
economics. Unless the solvent has very low solubility in the
original liquid, there will be solvent loss which, in addition to
76
-------
increasing process cost, may cause unacceptable contamination.
A solvent extraction process usually involves effecting in-
timate contact between the feed and solvent phases by forced mix-
ing or by countercurrent flow. Subsequent to mixing the two
phases are separated and the solute is removed from the solvent
by distillation, a second solvent extraction step, or some other
technique. Solvent recovery from the treated feed stream also
may be dictated by economics or discharge requirements.
Process Applications
The use of solvent extraction is limited. Commercial appli-
cations include manufacture of lubrication oil from crude oil,
upgrading of gasoline, extraction of sulfur compounds from gas-
oline, refining vegetable oils and fats, and dehydration of
acetic acid. The principal wastewater treatment application is
removal of phenol and related compounds from petroleum refinery
wastes, coke-oven liquors, and phenol resin plant effluents.
Process Potential
Solvent extraction is judged to have minimal potential for
the application of interest. Broad spectrum sorbents such as
activated carbon are expected to be more effective in treating
dilute waste streams containing a diversity of organic compounds.
Carbon adsorption also will be more economical unless a valuable
product can be recovered which is unlikely in most cases expected
to be encountered. Therefore, solvent extraction was dropped
from further consideration.
STRIPPING
Process Description
Two types of stripping are possible: air and steam. Air
stripping involves the passage of air through an aqueous stream
to remove a volatile component. Steam stripping essentially is
a fractional distillation of volatile compounds from a waste-
water stream.
Although air stripping from tanks and ponds is possible,
usually this process is carried out in packed towers. Typically,
the liquid stream is introduced at the top of a packed tower and
air is forced through the tower countercurrent to the liquid flow.
Depending upon the component to be removed, both temperature and
pH may be important variables in determining process effective-
ness and efficiency. Air pollution control devices will be re-
quired unless it can be shown that direct emission of the air
stream to the atmosphere has no adverse environmental impact.
Steam stripping usually is carried out in a packed tower or
77
-------
conventional fractional distillation column with more than one
stage of vapor/liquid contact. Preheated wastewater is intro-
duced near the top of the column and flows countercurrent to the
steam rising from the bottom of the column. The concentration
of the volatile component in the liquid progressively decreases
as the liquid passes down through the column. Wastewater at the
bottom of the column is heated by the incoming steam. Heat re-
covered from the wastewater discharged from the bottom of the
column is used to preheat the incoming feed.
Steam exiting the column is condensed and must be further
processed for product recovery or disposed in an acceptable man-
ner. Recycle of a portion of the condensed vapor to the strip-
ping tower may or may not be practiced.
Process Applications
The only major application of air stripping is the removal
of ammonia from domestic wastewater.
Steam stripping has been used primarily for ammonia, hydro-
gen sulfide and phenol removal from aqueous streams. Ammonia is
removed by steam stripping for product recovery from coke oven
gas scrubber water. Other recovery operations involving steam
stripping include sulfur from refinery sour water and phenol from
phenol production process water. Industrial waste treatment ap-
plications which have been reported include:
phenol removal from phenol plant effluent
removal of vinyl chloride monomer from suspension
resins of polyvinyl chloride
removal of methanol and sulfur compounds from Kraft
mill condensates
Process Potential
Air stripping is judged to have minimal potential for the
application of interest. The process would be difficult to op-
timize for hazardous aqueous waste streams containing a spectrum
of volatile and non-volatile compounds. Air stripping does have
appeal as a pretreatment prior to another process such as adsorp-
tion to extend the life of the sorbent by removing sorbable or-
ganic constituents. However, air pollution control requirements
are likely to be severe thus making the economics less attractive.
It should be noted that some air stripping of volatile components
will occur during the course of any treatment .process and may
result in safety hazards or air quality problems. This is ex-
pected to be most severe in the case of biological treatment pro-
cesses using aeration devices.
78
-------
Steam stripping has merit for wastes containing high con-
centrations of highly volatile compounds. It is a proven process
for some applications but will require laboratory and bench scale
investigations prior to application to waste streams containing
multiple organic compounds. Both energy requirements and costs
are relatively high. By-product recovery to offset costs from
the types of hazardous waste streams under consideration is
unlikely.
For the application of interest, steam stripping is judged
to have greatest potential as a pretreatment step to reduce the
load of volatile compounds to a subsequent treatment process.
ULTRAFILTRATION
Process Description
Ultrafiltration as a method for removal of contaminants in
wastewater is one of a number of processes employing semi-perme-
able membranes. Ultrafiltration differs from reverse osmosis in
that ultrafiltration is not impeded by osmotic pressure and can
be effected at low pressure differences of 34.5 to 1380 kN/m2(5 .
to 200 psi).
Ultrafiltration usually is applicable for separation of
higher molecular weight (7500) organic materials ranging in size
from about 100 angstroms upwards. The upper molecular weight
limit for ultrafiltration is usually near 500,000. Above that
molecular weight size, separation occurs by conventional micro-
porous filtration.
The predominant mechanism in membrane ultrafiltration is
selective sieving through pores of the membrane. Membrane re-
jection of a certain substance depends upon its molecular shape,
size and flexibility as well as the operating conditions. A use-
ful membrane must be able to effect separation distinctly at an
economical flow rate.
Polycarbonate resins, substituted olefins and polyelectro-
lytic complexes have been employed among other polymers to form
ultrafiltration membranes. Most ultrafiltration membranes on
the market today are cellulose acetate or derivatives therefrom.
This imposes some limitations on use. The pH range of the liquid
must be between 4 and 9 and operating temperatures are restricted
to less than 43 C to avoid hydrolysis of the cellulose acetate.
Polyarysulfones and inorganic materials have been introduced to
deal with high temperatures and pH values.
Typical membranes used in wastewater treatment are composed
of an extremely thin surface layer or skin covering a porous sub-
structure of the same material. The porous substrate is required
for mechanical strength. Many times the membranes are reinforced
with a nonwoven material such as paper to give added mechanical
79
-------
strength.
A variety of configurations are available for use of these
membranes in the ultrafiltration of wastewater. These include
tubular units, plate and frame units, and spiral wound units.
Most ultrafiltration systems are designed with similar flow pat-
terns. A series-parallel layout is employed in which the dilute
waste stream passes through several parallel membrane blocks or
housings. This concept was developed to avoid the fouling in-
herent in direct onflowing systems. The typical design involves
flow across the membrane face instead of directly onto it.
Ultrafiltration generally operates at lower total through-
puts and considerably higher solute concentrations than reverse
osmosis.
Process Applications^
Ultrafiltration has been used primarily in small laboratory
and industrial applications for product recovery or production of
a highly purified solvent. Primary commercial applications of
Ultrafiltration include:
electropaint paint rejuvenation and rinse water recovery,
protein recovery from cheese whey,
metal machining oil emulsion treatment,
textile sizing (PVA) waste treatment, and
sterile water production for Pharmaceuticals
manufacturing.
Potential applications under development include dye waste
treatment, pulp mill waste treatment, industrial laundry waste
treatment, protein recovery from soy whey, and hot alkaline
cleaner treatment.
Process Potential
Ultrafiltration is a commercially used process with several
industrial applications. It is characterized by high capital and
operating costs. Energy costs could run as high as 30% of direct
operating costs.
Ultrafiltration is judged to have limited potential for the
application of interest. Its use probably would be limited to
relatively low volume streams containing substantial quantities
of high molecular weight solutes or suspended materials. Pilot
testing is a prerequisite to use.
80
-------
SECTION 7
LITERATURE REVIEW
DESCRIPTION
This section describes and summarizes an extensive litera-
ture review which was undertaken as the second step in the tech-
nology screening process. In order to provide a consistent and
coherent basis for comparing and evaluating various processes, a
standard format was used to record data and observations gleaned
from the literature:
(1) Keywords
(2) Reference (Literature Citation)
(3) General Description
(4) Organization and Location
(5) State of Development
(A) Type of operation
(B) Size of operation
(c) Duration and frequency of operation
(6) Influent Waste Characteristics
(7) Process Ranges
(A) Application
(B) Operation
(C) Constraints
(D) Other limitations
(8) Operations
(A) Performance data for major parameters
(B) Equipment and supply requirements
(C) Energy requirements
(D) Flexibility
(E) Reliability
(9) Effectiveness
(A) Effluent quality and efficiency
(B) Form of Material
(10) Process Economics and Costs
(11) Environmental Acceptability
(12) Pilot Plant Operations
Special effort was made to adhere to this format as closely as
prudent engineering and scientific judgment allowed. However,
it became apparent early in the effort that limited information
on full or even pilot scale application of many of these
81
-------
processes to hazardous aqueous streams existed. Rarely was in-
formation covering all the above items presented. This general
absence of data was compounded by frequent reporting of technol-
ogy performance using gross pollutant indicators such as COD or
TOG rather than removal of specific pollutants.
Despite these problems, an extensive amount of pertinent
literature was reviewed and summarized. In order to maximize the
usefulness to the reader of .the large quantity and wide diversi-
ty of information extracted from the literature, it is presented
in several degrees of detail herein. The most detailed data sum-
mary is contained in Appendix C. Information in this Appendix
is presented in a standarized tabular format arranged according
to each candidate concentration technology. Data is further sub-
divided within each technology group on the basis of the pre-
viously described chemical classification system.
The second level of detail is presented in the form of a
narrative literature summary and is contained in a subsequent
portion of this report section. The organization of this summa-
ry description is similar to that of the tabular presentation
contained in Appendix C. Primary emphasis has been placed on the
ability of the several processes to treat chemical compounds in
the various classes of interest. General descriptions of indi-
vidual technologies are contained in the technology profiles and
can be found in numerous standard texts. Rather than reiterate
much of this basic information, this study instead builds upon
it, expanding the discussion of technology application, espe-
cially treatment of specific chemical compounds.
The most concise summary of the literature information has
been presented earlier in Table 1 which is arranged according to
unit process and individual chemical. This is intended to pro-
vide quick reference on the treatability of a chemical by the
various candidate processes. It also serves to illustrate infor-
mation gaps. This table can serve as a tool in the decision
making process to match a treatment process or processes with
the waste stream of interest. Efforts to identify all potential
processes thus would be greatly reduced. Evaluations and treat-
ability studies, although probably still necessary, could be
conducted in a less costly and time consuming manner. This is
of special importance when actions must be taken rapidly to mit-
igate imminent hazards.
82
-------
LITERATURE SUMMARY
The following summary has been prepared on the basis of in-
formation gained from the literature review and is arranged by
concentration process. Additional details are contained in
Appendix C.
Biological Treatment
A variety of biological processes are used for wastewater
treatment. This review generally was limited to configurations
of the activated sludge process, i.e., conventional, extended
aeration, contact stabilization along with aerated lagoon treat-
ment. Although not solely a concentration technology because
pollutant degradation and transformation occur, chemicals are
concentrated in and on the biomass via adsorption or metabolic
processes.
Biological processes appear to be capable of treating num-
erous organic and inorganic pollutants, although only limited
data on removal of hazardous compounds in full scale applications
(56,81,100,101) are available. A report by Pajak, et al.(71)
presents an extensive review of the effect of hazardous materials
on biological treatment processes. Much of these data, however,
reflect laboratory scale studies.
Alcohols
Removal of various alcohols by biological treatment gener-
ally was high even at concentrations up to 1000 mg/1. Several
references on the activated sludge process reported reductions
of 75-100% (56,81,101,133). Aerated lagoon treatment of alco-
hols achieved 38-85% reductions (100). Placak and Ruchhoft (103)
stated that 24-38% of the removal resulted from oxidation and
52-66% by conversion into protoplasm. Several toxicity thres-
holds to sensitive aquatic organisms were presented by Lund (99).
Aliphatics
Biodegradation-efficiency -of -aliphatics spanned a wide
range. Bess and Conway (100) observed zero to complete removals
for various aliphatics by aerated lagoon treatment. Several
references reporting on the activated sludge process cited gen-
erally high performances (56,81,90,101). Biodegradation of many
of the aliphatics was based upon respirometer tests, theoretical
83
-------
oxygen demands and toxicity thresholds (103,106,107,108,109,112).
Amines
Reported removal of amines was variable. Fitter (133) as
reported by SCS Engineers (81) described several amines as readi-
ly biodegradable using acclimated activated sludge inocula.
Melaney, et al. (107,108), however showed that many of these com-
pounds, e.g., benzamide, benzidine, benzylamine, 2-fluorenamine
and others, inhibited oxygen consumption. Alternative systems
utilizing mutant bacteria were reported to completely degrade
aniline and trichloroaniline (92), although Melaney (108) indi-
cated that aniline inhibited oxygen uptake. Leipzig and Haken-
burg (58) reported 99.9% reductions of nitroaniline using pow-
dered activated carbon in an activated sludge system.
Aromatics
Wide variation in the treatability of aromatics has been
reported. Bess and Conway (100) reported 10-100% reductions by
aerated lagoon treatment. Some aromatics, e.g., mono, di, tri,
tetra, and hexachlorobenzenes, were completely degraded by pseu-
domonas bacteria (66,92). Leipzig and Hakenburg (58) reported
up to 96% reductions of nitrobenzene using powdered activated
carbon in an activated sludge process. Pure activated sludge
performances ranged from 50-100% (56,81,90,101). Dryden, et al.
(90) , however, stated that the compounds of this group are fair-
ly biorefractory. This is supported by reports on general tox-
icity or inhibitory effects (102,106,108,109). Dryden, et al.
(90) further suggested that achievable reductions attributed to
biodegradation may be attained by air stripping or adsorption on
the biomass.
Ethers
References relating to ethers all pertained to isopropyl
ether. Activated sludge processes achieved 85-95% reductions
(56,101). Bess and Conway (100) reported 70-90% removals by
aerated lagoon treatment.
Halocarbons
Halocarbons generally are reported as biorefractory and in-
hibitory to biological growth (90). Several references, however,
reported effective removals by biological treatment at
84
-------
concentrations up to 1.3 mg/1 (21,58,65). Although not stated,
these reductions may be attributable to the volatile nature of
these compounds. Dryden, et al. (90) reported that halocarbons
may not be detrimental to an activated sludge system since they
tend to air strip readily.
Metals
Metals frequently were reported to inhibit biological ac-
tivity (71,109,124,127). A review by Pajak, et al. (71) report-
ed that bimetallic mixtures often were more toxic than the indi-
vidual metals. Toxicity thresholds, however, appear to exist
for many metals, e.g., barium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, and
zinc. Toxicity thresholds varied from metal to metal ranging
from 1 to 100 mg/1. At concentrations less than these thres-
holds, biological activity occasionally was reported to be stim-
ulated (109,124) . Reductions of 30-80% often were reported at
concentrations ranging from 0.006-10 mg/1 (118,122,128,132).
Pesticides
Except for herbicide orange (81) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid (115), only slight biodegradation of pesticides was
demonstrated (121). Wilkinson, et al. (92) presented half-life
information for several of the pesticides using mutant pseudomo-
nas bacteria.
Phenols
At concentrations of up to 500 mg/1 almost complete reduc-
tions were demonstrated for most phenolic compounds, especially
at contact times of 50 or more hours in acclimated systems.
Several references reported greater than 70% reductions utiliz-
ing activated sludge processes (81,88,90,118). Leipzig and
Hakenburg (58) showed 98.1% removals of nitrophenols using pow-
dered activated carbon in an activated sludge system. Nathan (66)
reported complete removals for several of the phenols employing
mutant pseudomonas bacteria. Although toxic and inhibitory ef-
fects were noted for some compounds in the literature (109,124,
127), it appears that biological treatment can reduce even toxic
compounds, e.g., 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, under suitable condi-
tions (66,90,102,115).
Phthalates
Biological treatment was demonstrated to be effective in
removing phthalate compounds. Removal efficiencies ranging from
50-100% were reported (21,81,90,100). Dryden, et al. (90), how-
ever, noted that a portion of these reductions may be attributa-
ble to absorption into cell tissue or air stripping.
85
-------
Polynuclear Aromatics
All but two of the polynuclear aromatics were reported to
be biorefractory or inhibited biological activity (108). Great-
er than 70% removal of napthalene at up to 500 mg/1 and D-chlo-
ramphenicol were reported (56,81,100,101).
Chemical Coagulation
For purposes of this review, the category of chemical coag-
ulation has been defined to include coagulation, flocculation,
and precipitation. Additionally, filtration, sand or multi-
media, often is included as an ancillary process. Typically,
chemical coagulation has been used to remove inorganics, primar-
ily heavy metals. Although most of the data examined pertained
to metals removal, several documents report removal of organics
with moderate success (6,21,90). Alum, aluminum sulfate, lime,
and ferric chloride are the coagulants used most frequently.
Cohen (21) reports 15-56% removals of several aromatics,
halocarbons, and phthalates at concentrations of 140-183 ppb us-
ing alum and dual media filtration. Dryden and Mayes (90) re-
ported 60-90% reduction of phthalates at low ppb levels using
aluminum sulfate. Becker and Wilson (6) reported 5-98% removal
of several pesticides at low ppb levels using alum followed by
sand filtration. Although reduction estimates were not provided,
•many polynuclear aromatics were reported to be removable by alum
coagulation and gravity separation or sand filtration (90).
With regard to removal of metals by coagulation and filtra-
tion, reported reductions ranged from 0-100%. However, for each
of the 22 metals for which quantitative reductions were reported,
at least 30% removal was achieved with one of the coagulants
enumerated earlier (16,34,63,64,90). Generally, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, bismuth, cadmium, trivalent chromium, copper, iron,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, tin, titanium, vanadi-
um, and zinc could be reduced by at least 90%.
Membrane Process - Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis was shown to be less effective for separa-
tion of low molecular weight, polar organic compounds than for
separation of inorganic salts. Two key criteria controlling
separation are membrane characteristics and chemical nature of
the molecule. Generally, separation of compounds with the same
functional groups increased with increasing molecule size and
branching. The following discussion illustrates the effective-
ness of the various membranes.
Separation of alcohols ranged from 0-90%; cross-linked poly-
ethylenimine (C-PEI) and aromatic polyamide (AP) membrane mate-
rials performed better•than cellulose acetate (CA) (18,30).
86
-------
Alcohols in order of decreasing percentage separation were
i-propanol, ethanol, and methanol.
For aliphatics, separation varied considerably ranging from
0-90% (18/30). With the exception of dimethyl sulfoxide, aromat-
ic polyamide and cross-linked polyethylenimine membranes per-
formed better than cellulose acetate. Cellulose acetate mem-
branes actually concentrated methyl acetate in the permeate.
Trichloracetic acid demonstrated better separation than acetic
acid by CA membranes but poorer separation by C-PEI membranes.
Similar results were reported for aniline. Using CA mem-
branes aniline was concentrated in the permeate while C-PEI mem-
branes achieved up to 80% removal (30).
Only limited data were available for aromatic compounds,
however, C-PEI membranes again were superior providing 80-90%
separation versus 3-7% for CA (18) . Similar removals were ob-
served for several ethers (18).
Separation of metal ions generally ranged from 85-100% at
metal concentrations of 0.8 to 200 ppm and pH values of 8 to 11.
Both CA and C-PEI membranes performed within this range (18).
Both CA and C-PEI membranes were capable of achieving 98-
100% separations of numerous pesticides at concentrations of 42
to 1,579 ppb (18).
With CA membranes, concentration of phenol in the permeate
was reported. However, 60-80% separation was reported for C-PEI
membranes (18,30,90).
Membrane Process - Ultrafiltration
Very little information on the use of ultrafiltration for
concentration of hazardous constituents in aqueous waste streams
is available. The process has been applied efficiently in elec-
tropaint recovery,.oil-emulsion waste treatment, and cheese whey
separation. Molecules generally larger than 10-3 to 10~"2 y are
retained in the concentrate stream (55).
In waste streams characterized by low suspended solids and
high total dissolved solids, significant rejection of organic
solutes was reported; e.g., 75% rejection of phenols at 100 mg/1
(54) and 80-93% rejection of TOC in a 20 to 200 mg/1 TNT contain-
ing wastewater (10). For the phenolic wastewater, rejection in-
creased as pH increased with optimum rejection at pH 10, indicat-
ing that ionic state of the solute influenced rejection rate.
Removal of metals in high suspended solids (125 to 1,550 mg/1)
wastewater ranged from 79-89% at metal concentrations of 0.44 to
6.8 mg/1 (59).
87
-------
Stripping
Results of air and steam stripping experiments have been
published for numerous organic compounds, particularly halocar-
bons. In other cases, certain compounds have been reported to
be air or steam strippable even in the absence of experimental
data because they possess relatively low boiling points.
As noted above, the majority of stripping data pertains to
removal of halocarbons. A report by Coco, et al. (95) describes
an extensive investigation on steam stripping of wastewaters
from the petrochemical industry. Study conditions involved
stripper feed flow rates of 250-325 ml/min, pollutant concentra-
tions of 15 to 8,500 mg/1, overhead flows of 2-5% of feed flows,
and various reflux flow to overhead flow ratios. Reductions of
75-99% between feed and bottoms were achieved at overhead flows
of <_5% of feed flow. In some cases refluxing with a reflux to
overhead flow ratio of 0.9:1 enhanced concentration of the pol-
lutant in the overhead with lower levels in the bottoms. Great-
er than 99% reductions of 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetra-
chloroethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, perchloroethylene, chlo-
roform, 1,1-dichloroethylene, and 1,2-dichloroethylene were re-
ported. Up to 75% TOG removals were reported concurrently. Re-
sidual TOG was in the form of chloral (trichloroacetaldehyde).
Numerous chlorinated and nonhalogenated aromatics have been
studied or reported to be strippable. Results indicate reduc-
tions of 50-99.9% (13,64,90). Moreover, phenol and chlorophenols
were reported to be steam strippable while napthalene and acry-
lonitrile were reported to be air strippable (90).
Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction has been shown to be a viable alterna-
tive to stripping and adsorption processes when recovery of a
valuable product is possible. Advantages claimed for extraction
are that less energy is required than for stripping and that, as
opposed to adsorption processes, feed stream concentration has
little effect on equipment size. Generally, the C^ and GS hydro-
carbons are the best volatile solvents with iso forms preferred
because of lower water solubility. For phenolic compounds, dual-
solvent extraction (polar solvent and volatile solvent in series
or in mixed extractor) is most appropriate. To select an appro-
priate solvent for the solute in the wastewater, equilibrium dis-
tribution coefficients (KD), for solute/solvent pairs should be
compared. The following criteria have been suggested by Earhart,
et al. (27):
• If KD values for important pollutants are >10,
simple extraction with volatile hydrocarbon
solvent is preferred.
88
-------
• If KJ-J is <2, volatile solvent extraction is not
recommended.
• Dual-solvent extraction is favored when KQ for
both dual-solvent steps is >_20 while KD for
direct volatile solvent is <5.
• If best polar solvent gives a KD not more than
twice the KD for a volatile solvent, dual-solvent
extraction probably is not warranted.
Although removals achieved by extraction are dependent on
the solute-solvent pair being tested, results indicate that for
many organic pollutants, especially aromatics, halocarbons, and
phenols 90-99% removals can be achieved (27,95). Many organics
in the other pollutant classifications also are reported to be
extractable although quantitative results are not available (90).
In addition, 99% reduction of mercury by extraction with high
molecular weight amines and quartenary salts was reported (90).
Sorption Process - Carbon Adsorption
Activated carbon adsorption has been the most extensively
applied concentration technology. Yet, much of the published
data reflects pure compound or synthetic wastewater laboratory
testing. Full scale process applications, especially for indus-
trial wastewaters, are numerous; however, for a variety of /,
reasons treatment data are not available.
Generally, carbon adsorption is most effective for materials
of high molecular weight and low water solubility, polarity, and
degree of ionization. It is difficult, however, to accurately
predict performance of a carbon sorption system based solely on
properties of the solutes which are present. For example, multi-
component system studies have shown that preferential or compet-
itive adsorption can reduce removals of some compounds to 50-60%
of values predicted from pure compound studies (35,40) .
Various approaches to regeneration of spent carbon are be-
ing investigated. Although thermal regeneration is practiced
most frequently, regeneration by solvent desorption has been re-
ported to have varying success dependent upon solvent used and
solute being desorbed (20). This provides the potential extrac-
tion and recovery of the solute from the solvent.
The following sections describe treatability of compounds in
each of the 13 chemical classifications (except for the miscel-
laneous pollutants class) by carbon sorption. .
Alcohols
Sorption of alcohols varies substantially ranging from
89
-------
about 3% to complete removal. Initial alcohol concentration
greatly influenced removal; for example, at 100 pg/1 propanol was
completely removed (20) while at 1000 ppm about 19% reduction was
' reported (35). Adsorbability was found to increase with molecu-
lar weight (35). For compounds of less than four carbons the
order of decreasing adsorption was undissociated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ketones, alcohols (when more than four car-
bons, alcohols moved ahead of esters) , and glycols (35) . Aroma tr-
ies had greater adsorption than aliphatics (35) . Desorption of
alcohols from carbon by elutriating with various solvents ranged
from 4-110% (20).
Aliphatics
i
Sorption of aliphatics varied widely ranging from complete
removal to less than 10% removal. Giusti, e_t al. (35) reported
that results of two component isotherm tests could be predicted
from single compound tests; however, in four component tests,
only about 60% of predicted adsorption occurred. Continuous
flow column studies produced 60-80% of theoretical isotherm ca-
pacity. Chriswell, et al. (20) reported that carbon was found
to be more efficient for sorption of alkanes and chlorinated al-
kanes and alkenes, while resin sorption was more efficient for
esters, alcohols, phthalate esters, phenols, chlorinated aromatic
compounds, aromatics, amines, and pesticides. Neither were effi-
cient for carboxylic acids. Using several solvents, Chriswell,
et al. (20) reported generally less than 10% desorption of com-
pounds from carbon with the exception of esters (insoluble in
("" water and soluble in alcohols and ethers) where 35-71% desorp-
tion was observed.
Amines
Complete removal of all amines at 100 yg/1 concentrations
was reported (20). At 1000 ppm concentrations, removal ranged
from 7.2-80.2% (35) . Chriswell, et al. (20) reported that car-
bon was found to be more efficient for alkanes and chlorinated
alkanes, while a resin was more efficient for esters, alcohols,
phthalate esters, phenols, chlorinated aromatic compounds, aro-
matics, amines, and pesticides. Using several solvents, Chris-
well, et al. (20) reported widely varying efficiencies in de-
sorbing amxne compounds from carbon. Desorption ranged from
0-82%, although, for 9 of 12 amines desorption was less than 38%.
Aromatics
Aromatics were reported to be sorbed better than undissoci-
ated organic acids, aldehydes, esters, ketones, alcohols, or
glycols (35). Resins, however, were reported to sorb several
aromatics more efficiently than did activated carbon (20). At
concentrations of 0.1 to 6000 ppm, greater than 50% sorption was
achieved for all aromatics reported with greater than 90% removal
90
-------
for many compounds. Desorption from carbon with solvent elutri-
atiori was poor, never exceeding 15% (20) . Preferential adsorp-
tion was reported in several studies (35,40) with only 50-60% of
the adsorption predicted from single compound studies occurring
in multi-compound tests.
Ethers
At concentrations of approximately 1000 ppm adsorption var-
ied from 13.5-100% generally increasing with increased molecular
weight and branching (35). Carbon adsorptive capacity ranged
from 0.039 to 0.200 g. compound/g carbon at a sorbent dose of
5 g/1.
Halocarbons
Halocarbons in the concentration range 0.001-1000 mg/1 were
reported to be readily adsorbed by carbon. Removals of 75-100%
frequently were reported. In several instances, halocarbon
spills were treated successfully by an EPA mobile treatment
trailer using carbon sorption technology (6). As with other
chemical classes, sorption of halocarbons increased with molecu-
lar size (35). For many compounds, carbon sorption capacity was
less in multi-component mixtures than in single compound solu-
tions (21). Elutriation with solvents yielded 9-59% desorption
of solutes from the carbon (20).
Metals
Carbon adsorption is not typically used for treatment of
inorganics. McCarty, et al. (64) reported little or no reduction
in arsenic, barium, cadmzum, lead, manganese, and mercury and
35-80% removal of chromium, copper, iron, and zinc when initial
metal concentrations were near analytical detection limits. At
100 mg/1 concentrations, carbon doses of up to 10,000 mg/1 yield-
ed the following removals (72):
hexavalent chrome 36%
copper 96%
lead 93%
manganese 50%
mercury 99%
nickel 52%
PCBs
Activated carbon exhibits a strong affinity for PCBs.
Contos, et al. (22) reported that concentrations of 1-160 ppb of
Arochlor 1242 and 1254 were reduced to <1.0 ppb with carbon dos-
ages of 4-100 mg/1. An EPA mobile activated carbon treatment
trailer reduced PCB levels by 92.5-99.9% in wastewaters initially
containing 1-400 ppb PCB levels (6).
91
-------
Pesticides
Organic pesticides were removed effectively by carbon sorp-
tion. A publication by Becker and Wilson (6) cited several ref-
erences of pesticide treatment with carbon. Reductions of great-
er than 80% were indicated with reductions frequently exceeding
99% at concentrations up to 4000 ppb. When TOC was used as an
indicator of pesticide removal, TOC reductions of greater than
99% were reported at TOC values up to 10,000 mg/1 (38). Sorption
capacities for several pesticides were reported by Eager (38) and
Bernardin, et al. (8) .
Phenols
Carbon sorption is efficient for reduction of phenolic com-
pounds. Removals of 92-100% at concentrations of 0.13-10 mg/1
were attained by EPA's mobile treatment trailer (6). Chriswell,
et al. (20) achieved virtually complete removal of various pheno-
lic compounds at a concentration of 0.1 mg/1. Desorption from
the carbon by elutriation with solvents proved ineffective. Il-
lustrating several methods of pretreatment prior to carbon sorp-
tion, five full scale adsorption systems treating phenolic waste-
water reported 83-99% TOC removals at TOC concentrations of 80-
1,200 mg/1 (38). Isotherm data including sorption capacities
for several phenolic compounds were provided by Cohen (21).
Phthalates
Data on treatment of phthalate compounds is limited. Great-
er than 98% removal of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at 1,300 ppb
was stated (5). Chriswell, et al. (20) reported complete remov-
als of dibutylphthalate and dimethylphthalate at 100 ppb concen-
trations. Desorption by elutriation with solvents was poor.
Activated carbon pretreatment improved phthalate removal by sub-
sequent aluminum sulfate flocculation (90).
Polynuclear Aromatics
Adsorption of polynuclear aromatics is generally high.
Chriswell, et al. (20) reported 80-100% reductions at 100 ppb
concentrations. Poor desorption by elutriation with several
solvents was indicated. Carbon used to further treat biologi-
cally and chemically treated wastewater achieved a 70% reduction
of napthalene (64). Fochtman and Dobbs (31) provided isotherm
kinetics for several polynuclear aromatics.
Sorption Process - Resin Adsorption
Generally, the principles which apply to carbon adsorption
also apply to resin sorption. Major differences exist in ini-
tial cost of the sorbehts and methods of regeneration. Carbona-
ceous and polymeric resins are severalfold more expensive than
92
-------
carbon- However, for some compounds, e.g., trihalomethanes,
greater adsorption capacity by the resins has been demonstrated
(46), thus smaller quantities of sorbents are needed. Also, it
is claimed that the carbonaceous synthetic resins offer greater
attrition resistance and regeneration flexibility (135). Sol-
vent desorption rather than thermal regeneration (often used for
carbon regeneration) provides the potential for recovery and re-
use of sorbed solutes. This could offset the higher initial
cost of the sorbents.
Resin sorption technology for the application of interest
is not as well developed as carbon sorption technology. There-
fore, less information exists on the former technology. Treat-
ability of compounds in 10 of the 13 chemical classifications
is described below.
Alcohols
Polymeric resin Amberlite XAD-2 provided complete removal
of several alcohols at 100 ug/1 concentrations (20). Desorption
by elutriation with solvent varied from complete desorption to
no desorption (20) .
Aliphatics
Using a polymeric resin (Amberlite XAD-2) Chriswell, et al.
(20) reported the adsorption of several chemical groups in order
of decreasing sorbability, to be phthalate esters, aldehydes and
ketones, alcohols, chlorinated aromatics, aromatics, esters,
amines, chlorinated alkanes and alkenes, and pesticides. Sorp-
tion of aliphatics ranged from 25-100%. All but the chlorinated
alkanes, chlorinated alkenes, and alkanes were removed better by
the resin than by activated carbon. Acidic compounds were not
sorbed well by either resin or carbon.
Desorption of aliphatics from resin by solvents ranged from
little or no desorption to 50-72% for the esters (20).
Amines
As noted earlier, the adsorption of several chemical groups,
in order of decreasing sorbability, was reported to be phthalate
esters, aldehydes, and ketones, alcohols, chlorinated aromatics,
aromatics, esters, amines, chlorinated alkanes and alkenes, and
pesticides (20). Complete sorption of amines at 100 yg/1 con-
centrations was reported. Amines were removed better by the
resin than by activated carbon.
Desorption of amines from resin by solvents ranged from
little or no desorption to 100%. Six compounds demonstrated less
than 50% desorption while six others showed greater than 50%.
93
-------
Aromatics
Using a polymeric resin, Amberlite XAD-2, Chriswell, et al.
(20) reported complete sorption of nine aromatics with no desorp-
tion to 80% desorption from resin by elutriation with solvent.
The order of decreasing sorbability was reported to be phthalate
esters, aldehydes and ketones, alcohols, chlorinated aromatics,
aromatics, esters, amines, chlorinated alkanes and alkenes, and
pesticides. Resins sorbed aromatics more efficiently than did
activated carbon. Because of the ability to regenerate with
solvents, resins were reported to be less costly for treatment
of wastewaters containing TNT (2). However, for munitions waste-
waters carbon was reported to have a greater absorption capacity
(Ib. nitrobodies adsorbed per Ib. sorbent) than did Amberlite
XAD-4 (40).
Halocarbons
Some of the resin adsorbents demonstrated a strong affinity
for halocarbons. Using Amberlite XAD-2, Chriswell, et al. (20)
showed complete removals of several halocarbons. Desorption of
these compounds from XAD-2 by elutriation with a solvent ranged
from 28-100% (20). Physical properties, equilibrium capacities,
and results of a column study comparing carbonaceous resins to
activated carbon were described by Tsacoff and Bittner (46).
Their study indicates that per cubic foot, the resin treated ap-
proximately twice as much groundwater as did carbon before com-
parable breakthrough occurred.
PCBs
Arochlor 1254 at a concentration of 100 ppb was completely
sorbed by Amberlite XAD-2 (20). Chriswell, et al. (20) also
stated that 76.6% could be desorbed using the proper solvent.
Lawrence and Tosine (57) studied the adsorption of PCBs from
synthetic aqueous solution and raw sewage. They reported 60%
reduction of Arochlor 1254 using Amberlite XAD-4 and about 23%
reduction of Arochlor 1260 using Amberlite XAD-2 at PCB concen-
trations of 1-25 ppb.
Pesticides
Several case studies of resin adsorption of pesticides cited
by Fox (32) reported at least 94% removal at pesticide concen-
trations ranging from 0.07 to 1,500 mg/1. Kennedy (49) showed
Amberlite XAD-4 was more effective than activated carbon in
treating a wastewater effluent from a pesticide manufacturer. At
chlorinated pesticide concentrations ranging from 33-118 mg/1
XAD-4 processed about four times more wastewater than carbon be-
fore comparable leakages occurred. Leakage could be maintained
at <1 mg/1 for at least 120 BV. While resin was readily regen-
erated with isopropanol, carbon was very poorly regenerated. It
94
-------
was noted that acetone was a more effective regenerant, but that
it is highly flammable. Amberlite XAD-2 achieved complete re-
movals of several pesticides at 100 ppb concentrations with 10-
49% desorption by solvent elutriation (20).
Phenols
Chriswell, et al. (20) reported complete reductions of sev-
eral chlorinated phenolic compounds at 100 ppb levels using
Amberlite XAD-2. Washing of the resin with various solvents
yielded 35-76% desorption of the solutes. Crook, et al. (23)
cited several case studies of industrial wastewater treatment by
resin sorption. For initial phenolic compound concentrations of
280-6,700 ppm, sorption capacities of 16-87 g of solute/1 of
resin were reported for Amberlite XAD-4 and XAD-7. Less than
1 mg/1 phenol leakages were attained. Elutriation with methanol,
ethanol, and acetone provided effective regeneration. The ap-
plication of macroreticular ion exchange resins and polymeric
adsorbents to waters containing 10-1,800 mg/1 concentrations of
phenols, dichlorophenol, and nitrophenol yielded greater than
99% -removal (33) .
Phthalates
Dibutyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate and dimethyl
phthalate were completely adsorbed at 100 ppb concentrations by
Amberlite XAD-2 (20). Desorption of the solutes from XAD-2 by
solvent elutriation ranged from 62-100%.
Polynuclear Aromatics
Amberlite XAD-2 resin completely removed several polynuclear
aromatic compounds at initial concentrations of 100 ppb (20).
Solute desorption from the resin by solvent elutriation ranged
from 41-63%.
Sorption Process - Miscellaneous Adsorbents
In addition to carbon and the synthetic resins, other natu-
ral and synthetic sorbents have been studied. Limited data for
two chemical classifications, metals and PCB's, have been report-
ed. These are summarized below.
Metals
Dryden, et al. (90) reported on a variety of materials in-
cluding silicon alloy, high clay soil, ground redwood bark, sil-
icon oxide and calcium oxide slags, for sorption of metals.
Copper and chromium at concentrations of 300 mg/1 were completely
sorbed on a high clay soil. Silicon alloy adsorption reduced
10-25 mg/1 arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc
concentrations by >96%.
95
-------
PCBs
Lawrence and Tosine (57) studied adsorption of PCBs from
synthetic aqueous solutions and raw sewage. At concentrations
of 1-25 ppb, Arochlor 1254 and 1260 were reduced 73% using PVC
chips and 35% using polyurethane foams.
96
-------
SECTION 8
PROCESS TRAINS
Since hazardous aqueous waste streams vary widely in compo-
sition and often contain a diversity of constituents, in general,
no single unit process is capable of providing optimum treatment.
Rather, arrangement of individual processes into process trains
is necessary to achieve high levels of treatment in the most
cost-effective manner. In this section the formulation of sev-
eral process trains is discussed. Although not necessarily uni-
versally applicable, these process trains have been judged to be
broadly applicable to many of the leachate, groundwater, and
surface water quality problems identified.
Both selection of the unit processes based upon literature
review results and formulation of process trains with broad ap-
plicability are described. Performance potential of each train
was examined using three wastewaters of differing quality. This
"desk-top" evaluation was conducted both independently and with
input from representatives of companies marketing the technolo-
gies. Based upon these evaluations, priorities were established
for subsequent laboratory bench scale evaluations using actual
wastewater.
EVALUATION OF UNIT PROCESSES
Summary
Evaluation of candidate technologies led to the conclusion
that the following unit processes have greatest broad range ap-
plicability to concentration of hazardous constituents of aqueous
waste streams:
biological treatment
chemical coagulation
carbon adsorption
membrane processes
resin adsorption
stripping
These, however, must be supplemented with ancillary processes
such as sedimentation and filtration.
Conclusions on all of the candidate technologies which led
97
-------
to the selection of the above unit processes are summarized
below.
1. Biological Treatment - This process was found to be applica-
ble to the treatment of a wide variety of waste streams. Con-
centration as well as degradation and stripping may occur during
biological treatment. For several of the chemical classifica-
tions presented earlier, the following performances were
observed:
a. alcohols - generally removals of 75%-100% reported.
b. aliphatics - wide range of efficiencies reported.
c. amines - some amines were readily degradable with
acclimated cultures while others were shown to
inhibit oxygen consumption.
d. aromatics - generally high removal reported; however,
many compounds are biorefractory and removal may be
due to air stripping or adsorption to biomass.
e. halocarbons - generally reported to be biorefractory;
removals attributed to biological treatment may be
due to air stripping.
f. metals - at below toxicity thresholds metal removals
were reported; however, at higher concentrations
toxic and inhibitory effects were noted.
g. pesticides - no significant degradation reported.
h. phenols - greater than 70% removals frequently were
reported; toxicity effects also were noted.
i. phthalates - high removals reported may be attributed
to absorption into cell tissue or air stripping.
j. polynuclear aromatics - generally reported to be
inhibitory or biorefractory.
2. Carbon Adsorption - Of the processes evaluated, the greatest
amount of information on hazardous waste applications existed
for carbon adsorption. Continuous flow systems using granular
carbon in contact columns and powdered carbon in biological
treatment systems as well as batch treatment for spill incidents
have been reported. Generally, it was found that adsorbability
increased with increasing molecular weight. For compounds of
less than four carbons, the order of decreasing adsorption was
undissociated organic acids, aldehydes, esters., ketones, alcohols
(when greater than four carbons, alcohols moved ahead of esters),
and gylcols. Aromatics had greater adsorption than aliphatics.
Adsorption capacity for a specific compound is affected by other
compounds present in the waste stream. Because of this
98
-------
competitive adsorption, caution must be exercised in basing sys-
tem design on case history results.
3. Catalysis - Deemed to be a destruction or detoxification
rather than a concentration process; found to be highly compound-
specific and poor for mixed streams.
4. Centrifugation - An ancillary process for concentration of
high suspended solid waste streams.
5. Chemical Coagulation - Numerous reports exist on the removal
of heavy metals by chemical coagulation with lime, alum, iron and"
sulfides. At ppb levels, moderate removals (30%-65%) were re-
ported for several aromatics, halocarbons, pesticides, phthalates,
and polynuclear aromatics using alum.
6. Crystallization - Process considered to be inapplicable. It
is reported to be complex to operate and cannot readily handle
variations in wastewater composition. There are no commerical
operations and there has been very little research since the
mid-1970's.
7. Density Separation - an ancillary process applicable primar-
ily to particulate or insoluble species; may be used with other
chemical processes.
8. Dialysis/Electrodialysis - Dialysis is most effective on feed
streams with high concentrations of low molecular weight dis-
solved species. It is a low flux rate process with both output
streams more dilute than the feed stream. Electrodialysis does
not affect undissociated species, is complex to operate, can be
fouled by high concentrations of organic compounds, and is appli-
cable on streams with TDS levels of less than 5000 mg/1. Neither
of these processes were deemed to have a high potential for the
application of interest.
9. Dissolved Air Flotation - An ancillary separation process
which can be used in conjunction with chemical coagulation. The
process frequently has been used for concentration of biological
sludges and separation of oils in water.
10. Distillation - Distillation is not expected to have broad
application to mixed waste streams. Only when credits for re-
covered materials are considered does the process compete eco-
nomically with other concentration techniques.
11. Evaporation - Not expected to have broad application because
the moderately volatile organics (boiling point of 100°-300°C)
will appear in evaporator condensate. Good clean separations may
not be possible without post-treatment. Energy usage is high and
both capital, and operating and maintenance costs are high.
99
-------
12. Filtration - Ancillary process to remove participates.
13. Ion Exchange - Primarily for treatment of inorganic ions;
however, heavy metals usually can be removed less expensively by
other chemical-physical processes. Not considered to have a
high potential.
14. Resin Adsorption - Comparable in principle to carbon ad-
sorption; however, resins usually are solvent regenerated. Using
polymeric-and carbonaceous resins, it is possible to adsorb a
broader range of compounds than generally reported for carbon.
It has been reported that resins were more efficient than carbon
for removal of esters, alcohols, phthalate esters, phenols, chlo-
rinated aromatics, aromatics, amines, and pesticides. However,
results depend on the resins used. Experience with resin ad-
sorption is much more limited than experience with activated
carbon.
15. Reverse Osmosis - Reverse osmosis (RO) is applicable to
treatment of waste streams low in dissolved and suspended solids.
It may be necessary to employ suspended solids removal processes
prior to RO to remove particles of >25 y. Performance is heavily
dependent on membrane material and configuration. While typi-
cally applied to inorganics, up to 90% removal of a variety of
organics has been reported. However, some membranes tend to con-
centrate some organics, e.g., aniline and phenol, in the permeate
rather than concentrate stream. For the application of interest,
RO probably would have to be paired with biological treatment or
stripping for further treatment of the permeate stream. The con-
centrate stream also would need additional handling.
16. Solvent Extraction - Potentially applicable when a single
or a few reuseable compounds are present. Generally not suitable
for waste streams containing a variety of organics at low part
per million or part per billion concentrations.
17. Stripping - Air and steam stripping have been used to remove
numerous volatile, low molecular weight organics. Because
stripping probably will remove predominantly biodegradable rather
than refractory organic compounds, bottoms will require addition-
al treatment possibly using an adsorption process. Although only
limited data could be obtained, removal of aromatics, halocarbons,
phenols, and polynuclear aromatics were reported to range from
about 50% to 90%. Considered to be potentially applicable.
18. Ultrafiltration - Whereas reverse osmosis can remove dis-
solved ionic species, UF basically is a filtration process capa-
ble of removing insoluble materials and organics of >1000 molecu-
lar weight. To date, applications have been largely in the area
of waste paint recovery, protein recovery from cheese whey, and
treating oil emulsions. Further processing of the permeate
would be necessary. Judged to be of limited potential.
100
-------
Discussion of Selected Processes
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment is expected to offer the most cost-
effective approach to removal of organic matter particularly bio-
degradable substances which are not amenable to sorption process-
es. The major problem confronting the use of biological treat-
ment is the potential presence of toxic organics and heavy metals
which may interfere with metabolic processes and render this
treatment approach ineffective. There are several categories of
biological treatment processes including variations within these
categories which overcome toxicity problems to some extent. In
addition, pretreatment or the addition of powdered activated car-
bon often can be applied successfully to overcome toxicity prob-
lems. For example, toxic heavy metal concentrations may be re-
duced below limiting concentrations by chemical coagulation,
such as lime, alum, or iron precipitation, prior to biological
treatment. Carbon sorption either by packed bed pretreatment or
PAC addition to the biological treatment unit can be quite ef-
fective in dealing with toxic substances. Nutrient addition
(e.g., phosphorous) will probably be required in many instances.
Biological treatment processes which can be used include
activated sludge, trickling filters, aerated lagoons, and anaer-
obic filters. Each is discussed below.
i
Of the various activated sludge processes, completely mixed,
extended aeration, and contact stabilization are used most often.
The complete mixed configurations are more tolerant of toxic sub-
stances than plug flow schemes. The impact of toxic substances
in the wastewater is reduced because complete mixing in the aera-
tion unit reduces constituent concentration by dilution and dis-
tributes the load to a greater quantity of biomass. Non-biode-
gradable substances may pose more of a problem than biodegradable
toxics especially if sorbed by the biological sludge where they
may concentrate over a period of time and interfere with cell
metabolism.
Sludge produced may be a hazardous waste due to the sorption
and concentration of toxic substances contained in the wastewater.
The quantity of sludge produced is normally governed by hydraulic
detention time and sludge age. The conventional approach focuses
on maximum sludge production consistent with the desired effluent
quality. On the other hand, extended aeration aims to minimize
sludge production at the expense of long detention times. Ex-
tended aeration typically is used in small operations since the
small sludge handling requirements minimize the amount of man-
power needed for operation (manpower costs are more significant
than aeration costs for small units).
It is doubtful that activated sludge treatment alone will
101
-------
suffice to meet discharge objectives in most instancesc Pre-
treatment is expected to be needed not only to meet discharge
requirements but also to remove toxic materials which would in-
terfere with optimum performance of the biological system. Post-
treatment normally serves to polish the effluent by removing re-
fractory substances. These generally are expected to be in much
lower concentrations than biodegradable substances. Listed be-
low are potentially useful pretreatment steps:
I. Chemical coagulation which can consist of lime, alum, or
iron salt addition to form precipitates which scavenge
toxic substances such as heavy metals from the waste-
water .
2. Carbon sorption which may either be accomplished through
PAC addition with or without chemical coagulation or by
packed beds of granular carbon. The objective is re-
duction of toxicants to facilitate biological treatment;
therefore, large throughputs for packed beds or small
PAC additions may be all that is required to achieve
this reduction if the toxicants are strongly sorbed by
the carbon.
3. Ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis are potential pre-
treatment candidates. These would be aimed at removing
large molecular species which typically include the tox-
ic and refractory species while smaller species which
are generally biodegradable (e.g. ethanol, acetone)
carry through and are removed in the biological unit.
4. Steam stripping may be useful in some instances but is
more likely to remove a large fraction of biodegradable
TOG than the refractory TOG.
5. Aeration, sedimentation and filtration may also be use-
ful in some instances. For example, ferrous iron may
be oxidized and precipitated to scavenge other heavy
metals. Sedimentation with or without filtration could
then remove the precipitated ferric hydroxide and reduce
toxic heavy metals to acceptable levels.
6. Chemical oxidation, with ozone for example, may serve to
detoxify certain materials; however, ozone consumption
may be high due to oxidation of materials, such as eth-
anol , which are more appropriately biodegraded at much
less cost.
7. Wet air oxidation also may detoxify some organic sub-
stances but is expected to be a costly pretreatment step.
8. Ion exchange can remove toxic metal ions but is probably
more expensive than chemical coagulation.
102
-------
9. Electrochemical treatment may be useful in some instanc-
es, e.g. it may be preferable to chlorination for re-
duction of high cyanide concentrations.
Candidate post-treatment steps include:
1. Carbon sorption has strong potential when teamed with
biological. Biological treatment can substantially re-
duce the load to a carbon column and thereby minimize
the cost.
2. Resin sorption is an alternative to carbon sorption and
may be less costly if steam and/or solvent regeneration
are effective.
3. Chemical coagulation - sedimentation - filtration would
be useful for removing residual heavy metals. Some PAC
addition may also be performed to clean up low residuals
of toxic organics.
Other steps, such as ion exchange, membrane processes, steam
stripping, oxidation, are not considered to be good post-treat-
ment candidate processes.
Trickling filters will not produce as high a quality efflu-
ent as activated sludge, but may be less troublesome from an
operation standpoint. Pre- and post-treatment comments on acti-
vated sludge also apply to trickling filters.
Although generally effective, because of their large surface
area, containing and collecting off-gases from aerated lagoons
would pose a problem. Removal of hazardous sludge from the la-
goon also may be a problem.
Anaerobic treatment may have advantages over aerobic treat-
ment because of less off-gas and sludge production. These pro-
cesses are less susceptible to upsets by many toxic substances
such as heavy metals. Possibly, methane produced in the process
could be used as fuel. Disadvantages include low quality and
effluent necessitating further treatment and generally greater
operational difficulty. Successful application of anaerobic
treatment of leachate from municipal landfills has been reported
on a bench scale level. Pre- and post-treatment considerations
discussed for activated sludge also apply.
Chemical Coagulation
The term chemical coagulation as used here includes_the
processes of chemical addition, precipitation, flocculation, and
sedimentation. Typically, it is a process used for the removal
of particulate matter and inorganic ions, primarily heavy metals.
Generally, precipitation is accomplished by adding alum, lime,
103
-------
iron salts (ferric chloride, ferrous sulfate), or hydrogen or
sodium sulfide. Organic polyelectrolytes also are used as floc-
culants or to aid flocculation. A primary variable in determin-
ing coagulation chemical doses and removal efficiences is pH be-
cause of its effect on pollutant solubility in the wastewater
solution. Although removals equal to solubility limits are the-
oretically possible, the formation of organometallic complexes
and the incomplete removal of precipitated particles limits ac-
tual removal efficiencies.
When organics are present, post-treatment for organics re-
moval will be required. This could take several forms including
biological, sorption, or stripping. Reports indicate, however,
that coagulation followed by efficient solids removal, e.g. dual
media filtration can provide moderate removals (30-60%) of num-
erous organic compounds; even when these compounds are present
at the low mg/1 or ppb levels. Provisions also are required to
manage sludges generated by the coagulation process.
Sorption Processes
Activated carbon sorption with packed beds is considered to
be a prime candidate for leachate treatment. However, it is an-
ticipated that activated carbon will be used in conjunction with
other processes since it is quite expensive to treat moderate to
high TOG loads with carbon alone. Furthermore, carbon is not
effective for removing many highly soluble low-molecular weight
organics. Although most of the low-molecular weight organics
are not highly toxic, they will contribute substantially to the
COD and BOD of the effluent. Carbon sorption is best suited for
removal of refractory organics following biological treatment.
These organics generally are adsorbed most strongly by the car-
bon and at the low concentrations typically found, the carbon
sorption cycle can be lengthened. Consequently, the cost of
carbon replacement or regeneration is lowered.
If the sorption unit is small, it is unlikely that on-site
thermal regeneration of activated carbon will be performed.
Instead, commercial replacement services probably would be used.
Adsorption by synthetic polymeric and carbonaceous resins is an
alternative to activated carbon sorption in some situations.
There are, however, several major differences between the two
types of sorbents:
1. Acids, caustics, hot water, steam, and solvents (acetone,
methanol, chloroform, methylene chloride, and mixtures)
are used to regenerate spent resins. This permits re-
covery of desorbed solutes provided that:
• there is a solute reuse potential,
* costs for recovery of solute (and credits for
recovery) and regeneration of solvent do not
104
-------
exceed costs for disposal and replacement of spent
solvent.
It also is useful where thermal regeneration is not pos-
sible, e.g., when nitrobodies from munitions waste are
adsorbed; or high inorganic dissolved solids would re-
sult in scale formation during thermal regeneration;
2. Resin sorption kinetics are more rapid;
3. Resins generally have lower adsorption capacities;
4. Resins are more resistant than carbon to attrition losses;
5. Selective adsorption is possible by applying the proper
resins in the correct sequence; and
6. Costs for resins range from $ll-33/kg (§5-15 per pound)
as compared to $l.l/kg ($0.50 per pound) for carbon.
At this time, there are limited full scale applications of
the resin process. Phenol, pesticide, munition wastes, and con-
taminated groundwater have been successfully treated using
various resins.
Alternative pretreatment steps for the sorption process in-
clude the following:
1. Biological treatment (discussed earlier);
2. Solids removed by filtration;
3. Chemical coagulation for suspended solids and heavy
metals removal followed by sedimentation alone or filtra-
tion alone, or a combination of sedimentation and
filtration;
4. Aeration followed by sedimentation/filtration for oxida-
tion and precipitation of dissolved iron which removes
heavy metals as well as suspended solids. Aeration also
may remove volatile organics to relieve loading on acti-
vated carbon;
5. Ozonation to render organics more sorbable by carbon;
and
6. Steam stripping may be effectively used for removing
relatively high concentrations of volatile sorbable or-
ganics to reduce loading on carbon. It may be possible
also to reduce concentrations of nonsorbable volatile
105
-------
species such as lower alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, and
perhaps acetic acid. The cost may be high however.
Processes such as ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis do not com-
plement sorption and are not considered good pretreatment candi-
dates. Ion exchange possibly may serve to remove ionic substanc-
es such as heavy metals, organic acids, amines, or cyanide; but
it is likely that alternative processes will be less expensive.
Post-treatment processes which may be useful include the
following:
1. Precipitation - scavenging for removal of residual
heavy metals.
3. Biological - for removing biodegradable residuals.
Membrane Processes
Reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration are considered to be
possible candidates for treatment of leachate and other contam-
inated waters. Reverse osmosis should be used only for waste
streams relatively low in dissolved solids because treatment of
highly mineralized water would result in a high volume concen-
trate stream. Ultrafiltration may be used on wastes high in
dissolved solids because high molecular weight species are sepa-
rated while dissolved salts pass into the permeate stream. This
would be permissible in instances where the presence of dissolved
salts in the process effluent is deemed acceptable.
It is anticipated that a suspended solids removal pretreat-
ment step will be required in most instances to produce a clear
feedwater to the membrane process. The membrane should remove
the toxic and refractory species leaving biodegradable organics
for post-treatment by a biological process. It is possible that
steam stripping could serve to remove low molecular species prior
to the membrane process to eliminate the need for biological
processing.
Treatment of the brine or concentrate streams from the mem-
brane unit must also be considered. Evaporation and incinera-
tion are potential treatment processes for these concentrates.
Solidification also is an alternative.
Stripping Processes
Two types of stripping processes, air and steam stripping,
are possible. Although both can be conducted in packed towers,
steam stripping actually is a fractional distillation process
with significantly greater energy demands. Typically, air strip-
ping has been used for removal of ammonia from domestic waste-
water. Steam stripping has been used for ammonia and hydrogen
106
-------
sulfide removal from industrial wastes; soluble, low molecular
weight volatile organics removal (e.g. methanol) from high BOD
waste streams; and more recently, removal of water immiscible
organics (e.g. chlorinated hydrocarbons) from process wastewaters,
Because of potential for air pollution caused by removal of vol-
atile organics, air stripping is deemed to have more limited
utility. Steam stripping, however, may be more attractive,
especially if:
1. recovery of the pollutant in the condensate stream from
a binary pollutant/water mixture is possible (practiced
frequently in process wastewater treatment), or
2. pollutant load on downstream treatment processes can be
reduced.
The efficiency of steam stripping is influenced by feedwater
temperature and pH. Pretreatment steps would include pre-heat-
ing of feed concurrently with condensate or bottoms cooling and
pH adjustment. The extent of pH adjustment necessary will be
dependent on the pH of the waste stream and the pollutants pres-
ent. Chemical coagulation and sedimentation or filtration for
metals and suspended solids removal also may be required.
If recovery of a pollutant(s) in the condensate stream is
not possible, two streams (condensate and bottoms), both needing
additional treatment, are generated. If this is the case, steam
stripping could be of marginal utility since cost-effectiveness
is dramatically affected if there is no credit for recovered
materials. Frequently, incineration will be the best disposal
approach for anganjlcs-rich condensates. Condensate volumes rang-
ing from 2-5% of feed flow have been reported. By refluxing a
portion of the total condensate stream or the water phase if an
organics-water separation occurs, the condensate can be further
concentrated.
Bottom streams generally will be better suited to treatment
by adsorption processes because stripping will remove the less
sorbable soluble, volatile, low molecular weight organics. Re-
fractory and the more biologically toxic organics probably will
remain. Therefore, biological treatment will have less applica-
bility. Treatment of bottoms by membrane processes also may be
feasible although less attractive than sorption.
FORMULATION OF PROCESS TRAINS
Having identified the most promising unit concentration
technologies, the next step was to formulate process trains which
combined technologies in a fashion which would provide broad
spectrum treatment capability. The objective was to identify
process trains which would produce high quality effluents when
applied to the wide range of waste stream compositions likely to
107
-------
be encountered. Five such process trains incorporating the se-
lected concentration technologies were formulated and are illus-
trated in Figures 1-5. Each of these process trains has partic-
ular strengths and weaknesses as discussed subsequently. One or
more of these process trains should be applicable to almost any
situation dictating concentration of a hazardous aqueous waste.
Process Train 1
Figure 1 illustrates a sequence of biological treatment fol-
lowed by granular carbon sorption. This train is applicable to
treatment of wastewaters high in TOG, low in toxic (to a biomass)
organics, and containing refractory organics. Chemical coagula-
tion and pH adjustment are provided for heavy metal removal and
protection of the subsequent biological system. This may not be
necessary if heavy metal concentrations are below toxicity
thresholds and if the moderate removal efficiencies typical of
activated sludge (20-60% although both poorer and better perfor-
mances have been reported for some metals) are sufficient. When
combined with additional metals removal by activated carbon or
resin sorption sufficient removal may be achieved without chemi-
cal coagulation. Biological treatment such as activated sludge,
rotating biological contactors, or anaerobic filters is included
to reduce BOD as well as biodegradable toxic organics. This re-
duces the organics load to subsequent sorption processes. To
prevent rapid head losses caused by accumulation of solids in the
sorption columns, clarification and multi-media filtration are
provided. The intent is to reduce suspended solids to 25-50 mg/1.
Granular carbon adsorption is included to remove refractory or-
ganic residuals and toxic organics. Activated carbon rather
than polymeric or carbonaceous resins has been specified because
more full scale experience exists and performance as well as de-
sign and operating criteria have been reported. As previously
noted, some concomitant removal of heavy metals also can be ex-
pected to occur. This process train is expected to be highly
effective and the least costly. Its success, however, is depen-
dent on biological system performance. Moreover, the presence
of high concentration of volatile organic constituents may create
a potential air contamination problem. Three by-product wastes
are produced: chemical sludge, biological sludge, and spent car-
bon. Spent carbon can be regenerated but the sludge must be
disposed.
Because the process is intended to handle multi-component
waste streams, pollutant recovery for reuse is unlikely. The
only potential for such recovery is during carbon regeneration
if materials can be desorbed by steam or solvent washing. This
would be reasonable only if a small number of .separable com-
pounds were sorbed on the carbon.
108
-------
pH adjustment
y w
chemicals
COAGULATION SETTLING
influent A
backwash
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
effluent
sludge
FILTRATION
off gases
BIOLOGICAL
SETTLING
V sludge
V waste sludge
Figure 1. Schematic of biological/carbon sorption process train,
-------
Process Train 2
The flowsheet depicted in Figure 2 employs the same unit
processes as in Figure 1, but granular carbon is positioned ahead
of biological treatment. This process train which also is appli-
cable to high TOC wastewaters, was designed to respond to situa-
tions where waste stream components may be toxic to biological
cultures. The rationale is to utilize the activated carbon to
protect the biological system from toxicity problems. Therefore,
the carbon would be allowed to "leak" relatively high concentra-
tions of TOC (organics) rather than be operated to achieve maxi-
mum reduction of organic compounds. Allowable leakage would be
based upon determination of the point which the carbon treated
effluent becomes toxic to the subsequent biological process.
Thus, the selection of the allowable TOC or organics leakage
(i.e., breakthrough) from the carbon contactors is crucial to
the performance and cost effectiveness of this process train.
If biologically toxic organics are present, treatability studies
must be conducted for several reasons, one of the primary being
to establish the acceptable breakthrough level. Higher organic
loads handled by the biological system result in greater service
life of the granular carbon and consequently, lower costs related
to the carbon treatment phase.
\
In this configuration, the chemical coagulation step (in-
cluding settling and filtration) plays a role both in soluble
inorganics removal and in particulate removal to minimize head
losses in contact columns.
As with the process train in Figure 1, there is little po-
tential for recovery of pollutants.
Process Train 3
The third process train, illustrated in Figure 3, utilizes
biophysical treatment which is a combination of biological and
powdered activated carbon treatments conducted simultaneously.
This approach is simpler than the previously described sequential
carbon-biological treatments and has the potential of achieving
comparable effluent quality. Potential advantages include the
use of less costly carbon (powdered vs. granular) and minimiza-
tion of physical facilities required. Spent carbon-biological
sludge can be regenerated or dewatered and disposed directly.
However, if the latter approach is considered, it is necessary
to include cost for disposal of toxics-laden carbon when making
economic comparisons.
Complete mix activated sludge or contact stabilization are
the two biological processes most frequently used. Recent re-
ports suggest operating at long solids retention times (i.e.
sludge ages of 100-150 days) and mixed liquor suspended solids
concentrations of 20,000-25,000 mg/1 with 60% being PAC and 40%
110
-------
pH adjustment
chemicals
COAGULATION
SETTLING
influent A
backwash
effluent P
< - 1
L_ J
FILTRATION
(optional)
sludge
backwash
SETTLING
FILTRATION
off gases.
\ ( sludge
BIOLOGICAL
waste sludge
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
Figure 2. Schematic of carbon sorption/biological process train.
-------
influent
pH adjustment
chemicals
V
COAGULATION
i
( Backwash
I
1
effluent
powdered activated
carbon
SETTLING
\ I
FILTRATION
(optional)
sludge
_V
Aoff gases
BIOLOGICAL
SETTLING
f
-------
being biomass.
Process Train4
Figure 4 illustrates the use of a membrane process preceding
biological treatment. This configuration would be applicable to
wastewaters containing organic and inorganic pollutants. Selec-
tion of the appropriate membrane process, ultrafiltration and/or
reverse osmosis, would depend upon wastewater composition and
treatment goals. Ultrafiltration is a membrane process capable
of separating high molecular weight (mw > ^1000) species from a
liquid stream on the basis of size. Reverse osmosis utilizes a
semipermeable membrane to concentrate numerous dissolved species
both organic and inorganic. Salinity is an important factor to
be considered since UF will allow dissolved salts to enter the
permeate stream while RO will not. Therefore, use of RO on high
salinity waste streams is questionable because large volumes of
concentrate are generated. Numerous RO membrane materials and
configurations are available. Aromatic polyamide and cross-
linked polyethylenimine materials have performed better than
cellulose acetate. Membrane module configurations include hol-
low fiber, spiral wound, tubular, and flat sheet. Different con-
figurations provide different surface areas, flux rates, flow
velocities, and other process variables. Care must be exercised
in selecting membrane materials and configurations. Organic re-
movals of 20-70% have been reported for RO, although some mem-
branes, e.g. cellulose acetate, tend to concentrate some organics,
e.g. phenol and aniline, in the permeate stream.
A biological process was paired with the membrane process to
address low molecular weight organics. Alternatively, stripping
processes could be paired with membranes. Sorption processes
were not considered in conjunction with membranes because of the
likelihood that the lower molecular weight, readily soluble or-
ganics would pass through the system.
A major disadvantage of the process train depicted in Fig-
ure 4 is that membrane processes generate concentrate streams
which require additional handling and disposal. The concentrate
stream flow may be 10-20% of the feed flow.
Process Train 5
A processing system consisting of stripping and carbon ad-
sorption is illustrated in Figure 5. This configuration will be
applicable primarily to organic wastewaters although chemical co-
agulation for inorganics and particulate removal is provided.
This flowsheet is suited to situations involving volatile and
refractory or toxic organics. It is especially pertinent if a
single or limited number of volatile compounds which can be re-
covered from the overhead condensate stream (if steam stripping
is used) are present. Even though the wastewater may contain
113
-------
pH adjustment
V
influent A
_y
chemicals
SETTLING
COAGULATION
sludge
backwash
FILTRATION
MEMBRANE:
RO or UF
brine
concentrate
I
(backwash
.effluent
I I
FILTRATION
(optional)
SETTLING
_A
v sludge
off gases
1
BIOLOGICAL
waste sludge
Figure 4. Schematic of membrane/biological process train.
-------
Ul
pH adjustment
influent
A
FILTRATION
(optional)
I 1
->l I >
A overhead condensate
-backwash.)
bottoms
AIR/STEAM
STRIPPING
chemicals
V V
COAGULATION
SETTLING
sludge \f
backwash
FILTRATION
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON
effluent
Figure 5. Schematic of stripping/carbon sorption process train.
-------
air-strippable compounds, air stripping may not be the best se-
lection if air pollution is of potential concern; unless off-
gases can be contained and collected.
As previously discussed, stripping probably will remove bio-
degradable rather than refractory TOC. Therefore, it has been
paired with activated carbon adsorption rather than a biological
process.
Aside from pH adjustment prior to stripping, little pretreat-
ment is necessary. If the wastewater contains readily settleable
suspended solids, removal before packed column or tray tower
steam stripping will prevent solids build-up in the stripping
unit.
In addition to carbon treated effluent, this process train
generates three waste streams: overhead condensate, chemical
sludge, and spent carbon. Assuming that carbon will be regener-
ated, either on-site or by a commerical service, the two remain-
ing streams require additional treatment and/or disposal. Pref-
erably, the organic phase of the overhead condensate can be re-
covered and reused, with the water phase returned to the treat-
ment system. However, if this is not possible, incineration is
the best method for condensate disposal. Chemical sludge should
be dewatered and disposed by a method commensurate with the ma-
terials contained in the sludge.
Process trains illustrated in Figures 1 through 5 do not
represent the only possible configurations. They do, however,
encompass the concentration technologies which are expected to
have greatest broad range applicability and effectiveness.
They also are the processes which have been demonstrated to some
degree for treatment of hazardous aqueous wastewaters.
EVALUATION OF PROCESS TRAINS
Prior to initiating experimental studies, it was decided to
perform a desktop evaluation of the five processes in an attempt
to predict performance potential on actual hazardous waste
streams. In order to select waste streams for this evaluation,
a matrix was devised to group waste streams identified in
Table B-l according to the concentration of inorganic and organ-
ic constituents. This matrix shown in Figure 6 describes the
concentration of the inorganic and organic constituents as high,
medium, and low. In general, the working definitions of "high",
"medium" and "low" are as follows:
116
-------
Z
o
DC
I—
Z
UJ
o
Z
o
o
CO
o
Z
CD
O
f*
Jmm
CD
ir
1
—
0)
2
o
_j
INORGANICS CONCENTRATION
High
Sites 006
011
Site 022
Sites 004
012
014
015
016
018
Medium
Site 010
-
Low
Sites 001
002
003
005
021
023
024
025
026
027
Sites 008
009
013
Figure 6. Waste stream categorization matrix.
117
-------
Hazardous Hazardous
Inorganic • Organic
Constituent Constituent
High greater than 5 times greater than 400 ppb
water quality criteria*
Medium from 2 to 5 times water from 5 to 400 ppb
quality criteria*
Low less than water quality less than 5 ppb
criteria*
In addition, if a gross -parameter such as BOD or TOC was reported
in significant concentration (BOD >20 mg/1; TOC >10 mg/1), the
waste stream was considered to fall in the high organic category.
Although this system is not rigorous, it does permit a useful
grouping of the actual waste streams. Inspection of the matrix
revealed that most of the actual waste streams identfied fell
into one of two categories: high organic-low inorganic or low
organic-high inorganic. With regard to the latter category, con-
centration technology is essentially state-of-the-art. Therefore,
the low organic-high inorganic category was not considered
further.
Waste stream data from Site 026 in the high organic-low in-
organic category was selected for the evaluation for several
reasons: the data set was one of the most comprehensive avail-
able; ongoing activity at the site foretold future supplemental
data availability; the state had assumed responsibility for mit-
igation of contaminated groundwater problems; no litigation was
involved; the state regulatory agency was cooperative; and a
strong possibility existed for use of the actual waste in sub-
sequent laboratory studies.
The second waste stream composition selected for the analy-
sis was that of Site 010 in the high organic-medium inorganic
category. Reasons for selection were similar to those given for
Site 026. In addition, heavy metals were present. Thus, this
waste stream is sufficiently different than that of Site 026 to
provide a second case.
The third waste stream utilized is a hypothetical leachate
postulated on the basis of data contained in another report (137) .
Frequency of occurrence of the various classes of chemicals giv-
en previously also was considered in formulating the hypotheti-
cal leachate. The postulated leachate composition represents
the high organic-high inorganic case. Reasons for selecting a
hypothetical leachate include: (1) it provides a common basis
* water quality criteria derived from Quality Criteria for Water,
U.S. E.P.A., Washington, DC, July, 1976
118
-------
for testing the appropriateness of various technologies, (2) it
represents a reproducable "waste" composition for potential use
in laboratory studies, (3) it contains a limited number of con-
stituents representative of the broad range of materials found
at actual sites, and (4) it is representative of "average" con-
ditions at numerous sites.
Having selected waste streams for the evaluation, the next
step entailed establishing effluent quality objectives for dis-
charge to a receiving stream. Since established effluent limi-
tation guidelines did not exist for the wastes of concern, the
following procedure was utilized to define treatment objectives:
1. Where published, industrial effluent limitation guideline
documents specified a numerical criteria for constituents
present in the waste of concern, these criteria were ap-
plied. Criteria generally were available for pH, BOD,
COD, SS, oil and grease, phenol, cyanide, and several
heavy metals.
2. When only Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards or
numerical water quality based criteria were available,
these were used, but the effluent objective was set at
an order of magnitude greater than the water quality
criteria. This allows for the impact of dilution and is
consistent with a tenfold factor originally proposed in
the RCRA regulations related to leachate quality. For
parameters where this tenfold multiplier was applied, a
maximum effluent limitation of 1 mg/1 was established on
the basis that existing technologies could achieve this
level. Utilizing this approach, limits were developed
for certain metals and several pesticides.
3. Subsequent to the application of items 1 and 2 above,
only the priority and non-priority specific organic con-
stituents remained. The following two approaches were
used for these:
a. For non-priority organics, no effluent limita-
tion was specified; the TOC limitation was the
overriding limit.
b. For organic priority pollutants, 99 .9% reduction
was deemed to be achievable and desirable. If
achieving 99.9% reduction required removal to
less than current analytical limits of detec-
tion, the detection limit was specified as the
effluent objective.
Quantitative data on the three waste streams of interest
together with the defined effluent objectives are given in
Tables 4-6.
119
-------
TABLE 4 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION - SITE 010
Parameter
pH
TOC
SOC
COD
Oil & Grease
SS
TDS
Sulfide
Total P as P
POit as P
TKN
NH4-N
N03-N
N02~N
Na
Ca
Cl
Fe
Hg*
Pb*
Sb*
As*
Cd*
Cr*
Cu
Ni*
Se*
Ag*
Zn*
CN*
Hexachlorobutadiene*
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene*
Aldrin*
Heptachlor*
Phenol*
Phenols (total)*
2 , 4-Dichlorophenols*
Methylchloride*
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene*
Chloroform*
Trichloroethylene*
Dibromochlorome thane*
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Raw Wastewater
Composition Range **
5.6 - 6.9 units
1800 - 4300 mg/1
4200 mg/1
5900 - 11,500 mg/1
90 mg/1
200 - 430 mg/1
15,700 mg/1
240 mg/1
<0.1 mg/1
<0.1 - 3.2 mg/1
<0.1 mg/1
5.4 mg/1
0.65 mg/1
<0.1 mg/1,
<0.1 mg/1*
1000 mg/1
2500 mg/1
9500 mg/1
31 - 330 mg/1
<0.5 - <1
0.3 - 0.4 mg/1
2
130
11
270
540
240
9
1
480
<0.01 mg/1
109
23
<10
573
30
3.5 mg/1
10
180
28
ND - 4550
ND - 760
ND - 35
ND - 1000
Effluent Quality
_ Objective **
5-9 units
20 mg/1
20 mg/1
50 mg/1
10 mg/1
10 mg/1
No increase
250 mg/1
0 „ 3 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
No limit
0 . 5 mg/1
10 mg/1
No limit
No limit
No increase
1 mg/1
20
0.50 mg/1
200
500
100
200
250
250
100
20
2 mg/1
0.25 mg/1
10 3 reduction
<0.09
500
NS
<0.1
<0.4
<2.0
10 3 reduction
10 3 reduction
<0.3
see TOC
120
-------
TABLE 4 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION - SITE 010 (cont.)
Parameter
Chlorobenzene*
Methanol
Ethanol
Acetone
Isopropyl alcohol
Benzene*
Toluene*
1,1,1-Trichloroethane *
Carbon tetrachloride*
Hexachlorocyclohexane-*
Alpha isomer
Beta isomer
Gamma isomer
Delta isomer
Raw Wastewater
Composition Range **
1200
42.4 mg/1
56.4 mg/1
50.3 mg/1
<0.1 mg/1
ND - 3300
ND - 31,000
ND - 225
92
Effluent Quality
Objective **
see
see
see
see
103
103
<2
<4
see
10 3 reduction
TOC limitation
TOC limitation
TOC limitation
TOC limitation
reduction
reduction
TOC limitation
ND
ND
ND
ND
600
700
600
120
Footnotes:
* - A priority pollutant
** - All concentrations in yg/1, except as noted
ND - Not Detected
121
-------
TABLE 5 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION - SITE 026
Parameter
pH
COD
TOC
NH3-N
Organic N
Chloride
Conductivity
SS
TDS
Raw Wastewater
Composition Range **
11.5
5400 mg/1
1500 mg/1
64 mg/1
110 mg/1
3800 mg/1
18,060 ymhos/CM
100 mg/1
12,000 mg/1
Effluent Quality
Objective **
5-9
50 mg/1
20 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
NL
No increase
NL
10 mg/1
No increase
Volatile Organics:
Vinyl chloride*
Methylene chloride*
1,1-Dichloroethylene*
1,1-Dichloroethane*
1,2-Dichloroethane*
Benzene*
1,1,2-Trichloroethane*
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane* <5
Toluene*
Ethyl benzene*
Chlorobenzene*
Trichlorofluoromethane*
Acid Extractable Organics:
o-Chlorophenol*
Phenol*
o-sec-Butylphenol***
p-Isobutylanisol*** or
p-Acetonylanisol***
p-sec-Butylphenol***
p-2-oxo-n-Butylphenol
m-Acetonylanisol***
Isoprophylphenol***
1-Ethylpropylphenol
Dimethylphenol*
Benzoic acid
140
<5 -
220
<5 -
350
6 -
<5 -
<5 -
<5 -
<5 -
<5 -
<5 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3 -
<3
<3
<3 -
- 32,500
6570
- 19,850
14,280
- 8150
7370
790
1590
5850
470
78
18
20
33
83
86
48
1357
1546
8
12,311
10 3
103
103
103
103
103
10 3
10 3
103
103
0.2
2.0
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
reduction
0.09
0.5 mg/1
see TOC limitation
see TOC
see TOC
see TOC
see TOC
see TOC
see TOC
0.01
see TOC
limitation
limitation
limitation
limitation
limitation
limitation
limitation
122
-------
TABLE 5 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION - SITE 026 (cont.)
Parameter
Raw Wastewater
Composition Range **
Base Extractable Organics:
Dichlorobenzene* <10 - 172
Dimethylaniline <10 - 6940
m-Ethylaniline <10 - 7640
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene* <10 - 28
Naphthalene* <10 - 66
Methylnapthalene <10 - 290
Camphor <10 - 7571
Chloroaniline <10 - 86
Benzylamine or o-Toluidine<10 - 471
Phenanthrene* or
Anthracene*
<10 - 670
Effluent Quality
Objective **
103 reduction
see TOG limitation
see TOC limitation
0.09
103 reduction
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
103 reduction
Footnotes:
* - A priority pollutant
** - All concentrations in yg/1 except as noted
*** - Structure not validated by actual compound
NL - No effluent limitation
123
-------
TABLE 6 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION - SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
Parameter
TOC
BOD
COD
pH
Cl
Raw Wastewater
Composition Range (mg/1)
Effluent Quality
Objective (mg/1)
SS
TDS
Na
Ca
Mg
K
Fe+2
Mn
As+5*
Ba
Cr+3*
Se*
Cu*
Ni*
Zn*
Cd*
Hg*
CN*
Phenol*
Trichloroethylene*
Ethanol
Acetone
Benzene*
o-Chlorobenzene*
o-Nitrophenol *
Endrin*
500
1000
1400
5.0
285
50
50
350
113
110
50
10
10
1.0
20
2.0
0.5
0.5
5.0
0.5
5.0
1.0
0.1
1.0
10
2.0
50
100
5.0
1.0
2.0
10 ppb
20
30
50
5-9
No increase
0.5
10
No increase
NL
NL
NL
NL
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.2 (Total Cr)
0.1
0.25
0.25
2.0
0.1
0.02
0.25
0.5
10 3 reduction
see TOC limitation
see TOC limitation
10 3 reduction
10 3 reduction
10 3 reduction
<1 ppb
Footnotes:
* - A priority pollutant
124
-------
Based upon the unit process performance data compiled from
the literature, the performance potential of each of the five
process trains was calculated for each of the waste streams.
These calculations indicated that all of the process trains were
potentially capable of meeting the established effluent quality
objectives for stream discharge. However, because much of the
available data were generated from single compound, laboratory
scale studies, actual treatability of a multi-component waste-
water cannot be accurately stated without conducting treatability
studies using the actual wastewaters. This point was stressed by
various company representatives marketing concentration technol-
ogy treatment equipment/products. In general, vendors would not
provide either performance estimates or process sizing and cost
estimates (at +30% levels) without conducting treatability stud-
ies . even though it would be expected that they would possess the
best data for making these estimates. Thus, while the most prom-
ising concentration technologies and process trains can and have
been identified, subsequent treatability studies are necessary
to verify performance expectations, and to select the optimum
process train for a particular situation.
125
-------
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, G.L., Bair, W.G., and J.A. Hudziak. Ultrafil-
tration for Coal Gasification Plants. Chemical Engineer-
ing Progress, 74(8):66-72, 1978.
2. Anderson, R.K., Nystron, J.M., McDonnell, R.P., and B.W.
Stevens. Explosives Removal from Munitions Wastewater.
In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1975. pp. 816-825.
3. Bansal, B.,and W.N. Gill. Theoretical Experimental Study
of Radial Flow Hollow Fiber Reverse Osmosis. Water - 1974
70(144):136-149, 1974.
4. Bansal, I.K. Ultrafiltration of Oily Wastes from Process
Industries. Water - 1975, 71(151):93-99, 1975.
5. Beaudet, B.A. Study of Effectiveness of Activated Carbon
Technology for the Removal of Specific Materials from
Organic Chemical Processes. US EPA Contract No. 68-03-2610.
Environmental Science and Engineering Inc., Gainesville,
Florida, May 1979.
6. Becker, DeL.,and S.C. Wilson. The Use of Activated Carbon
for the Treatment of Pesticides and Pesticidal Wastes.
In: Carbon Adsorption Handbook, P.N. Cheremisinoff and
F. Ellerbusch, eds.. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1978. pp. 167-213.
7. Berkau, E.E., Frank, C.E., and I.A. Jefcoat. A Scientific
Approach to the Identification and Control of Toxic Chemi-
cals in Industrial Wastewater. US EPA, IERL, Cincinnati,
Ohio. Presented at AIChE 87th National Meeting, Boston,
Massachusetts, August, 1979.
8. Bernardin, F.E. Jr., and E.M. Froelich. Practical Removal
of Toxicity by Adsorption. In: Proceeding 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 548-560.
9. Berndt, C.L.,and Polkowski, L.B., PAC Upgrades Wastewater
Treatment. Water & Wastes Engineering/ 15(5):48, 1978.
10. Bhattacharyya, D., Garrison, K.A., and R.B. Grieves. Mem-
brane Ultrafiltration of Nitrotoluenes from Industrial
Wastes. In: Proceedings 31st Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 139-149.
126
-------
11. Bhattacharyya, D., Garrison, K.A., The, P.J.W., and R.B.
Grieves, Membrane Filtration: Waste Treatment Application
for Water Reuse. In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 120-131.
12. Bhattacharyya, D., Jumawan, A.B., Grieves, R.B., and S.O.
Witherup. Ultrafiltration of Complex Wastewaters: Re-
cycling for Nonpotable.Use. Journal Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, 50 (5):846-861, 1978.
13. Bruderly, D.E., Crane, J.D., and J.D. Riggenbach. Feasi-
bility of Zero Aromatic Hydrocarbon Discharge from a Sty-
rene Monomer Facility. In: Proceedings 32nd Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1977. pp. 726-732.
14. Carberry, J.B., Twardowski, W.,and D.K. Eberhart. Clay
Adsorption Treatment of Non-Ionic Surfactants in Waste-
water. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
49 (3) :452-459, 1977.
15. Carnahan, R.P.,and L. Smith. Treatment of Wastewater Con-
taining Nitroglycerin and Nitrated Esters. In: Proceed-
ings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 876-887.
16. Chian, E.S.K. Renovation of Vehicle Washrack Wastewater
for Reuse. Water - 1975, 71(151):87-92, 1975.
17. Chian, E.S.K., Bruce, W.N., and H.H.P. Fang. Removal of
Pesticides by Reverse Osmosis. Environmental Science and
Technology, 9(1):52-59, 1975.
18. Chian, E.S.K., H.H.P. Fang. Removal of Toxic Compounds
by Reverse Osmosis. Unpublished report available from
Abcor, Inc., Wilmington, Massachusetts.
19. Chian, E.S.K., Fang, H.H.P., DeWalle, F.B., and J.W. Smith,
Physical-Chemical Treatment of Hospital Wastewaters for
Potential Reuse. In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 377-389.
20. Chriswell, C.D., Ericson, R.L., Junk, G.-A., Lee, K.W.,
Fritz, J.S., and H.J. Svec. Comparison of Macroreticular
Resin and Activated Carbon as Sorbents. Journal American
Water Works Association, 69 (12) :669-674, 1977.
127
-------
21. Cohen, J.M. Briefing for Dr. Gage on Treatability/Remov-
ability of Toxics from Wastewater. US EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio, June 1979.
22. Contos, G., Durfee, R.L., Hackman, E.E., and K. Price.
Assessment of Wastewater Management, Treatment Technology,
and Associated Costs for Abatement of PCB's Concentrations
in Industrial Effluents. EPA 560/6-76-006, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 1976. 227 pp.
23. Crook, E.H., McDonnell, R.P., and J.T. McNulty. Removal
and Recovery of Phenols from Industrial Waste Effluents
with Amberlite XAD Polymeric Adsorbents. I & EC Product
Research and Development. 14:113, 1975.
24. Davis, H.J., Model, F.S., and J.R. Leal. PBI Reverse Os-
mosis Membrane for Chromium Plating Rinse Water. EPA-
600/2-78-040, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 28 pp.,
25. Dence, C.W., Wang, C.J., and P.R. Durkin. Toxicity Reduc-
tion Through Chemical and Biological Modification of Spent
Pulp Bleaching Liquors. EPA Project-R 804779, Preliminary
Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
26. Directo, L.S., Chen, C.L., and I.J. Kugelman. Pilot Plant
Study of Physical-Chemical Treatment. Journal Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 49 (10) :2081-2106, 1977.
27. Earhart, J.P., Won, K.W., Wong, H.Y., Pratfsnitz, J.M., and
C.J. King. Recovery of Organic Pollutants via Solvent
Extraction. Chemical Engineering Progress, 73(5):67-73,
1977.
28. Eisenberg, W.C., Fochtman, E., and R.A. Dobbs. Treatment
of Carcinogenic and Other Hazardous Compounds in Water.
In: Preprints of Papers Presented at the 177th National
Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Honolulu,rHawaii,
1976. pp. 794-795.
29. DeJohn, P.B., Factors to Consider When Treating Dye Wastes
with Granular Activated Carbon. In: Proceedings 31st In-
dustrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1976. pp. 375-384.
•30. Fang, H.H.P.,and E.S.K. Chian, Reverse Osmosis Separation
of Polar Organic Compounds in Aqueous Solution. Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 10 (4) :364-369. 1976 =
128
-------
31. Fochtman, E.G.,and R.A. Dobbs. Adsorption of Carcinogenic
Compounds by Activated Carbon. US EPA, MERL, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
32. Fox, C.R. Toxic Organic Removal from Waste Waters with
Polymeric Adsorbent Resins. Presentation at 86th National
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Meeting, Houston,
Texas, 1979.
33. Fox, C.R. Plant Uses Prove Phenol Recovery with Resins.
Hydrocarbon Processing, pp. 269-273, November, 1978.
34. Gehr, R. /and J.G. Henry. Measuring and Predicting Flota-
tion Performance. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, 50(2):203-215, 1978.
35. Giusti, D.M., Conway, R.A., and C.T. Lawson. Activated
Carbon Adsorption of Petrochemicals. Journal Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 46 (5) :947-965, 1974.
36. Givens, D.P. /and L.D. Lash. What to Look for in Granular
Media Filters. Chemical Engineering Progress,
74(12):50-54, 1978.
37. Gurvitch, M.M. Description of an Advanced Treatment Plant
to Produce Recycle Water at a Chemical R & D Facility.
34th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
38. Hager, D.G. Waste Water Treatment Via Activated Carbon.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 72(10):57-60, 1976.
39. Hannah, S.A., Jelus, M., and J.M. Cohen. Removal of Un-
common Trace Metals by Physical and Chemical Treatment
Processes. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
49(11):2297-2309, 1977.
40. Heck, R.P. II. Munitions Plant Uses Adsorption in Waste-
water Treatment. Industrial Wastes, pp. 35-39, March/April
1978.
41. Helsel, R.W. A New Process for Recovering Acetic Acid
from Dilute Aqueous Waste Streams. In: Proceedings of the
31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 1059-1067.
42. Hewes, C.G., Smith, W.H., and R.R. Davison. Comparative
Anaylsis of Solvent Extraction and Stripping in Wastewater
Treatment. Water - 1974, 70 (144):54-60, 1974.
129
-------
43. Huang, J.C.,and J.T. Garrett Jr. Effects of Colloidal
Materials and Polyelectrolytes on Carbon Adsorption in
Aqueous Solution. In: Proceedings of the 30th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1975. pp. 1111-1121.
44. Huang, J.C.,and C.T. Steffans. Competitive Adsorption of
Organic Materials by Activated Carbon. In: Proceedings
31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976, pp. 107-121.
45. Huang, C.P.,and M.H. Wu. Chromium Removal by Carbon Ad-
sorption. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
47(10):2437-2446, 1975.
46. Isacoff, E.G.,and J.A. Bittner. Resin Adsorbent Takes on
Chlororganics from Well Water. Water and Sewage Works,
126 (8) :41-42, 1979.
47. Jones, M.L. Jr. Techniques for Qualitative Economic Com-
parison of Reverse Osmosis Membranes. Water - 1975,
71(151)1145-152, 1975.
48. Jordan, Edward C. Co. Inc. Literature Review, Removal of
Phenolic Compounds from Wastewater. EPA Project No.
68-03-2605, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
49. Kennedy, B.C. Treatment of Effluent from Manufacture of
Chlorinated Pesticides with a Synthetic, Polymeric Adsor-
bent, Amberlite XAD-4. Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, 7(2):138-141, 1973.
50. Kennedy, B.C., Kimler, M.A., and C.A. Hammer. Functional
Design of a Zero Discharge Wastewater Treatment System for
the National Center for Toxicological Research. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 823-830.
51. Kessick, M.A., Characklis, W.G., and W. Elvey. Treatment
of Wastewater from Torpedo Refueling Facilities. In: Pro-
ceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 442-449.
52. Kim, B.R., Snoeyink, V.L., and F.M. Saunders. Adsorption
of Organic Compounds by Synthetic Resins. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 48 (1) :120-133, 1976.
130
-------
53. Kim, B.R., Snoeyink, V.L., and R.A. Schmitz. Removal of
Dichloramine and Ammonia by Granular Carbon. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 50(1):122-133, 1978.
54. Klemetson, S.L.,and M.D. Scharbow. Removal of Phenolic
Compounds in Coal Gasification Wastewaters Using a Dynamic
Membrane Filtration Process. In: Proceedings 32nd Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1977. pp. 786-796.
55. Klinkowski, P.R. Ultrafiltration: An Emerging Unit-Opera-
tion. Chemical Engineering, 85(11):165-173, 1978.
56. Kimke, G.W., Hall, J.F., and R.W. Oeben. Conversion to
Activated Sludge at Union Carbide's Institute Plant.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 40 (8):1408-1422
1968.
57. Lawrence, J.,and H.M. Tosine. Adsorption of Polychlori-
nated Biphenyls from Aqueous Solutions and Sewage.
Environmental Science and Technology, 10(4):381-383, 1976.
58. Leipzig, N.A.,and M.R. Hockenbury. Powdered Activated
Carbon/Activated Sludge Treatment of Chemical Production
Wastewaters. In: Proceedings 34th Industrial Waste Con-
ference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
59. Lopez, C.X.,and R. Johnston. Industrial Wastewater Re-
cycling with Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis. In:
Proceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Uni-
versity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp. 81-91.
60. Luther, P.A., Kennedy, D.C., E. Edgerley Jr. Treatability
and Functional Design of a Physical-Chemical Wastewater
Treatment System for a Printing and Photodeveloping Plant.
In: Proceedings 31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 816-884.
61. Luthy, R.G., Selleck, R.E., and T.R. Galloway. Removal of
Emulsified Oil with Organic Coagulants and Dissolved Air
Flotation. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
50(2):331-346, 1978.
62. Markind, J., Neri, J.S., and R.R. Stana. Use of Reverse
Osmosis for Concentrating Waste-Soluble.Oil Coolants.
Water - 1975, 71 (151):70-75, 1975.
63. Maruyama, T., Hannah, S.A., and J. M. Cohen. Metal Remov-
al by Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 47 (5) : 962-975, 1975.
131
-------
64. McCarty, P.L., Reinhard, M., Dolce, C., Nguyen, H.,and
D.G. Argo. Water Factory 21: Reclaimed Water, Volatile
Organics, Virus, and Treatment Performance *
EPA-600/2-78-076, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 100 pp.
65. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, US EPA. Sur-
vey of Two Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants for Toxic
Substances. Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1977.
66. Nathan, M.F. Choosing a Process for Chloride Removal.
Chemical Engineering^ 85(3):93, 1978.
67. Naylor, L.M.,and R.R. Dague. Simulation of Lead Removal
by Chemical Treatment. Journal American Water Works
Association, 67 (10) :560-565, 1975.
68. Neufeld, R.D.,and P. Yodnane. Enhanced Wastewater Purifi-
cation via the Addition of Granular Coals and Chars to
Activated Sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, 50 (3) :559-568, 1978.
69 Ng, K.S., Mueller, J.C., and C.C. Walden. Foam Separation
for Detoxification of Bleached Kraft Mill Effluents.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48 (3):458-472,
1976.
70. Ott, C., Gingras, R., and R. Litman. Removal of Chromium
from Wastewater Using Activated Carbon. In: Preprints of
Papers Presented at the 177th National Meeting of the
American Chemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1979.
pp. 708-709.
71. Pajak, A.P., Martin, E.J., Brinsko,G.A., and F.J. Erny.
Effect of Hazardous Material Spills on Biological Treatment
Processes, EPA-600/2-77-239, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 202 pp.
72. Pilie, R.J., Baier, R.E., Ziegler, R.C., Leonard, R.P.,
Michalovic, J.G., Pek, S.L., and D.H. Bock. Methods to
Treat, Control,and Monitor Spilled Hazardous Materials.
EPA-670/2-75-042. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 138 pp.
73. Ramirez, E.R. Comparative Physio-Chemical Study of Indus-
trial Waste Water Treatment by Electrolytic, Dispersed Air,
and Dissolved Air Flotation Technologies. In: Proceedings
34th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1979.
132
-------
74. Ramirez, E.R., Barber, L.K., and O.A. Clemens. Physio-
chemical Treatment of Tannery Wastewater by Electrocoagu-
lation. In: Proceedings 32nd Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. pp.183-188.
75. Reismers, R.S., Englande, A.J., and H.B. Miles. A Quick
Method for Evaluating the Suitability of Activated Carbon
Adsorption for Wastewaters. In: Proceedings 31st Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1976. pp. 395-407.
76. Sandhu, S.S.,and P. Nelson. Concentration and Separation
of Arsenic from Polluted Aqueous Samples by Ion Exchange.
In: Preprints of Papers Presented at the 177th National
Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii
1979.
77. Schulte, G.R., Hoehn, R.C., and C.W. Randall. The Treat-
ability of a Munitions-Manufacturing Waste with Activated
Carbon. In: Proceedings 28th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1973. pp. 150-162.
78. Sigworth, E.A.,and S.B. Smith. Adsorption of Inorganic
Compounds by Activated Carbon. Journal American Water
Works Association, 64 (6):386-391, 1972.
79. Slejko, F.L.,and G.F. Meigs. Economic Analysis of Employ-
ing Ambersorb XE-340 Carbonaceous Adsorbent in Trace
Organics Removal from Drinking Water. In: Proceedings
176th National Meeting American Chemical Society,
Miami Beach, Florida, 1978.
80. Snyder, D.D., and R.A. Willihnganz. A New Electrochemical
Process for Treating Spent Emulsions. In: Proceedings
31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, 1976. pp. 782-791.
81. SCS Engineers. Selected Biodegradation Techniques for
Treatment and/or Ultimate Disposal of Organic Material.
EPA-600/2-79-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 377 pp.
82. Sorg, T.J., Csanady, Mihaly, and G.S. Logsdon. Treat-
ment Technology to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Inorganics. Part 3. Journal American
Water Works Association, 70:12, 680, 1978.
83. Sorg, T.J., and G.S. Logsdon. Treatment Technology to
Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Inorganics. Part 2. Journal American Water Works
133
-------
Association, 70 (7):379, 1978.
84. Steiner, J.L., Bennett, G.F., Mohler, E.F., and L.T. Clere.
Air Flotation Treatment of Refinery Waste Water. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 74 (12):39-45, 1978.
85. Suler, D. Composting Hazardous Industrial Wastes.
Compost Science/Land Utilization, 20(4):25-27, 1979.
86. Swedes, R.G. Jr. Report on Carbon Adsorption Treatment of
Contaminated Groundwater at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, De-
partment of Army, 1977-781-590/139, 1977.
87. Thiem, L., Badorek, D., and J.T. O'Connor. Removal of
Mercury from Drinking Water Using Activated Carbon.
Journal American Water Works Association, 68 (8):447-451,
1976.
88. Volesky, B., Czornyj, N., Constantine, T.A., Zajic, J.E.,
and K. Ya. Model Treatability Study of Refinery Phenolic
Wastewater. Water - 1974, 70 (144) :31-38, 1974.
89. Wahl, J.R., Hayes, T.C., Kleper, M.H., and S.D. Pinto.
Ultrafiltration for Today's Oily Wastewaters: A Survey of
Current Ultrafiltration Systems. In: Proceedings 34th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1979.
90. Dryden, F.E., Mayes, J.H., Planchet, R.J., andC.H. Woodard
Priority Pollutant Treatability Review. EPA Contract
No. 68-03-2579, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
91. Westrick, J.J., and J.M. Cohen. Comparative Effects of
Chemical Pretreatment on Carbon Adsorption. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 48 (2) : 323-338, 1976.
92. Wilkinson, R.R., Kelso, G.L., and F.C. Hopkins. State-of-
the-Art Report, Pesticide Disposal Research.
EPA-600/2-78-183, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 247 pp.
93. Zahka, J., and L. Mir. Ultrafiltration of Latex Emulsions.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 72 (12):53-55, 1977.
94. Zogorski, J.S., and S.D. Faust. Removing Phenols via
Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering Progress,
73(5):65-66, 1977.
134
-------
95. Coco, J.H., e£ ,_aJL.. Development of Treatment and Control
Technology for Refractory Petrochemical Wastes.
EPA-600/2-79-080, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ada, Oklahoma, 1979. 236 pp.
96. Chan, P.C., Dresnack, R., Liskowitz, J.W., Perna, A., and
R. Trattner. Sorbents for Fluoride, Metal Finishing, and
Petroleum Sludge Leachate Contaminant Control.
EPA-600/2-78-024, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 94 pp.
97. Chian, E.S.K. , and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume II: Biological and Physical Chemical
Process. EPA-600/2-77-186b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 265 pp.
98. Chian, E.S.K./ and F.B. DeWalle. Evaluation of Leachate
Treatment, Volume 1: Characterization of Leachate.
EPA-600/2-77-186a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 226 pp.
99. Lund, H.F. Industrial Pollution Control Handbook,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 1971.
100. Bess, F.D., and R.A. Conway. Aerated Stabilization of
Synthetic Organic Chemical Wastes. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 38 (6) :939-956, 1966.
101. Kumke, G.W., et al. Conversion to Activated Sludge at
Union Carbide's Institute Plant. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 40(8):1408-1422, 1968.
102. Manufacturing Chemists Association. The Effects of Chlo-
rination on Selected Organic Chemicals. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research
Series, EPA Report No. 12020 EXG-03/72, March 1972.
103. Placak, O.R., and C.C. Ruchhoft. Studies of Sewage Puri-
fication, XVII: The Utilization of Organic Substrates by
Activated Sludge. Sewage Works Journal, 19(3):440, 1947.
104. Dickerson, B.W., et al. Further Operating Experiences in
Biological Purification of Formaldehyde Wastes. In: Pro-
ceedings 9th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1954. pp. 331-351.
105. Bogan, R.H., and C.N. Sawyer. The Biochemical Oxidation
of Synthetic Detergents. In: Proceedings 10th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
1955. pp. 231-243.
135
-------
106. Lutin, P.A. Removal of Organic Nitrites from Wastewater
Systems. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
42(9):1632-1642, 1970.
107. Malaney, G.W., and R.M. Gerhold. Structural Determinants
in the Oxidation of Aliphatic Compounds by Activated
Sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
41(2):R18-R33, 1969.
108. Malaney, G.W. Resistance of Carcinogenic Organic Com-
pounds to Oxidation by Activated Sludge. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 39(12):2029, 1967.
109. Dawson, P.S., and S.H. Jenkins. The Oxygen Requirements
of Activated Sludge Determined by Monometric Methods.
II: Chemical Factors Affecting Oxygen Uptake. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 22(4):490, 1950.
110. Sawyer, C.N., Frame/ J.D., and J.P. Wold. Industrial
Wastes, Revised Concepts on Biological Treatment. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 27(8):929, 1955.
111. Swisher, R.D., et al. Biodegradation of Nitrilotriace-
tate in Activated Sludge. Environmental Science and
Technology, 1(10):820-827, 1967.
112. Hunter, J.V., and H. Heukelekian. Determination of Bio-
degradability Using Warburg Respirometric Techniques.
In: Proceedings 19th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1964. pp. 616-627.
113. Marion, C.V., and G.W. Malaney. Ability of Activated
Sludge to Oxidize Aromatic Organic Compounds. In: Pro-
ceedings 18th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana, 1963. pp. 297-308.
114. Hydroscience, Inc. The Impacts of Oily Materials on
Activated Sludge Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA Report No. 12050 DSH 03/71, March 1971.
115. The City of Jacksonville, Arkansas. The Demonstration of
a Facility for the Biological Treatment of a Complex
Chlorophenolic Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA Report No. 12130 EGK 06/71, June 1971.
116. Hay, M.W. , e_t al. Factors Affecting Color Development
During Treatment of TNT Wastes. Industrial Wastes,
18(5), September/October 1972.
136
-------
117. Teng-Chung, W. Factors Affecting Growth and Respiration
in the Activated Sludge Process. Ph.D. Dissertation, Case
Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio, 1963.
118. Masselli, J.W. , ejb aJL. The Effect of Industrial Waste On
Sewage Treatment. Prepared for the New England Inter-
state Water Pollution Control Commission by Wesleyan
University, Middletown, Connecticut, No. TR-13, June,1965.
119. Ling, J.T. Pilot Study of Treating Chemical Wastes with
an Aerated Lagoon. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 35 (8):963-972, 1963.
120. Heidman, J.A., et al. Metabolic Response of Activated
Sludge to Sodium Pentachlorophenol. In: Proceedings 22nd
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1967. pp. 661-674.
121. Okey, R.W., and R.W. Bogan. Synthetic Organic Pesticides,
An Evaluation of Their Persistence in Natural Waters.
In: Proceedings llth Pacific Northwest Industrial Waste
Conference, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon,
1963. pp. 222-251.
122. Earth, E.F., ejb al. Field Survey of Four Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Plants Receiving Metallic Wastes. Jour-
nal Water Pollution Control Federation, 37(8):1101-1117,
1965.
123. Bailey, D.A., and K.S. Robinson. The Influence of Triva-
lent Chromium on the Biological Treatment of Domestic
Sewage. Water Pollution Control (G.B.), 69:100ff, 1970.
124. Loveless, J.E, and N.A. Painter. The Influence of Metal
Ion Concentration and pH Value on the Growth of a Nitro-
somonas Strain Isolated from Activated Sludge. Journal
General Microbiology, 52(3):lff, 1968.
125. Barth, E.F., et al. Summary Report on the Effects of
Heavy Metals on the Biological Treatment Processes.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 37(1):86, 1965
126. Leary, R.D. Phosphorus Removal with Pickle Liquor in an
Activated Sludge Plant. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
EPA Report No. 11010 FLQ 3/71, March 1971.
127. Lamb, J.C.,111, et al. A Technique for Evaluating the
Biological Treatability of Industrial Wastes. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 36 (10) :1263-1284 ,1964 .
137
-------
128. Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Chemistry and
Physics Center. Interaction of Heavy Metals and Biologi-
cal Sewage Treatment Processes. U.S. Public Health
Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1965.
129. Stones, T. The Fate of Nickel During the Treatment of
Sewage. J. & Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. (Brit.), Part 2,
pp. 252ff, 1959.
130. McDermott, G.N. Zinc in Relation to Activated Sludge and
Anaerobic Digestion Processes. In: Proceedings 17th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette
Indiana, 1963. pp. 461-475.
131. Stones, T. The Fate of Zinc During the Treatment of
Sewage. J. & Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. (Brit.), Part 2,
pp. 254ff, 1959.
132. Ghosh, M.M., and P.D. Zugger. Toxic Effects of Mercury
on the Activated Sludge Process. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 45(3):424-433, 1973.
133. Fitter, P. Determination of Biological Degradability of
Organic Substrates. Water Res., 10:231-235, 1976.
134. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Physical, Chemical, and Biologi-
cal Treatment Techniques for Industrial Wastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Contract/Grant No.
68-01-3554, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, 1976.
135. Rohm and Haas Company. Ambersorb Carbonaceous Adsorbents.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1977. 20 pp.
136. New Jersey Hazardous Waste Advisory Commission. Report
of the Hazardous Waste Advisory Commission to Governor
Brendan Byrne. Trenton, New Jersey, January, 1980.
137. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. The Prevalence of Subsurface
Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances at Selected
Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites. EPA/530/SW-634,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
138
-------
APPENDIX A
This appendix identifies entities queried with regard to
data on hazardous aqueous waste problems, waste stream composi-
tion, and concentration technology applications and effective-
ness .
TABLE A-l
ENTITIES CONTACTED
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VII
Region IX
Region X
IERL
MERL
Office of Solid Wastes
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills
Branch
National Enforcement Investigations
Center
Federal Agencies
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Redstone Arsenal
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Geological Survey
State Agencies
California
Connecticut
Georgia
Illinois
Location
Boston, MA
New York, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Atlanta, GA
Chicago, IL
Kansas City, MO
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Cincinnati, OH
Cincinnati, OH
Washington, DC
Edison, NJ
Denver, CO
Aberdeen, MD
Commerce City, CO
Huntsville, AL
Boulder City, NV
Menlo Park, CA
Sacramento, CA
Hartford, CT
Atlanta, GA
Champaign, IL
(continued)
139
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
State Agencies
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Others
City of Niagara Falls
Gloucester County Planning Commission
Companies
ABCOR
AMOCO
Calgon Corp.
Carborundum Co.
Chem-Bac Environmental Systems
FMC
ICI Americas Inc.
Ionics Inc.
Matlack Trucking Company
0 & H Materials Inc.
Osmonics Inc.
Permutit Co.
Resources Conservation Company
Rohm & Haas
Westvaco
Location
Frankfort, KY
Baton Rouge, LA
Bangor, ME
Boston, MA
Lansing, MI
St.Paul, MN
Carson City, NV
Trenton, NJ
Albany, NY
Columbus, OH
Harrisburg, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Norristown, PA
Reading, PA
Austin, TX
Richmond, VA
Charleston, WV
Niagara Falls, NY
Clayton, NJ
Wilmington, MA
Chicago, IL
Pittsburgh, PA
Niagara Falls, NY
Pittsburgh, PA
Princeton, NJ
Wilmington, DE
Watertown, MA
Swedesboro, NJ
Findlay, OH
Hopkins, MN
Paramus, NJ
Seattle, WA
Philadelphia, PA
Covington, VA
140
-------
APPENDIX B
Appendix Table B-l contains data on identified hazardous
waste problems and to the extent possible data on waste compo-
sition. A reference list which indicates data sources and per-
tains only to this table follows the main body of the table.
Problem sites are identified by a code number in Table B-l,
The code numbers and associated problem sites are listed below.
Site Number Site Description
001 Helevia Landfill adjacent to West Omerod water
supply (near Allentown, PA)
002 Haverford, PA
003 Centre County, PA (near State College, PA)
004 Stringfellow Landfill, Riverside, CA
005 Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, CO
006 Geological Reclamation Operations and Waste Systems.
Inc. (GROWS) landfill, Falls Township, PA
007 Wade Site, Chester, PA
008 Bridgeport Quarry, Montgomery County, PA
009 Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
010 Love Canal, Niagara Falls, NY
Oil LaBounty Dump Site, Charles City, IA
012 Saco Landfill, Saco, ME
013 Whitehouse, FL
014 near Myerstown, PA
015 Undisclosed
016 Necco Park, Niagara Falls, NY
017 FMC, Middleport, NY
018 Frontier Chemical Waste Process Inc., Pendleton, NY
019 102nd Street, Niagara Falls, NY
020 Pfohl Brothers, Buffalo, NY
021 Reilly Tar & Chemical Co., St.Louis Park, MN
022 Windham Landfill, Windhara, CT
023 LiPari Landfill, Gloucester County, NJ
024 Kin-Buc Landfill, Middlesex County, NJ
025 South Brunswick, NJ
026 Ott/Story site, Muskegon County, MI
027 Hooker Chemical Co., Montague, MI
141
-------
TABLE B-l
SUMMARY OF REPORTED WATER CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Halocarbons
001
K)
Between 1968 and 1969 landfill accepted various liquid in-
dustrial wastes at rate of 3,000 gal/wk; about 25 to 30%
trichloroethylene (TCE)*. Materials percolated from ex-
cavated basin which now is under 50 to 60 ft of fill.
Other wastes included ethyl acetate and phenols.
TCE* in ground water within plume - 191 to 260 mg/1
TCE* in ground water, h mi downgradient of site - 15 to
20 mg/1
Phenols
002
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)* laden oil was deep well injected
and later appeared in ground water and streams. EPA car-
bon trailer used to treat limited amount of contaminated
ground water.
PCP* in ground water a few hundred feet down gradient of
injection point - 2.4 mg/1
2,3
Pesticides
003
Industrial waste containing Kepone and Mirex both spray ir-
rigated and "Chemfixed" and placed in impoundments. Fixing
held metals but promoted release of pesticides.
Kepone in stream - 2 mg/1
Metals
Pesticides
Misc.
004
Site^included impoundments for liquid industrial wastes and
storage of solid industrial wastes. Acids, plating wastes,
and DDT were major materials disposed of although wide
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Pesticides
Misc. (continued)
Aliphatics
Halocarbons
Pesticides
Polynuclear
Aromatics
Metals
SITE
CODE
005
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
variety of materials went to site. Leachate known to exist.
Soil and down stream surface water affected; area of ground-
water contamination plume unknown.
Surface water quality downstream of site (range) :
Cd* - 4.8 - 8.2 mg/1
Cr* - 52 - 205 mg/1
Cu* - 7-16 mg/1
Mn - 340 - 550 mg/1
Ni* - 28-48 mg/1
Zn* - 77 - 115 mg/1
pH - ^3
Groundwater contamination resulting from the impoundment of
demilitized warfare agents and wastes from chemical produc-
tion facility. Efforts underway to treat contaminated
groundwater .
Quality of contaminated groundwater (range) :
aldrin* - <2 pg/1
dieldrin* - <2 - 4.5 pg/1
dicyclopentadiene - 80 - 1,200 yg/1
diisopropylmethylphosphonate - 400 - 3,600 yg/1
p-chlorophenylmethyl-sulf ide - <10 - 68 yg/1
p-chlorophenylmethyl-sulfoxide - <10 - 53 yg/1
p-chlorophenylmethyl-sulfone - <10 - 40 pg/1
endrin* - <2 - 9 pg/1
Nemagon - <1 - 8 pg/1
The following are averages (all as mg/1) :
Al - 0.124 Ba - 0.1 Be* - 0.007
As* - 0.011 Bo - 0.624 Ca - 164
REFERENCE
6
(continued)
U)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aliphatics
Halocarbons
Pesticides
Polynuclear
Aromatics
Metals (continued)
Metals
Misc.
SITE
CODE
006
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Co - 0.1 Se* - 0.003 PO4-P - <0.010
Cr* - 0.012 Na - 378 TOC - 10.9
Cu* - 0.001 Zn* - 0.024 Total inorganic
Fe - 0.090 Hg* - 0.0002 carbon - 71
Pb* - 0.001 TKN - 2.22 SO4 - 505
Mg - 49.4 NO2-N - <0.010 Cl - 420
Mn - 1.04 NO3-N - <0.012 pH - 7.6
Mo - 0.114 NH3-N - <0.010 COD - 24.6
Ni* - 0.032 Total P - 1.39 SS - 10.4
K - 6.83 TDS - 1830
Landfill accepts municipal and industrial residues; leach-
ate with following average quality is produced (mg/1) :
BOD - 10,900 TKN - 984
COD - 18,600 SOi, - 462
SS - 1,040 Cl - 4,240
TDS - 13,000 Na - 1,350
pH - 6.85 K - 961
Alkalinity, Cd* - 0.086
as CaCOs - 5,400 Cr* - 0.28
Hardness, Fe - 312
as CaC03 - 4,650 Ni* - 1.55
Ca - 818 Pb* - 0.67
Mg - 453 Zn* - 21
PO^ - 2.74 Hg* - 0.007
NH3-N - 1000
REFERENCE
7
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aromatics
Phenols
Phthalates
Polynuclear Aromatics
Amines
Misc.
Halocarbons
SITE
CODE
007
008
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Hazardous wastes stored in drums and tanks on site. Follow-
ing contaminants were found in soil and puddles of liquid at
site :
1,4-dichlorobenzene*
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene*
1,2, 4-trichlorobenzene*
tetrachlorobenzene isomer
dibutylphthalate*
methylnaphthalene isomer
methyoxyphenol isomer
isophorone*
naphthalene*
diphenylamine*
dimethylnaphthalene isomer
l-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
fluoranthene*
phenanthrene *
3-ethyl toluene
1,3, 5-trimethylbenzene
1,2, 4- trimethylbenzene
1,2, 3-trimethylbenzene
Following contaminants were detected in groundwater possibly
due to migration from upgradient impoundment disposal site:
1,1,1-trichloroethane* - 1.6 - 2.8 \ig/l
trichloroethene - 6.9 - 16 yg/1
dichloropropene* - detected, not quantified
REFERENCE
8
9
(continued)
>£>
Ul
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Pesticides
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Metals
Misc.
Phenols
SITE
CODE
009
010
,
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Isomers of DDT present in surface waters downstream of pesti-
cide production facility. Efforts underway to treat surface
waters .
DDT* - ranged from 4.28 to 14.26 yg/1 with average of
11.36 yg/1 (over 3 months in 1979)
Following contaminants were detected leaching from an inac-
tive disposal site used by a chemical producer (concentra-
tions in mg/1, except as noted) :
pH-5.6-6.9 Na- 1000
TOC - 1800 - 4300 Ca - 2500
SOC - 4200 Cl - 9500
COD - 5900 - 11,500 Fe - 31 - 330
Oil & Grease - 90 Hg* - <0.0005 - <0.001
SS - 200 - 430 Pb* - 0.3 - 0.4
TDS - 15,700 Sb* - 2 yg/1**
S05 - 240 As* - 130 yg/1**
S~ - <0.1 Cd* - 11 yg/1**
Total P as P<0.1 - 3.2 Cr* - 270 yg/1**
PO4 as P - <0.1 Cu* - 540 yg/1**
TKN - 5.4 Ni* - 240 yg/1**
NHij-N - 0.65 Se* - 9 yg/1**
N03-N - <0.1 Ag* - 1 yg/1**
N02-N - <0.1 Zn* - 480 yg/1**
Cn* - <0.01
hexachlorobutadiene* - 109 yg/1**
1, 2, 4-trichlorobenzene* - 23 yg/1**
aldrin* - 23 yg/1**
heptachlor* - <10 yg/1**
REFERENCE
10
12
22
27
28
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Metals
Misc.
Phenols (continued)
phenol*
phenols (total)*
2,4-dichlorophenols*
methyl chloride*
1,1-dichloroethylene
chloroform*
trichloroethylene*
dibromochioromethane*
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene
chlorobenzene*
methanol
ethanol
acetone
isopropyl alcohol
benzene*
toluene*
1,1,1-trichloroethane*
carbon tetrachloride*
hexachlorocyclohexane
alpha isomer
beta isomer
gamma isomer
delta isomer
30 yg/1**
4.5**
10 yg/1**
180 yg/1**
28 yg/1
ND - 4550 yg/1
ND - 760 yg/1
ND - 35 yg/1
ND - 1000 yg/1
1200 yg/1**
42.4**
56.4**
50.3**
<0.1**
ND - 3300 yg/1
ND - 31,000 yg/1
ND - 225 yg/1
92 yg/1**
ND
ND
ND
ND
600 yg/1
700 yg/1
600 yg/1
120 yg/1
** denotes concentration following flow equalization and
sand filtration processes and prior to granular carbon
adsorption
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Aromatic s
Halocarbons
Misc.
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
SITE
CODE
Oil
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Groundwater reported to be contaminated by migration of pol-
lutants from municipal landfill utilized by pharmaceutical
manufacturer for disposal of production residues. Following
data represents groundwater quality at well located between
landfill and river which is downgradient. Other wells in
area and downstream also report contamination (concentrations
in yg/1, except as noted):
BOD - 2000 mg/1 As* - 590 mg/1
COD - 7100 mg/1 Ba - 0.60 mg/1
TOC - 2300 mg/1 Cu* - 0.02 mg/1
TSS - <3 mg/1 Hg* - 0.0048 mg/1
Total Phenols - 18 mg/1 Zn* - 0.17 mg/1
NH-N - 130 mg/1
Volatile Organics :
range average
benzene* 150 - 230 190
chlorobenzene* 4.6-7.0 5.5
1,2-dichloroethene* 270 - 330 310
trans-l,2-dichloroethene* 25 - 31 28
dichlorome thane* 29 - 130 82
ethyl benzene* 3.0-5.2 3.9
toluene* 24 - 34 28
1,1,1-trichloroethane* 4.2 - 5.6 5.0
1,1.2-trichloroethane* 390 - 870 600
trichloromethane* 90 - 320 250
trichloroethane* 39 - 48 43
tetrachloroethylene* - 23
Neutral Extractible Organics:
aniline 140 - 870 410
REFERENCE
13
14
(continued)
CO
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
Metals
Aromatics
Halocarbons
Misc.
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
(continued)
Neutral Extractible Organics (continued):
range
o-chloroaniline ND - 360
p-chloronitrobenzene 460 - 940
chloronitrotoluene ND - 460
4-chloro-3-nitrobenzamide 440 - 8700
2,6-dichlorobenzamine 890 - 30,000
2-ethylhexanal ND - 4500
2-ethylhexanol 19,000 - 23,000
3-heptanone ND - 1300
phenol* 12,000 - 17,000
o-nitroaniline 170,000 - 180,000
p-nitroaniline 32,000 - 47,000
nitrobenzene* ND - 740
o-nitrophenol* 8,600 - 12,000
2-chlorophenol* -
2,4-dinitrophenol*
n-nitrosodiphenylamine*
as diphenylamine
1,1-dichloroethylene*
average
140
720
120
4200
8800
2600
22,000
640
14,000
180,000
37,000
250
11,000
3
99
190
P
Metals
Misc.
012
Following contaminants detected in groundwater at well near
tannery sludge disposal area:
Cr* - 1 mg/1 average; 5 mg/1 maximum
Zn* - 2.77 mg/1 average; 4.9 mg/1 maximum
pH - 6.35 average; 6.0 minimum
15
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
REFERENCE
PCB's
013
Impoundments containing PCB contaminated oil and water were
dewatered to eliminate threat of stream and groundwater pol-
lution. Influent to powdered activated carbon treatment
facility contained:
Aroclor 1242*
Aroclor 1254*
Aroclor 1260*
ranged from 0.56 to 7.7 ng/1
16
Metal
014
Ul
O
Groundwater contamination resulted from land disposal of
arsenic compounds by pharmaceutical manufacturer. Prior to
installation of groundwater purging and treatment system,
arsenic* concentrations were 10,000 mg/1; after several years
of purging concentrations of 10-30 mg/1 remain.
17
Metal
015
Waste aresenic was disposed of in dump. Arsenic* concentra-
tions found in groundwater were 175 mg/1.
17
Metals
016
Following contaminants found in groundwater near inactive
chemical waste disposal site:
Ba - 2000 mg/1
Other inorganics and organics anticipated to be present.
18
Metals
Pesticides
017
Arsenic* and Carbofuran found in surface runoff and in
lagoon used by chemical manufacturer.
18
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Misc.
Metals
Aromatics
Aromatics
Phenol
Polynuclear Aromatics
Metals
Misc.
SITE
CODE
018
019
020
021
022
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Following contaminants found in impoundment used by chemical
waste processor (cone, in mg/1) :
Cd* - 1 Zn* - 1
Cu* - 9 pH - 3
Fe - 60 NH3-N - 30
Ni* - 3
Mercury* and benzene hexachloride believed to be in ground-
water in vicinity of chemical manufacturing and waste dispos-
al operations.
Chlorinated benzenes found in leachate and groundwater in
vicinity of waste disposal operation used by several chemical
producers.
Following contaminants found in shallow groundwater in
vicinity of chemical production facility:
phenol* - 50 pg/1
polynuclear aromatics - 3400 pg/1
Following range of contaminants were found in ground and sur-
face waters (ponds) in vicinity of municipal landfill which
also accepted industrial wastes (cone, in mg/1):
3 worst case 2 worst case
Pollutant wells surface waters
Alkalinity 20.6 - 300 81 - 156
pH 6.27 - 6.5 6.22 - 6.3
REFERENCE
18
18
18
• 19
20
(continued)
Ul
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Misc. (continued)
Metals
Phenols
Misc.
SITE
CODE
023
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
3 worst case 2 worst case
Pollutant wells surface waters
TS 840 - 1730 159 - 258
TOG 12 - 39 20.4 - 33.5
TKN <1 - 8.7 6.05
Cl 31.0 - 125 3.65 - 7.48
Na - mixed/settled3 4.6 - 34.1/26.9 21.5 / NR
Mn - mixed/settled3 0.41 - 4.16/3.70 1.03 / NR
Fe - mixed/settled3 21.1 - 196/162 3.38 / NR
Zn*- mixed/settled3 0.32 - 0.54/0.21 0.07 / NR
Cu*-mixed/settleda 0.082 - 0.365/0.076 0.006 / NR
Pb* -mixed/settled3 0.196 - 0.393/0.271 0.003 / NR
Cr*-mixed/settleda 0.123 - 0.55/0.28 <0.001 / NR
Specific conductance 80 - 1200 NR
a - results reported for mixed sample and supernatant
from settled sample
NR - not reported
Following contaminants were detected in groundwater down-
gradient of landfill which accepted large quantities of
pharmaceutical wastes. Data represents quality range at 3
poorest quality wells over 2 yr time span. (cone, as mg/1) :
pH 6.0 - 7.9 Cl 40 - 1500
specific conductance 180 - 2000 F 0.14-1.3
temperature ( F) 58 - 63 TDS 1455
color 50 - 4000 NO3~N 0.01 - 0.04
sulfate 1.2 - 25 POi^-P 0.04
total hardness 700 - 1700 Fe 0.21 - 678
Ca 180 - 280 K 4.9-30
Mg 25 - 250 Mn 0.01-1.0
REFERENCE
21
(continued)
U1
to
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Phenols
Misc. (continued)
Aroraatics
Halocarbons
PCB's
Polynuclear Aromatics
Phthalates
SITE
CODE
024
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Na 13 - 130 CN* 0.005
Se * 0.01 - 0.02 Pb* 0.10
COD 168 - 9920 Cu* 0.10 - 0.71
BODs 42 - 4040 Hg* 0.0005
MBAS 0.24 Zn* 0.36 - 26.8
Phenols* 0.008 - 54.17 Ag* 0.01
Following range of contaminants were detected in leachate
from landfill accepting major proportions of chemical produc-
tion wastes (cone, in pg/1, except as noted):
Aroclor 1254* 70
Aroclor 1016*/1242* 110 to 1900
Aroclor 1016*/1242*/1254* 66 to 1.8 g/1
benzene* P to 1930
biphenyl napthalene P
chlorobenzenes* - P to 4620
camphene P
Cij alkyl cyclopentadiene P
GS substituted cyclopentadiene P
dichlorobenzene* P to 517
dichloroethane* 180
dichloroethylene P
limonene P
methyl chloride* 3.1
methyl napthalene P
parafins P
petroleum oil p
phthalates P
phthalate esters P
pinene p
REFERENCE
23
(continued)
Ul
UJ
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Aroma tics
Halocarbons
PCB's
Polynuclear Aromatics
Phthalates
(continued)
Halocarbons
Misc.
Halocarbons
Aromatics
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
SITE
CODE
025
026
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
styrene P
tetrachloroethylene* P to 590
toluene* P to 16,200
trichloroethane* P to 490
trichloroethylene* P to 7700
trimethylbenzenes P
MIBK 2000
xylene P to 3300
Following contaminants were detected in groundwater in vicin-
ity of municipal landfill due to "industrial waste seepage
from landfill" (cone, in pg/1) :
1,1, 1-trichloroethane* 532
tetrachloroethylene* 187
1, 1-dichloroethane* • 2.3
1, 2-dichloroethylene* 0.2
chloroform* 1.1
1,2-dichloroethane* 2.1
dibromochlorome thane* 3 . 9
bromoform* 0.2
TOC 500
Ground and surface waters were polluted by migration of con-
taminants from waste disposal lagoons and direct discharge
practices attributed to chemical production facility. Fol-
lowing data describe groundwater quality range at four wells
located within the groundwater contamination plums (cone, in
ug/D :
REFERENCE
24
25
(continued)
Ul
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Halocarbons
Aromatics
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
(continued)
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Volatile Organics:
vinyl chloride* 140 to 32,500
methylene chloride <5 to 6570
1,1-dichloroethylene* 220 to 19,850
1,1-dichlorethane* <5 to 14,280
1,2-dichlorethane* 350 to 8150
benzene* 6 to 7370
1,1, 2-trichloroethane* <5 to 790
1,1, 2, 2-tetrachloroethane* <5 to 1590
toluene* <5 to 5850
ethylbenzene* <5 to 470
chlorobenzene* <5 to 78
trichlorof luoromethane* <5 to 18
Acid Extractable Organics:
o-chlorophenol* <3 to 20
phenol* <3 to 33
o-sec-butylphenol <3 to 83
p-isobutylanisol <3 to 86
or p-acetonylanisol
p-sec-butylphenolb <3 to 48
p-2-oxo-n-butylphenol <3 to 1357
m-acetonylanisolb <3 to 1546
isoprophylphenolb <3 to 8
1-ethylpropylphenol <3
dime thy Iphenol* <3
benzoic acid <3 to 12,311
Base Extractible Organics:
dichlorobenzene* <10 to 172
dimethylaniline <10 to 6940
REFERENCE
(continued)
Ul
en
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Halocarbons
Aromatics
Phenols
Polynuclear Aromatics
(continued)
Halocarbons
Aromatics
Misc.
Metals
Misc.
SITE
CODE
027
Compi-
lation
of
sites
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Base Extractible Organics (continued) :
m-ethylaniline <10 to 7640
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene* <10 to 28
napthalene* <10 to 66
methylnapthalene <10 to 290
camphor <10 to 7571
chloroaniline <10 to 86
benzylamine or o-toluidine <10 to 471
phenanthrene* or anthracene* <10 to 670
b - structure not validated by actual compound
Groundwater pollution caused by the production, disposal, and
storage of chemicals and waste residues in vicinity of chem-
ical production facility (cone, in yg/1, except as noted):
chloride 5.5 to 8000 mg/1
tetrachlorome thane* <1 to 25,000
trichloromethane* <1 to <10,000
trichloroethene <3 to 10,000
tetrachloroethene <1 to >50,000
hexachlorobutadiene* (C46) <20
hexachlorocyclopentadiene* (*-56) <100
octachlorocyclopentene (^58) <100
hexachlorobenzene* ( 66) <100
Pollutants found to be present in leachates based upon exami-
nation of 43 landfills which accept industrial wastes;
REFERENCE
26
11
(continued)
U1
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
CONTAMINANT
CLASSIFICATION
Metals
Misc. (continued)
SITE
CODE
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND WATER QUALITY
Typical No. of Sites
Pollutant Cone. Range (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Where Detected
As* 0.03 - 5.8 0.2 5
Ba 0.01 - 3.8 0.25 24
Cr* 0.01 - 4.20 0.02 10
Co 0.01 - 0.22 0.03 11
Cu* 0.01 - 2.8 0.04 15
CN* 0.005 - 14 0.008 14
Pb* 0.3-19 - 3
Hg* 0.0005'- 0.0008 0.0006 5
Mo 0.15-0.24 - 2
Ni* 0.02 - 0.67 0.15 16
Se* 0.01 - 0.59 0.04 21
Zn* 0.01 - 240 3.0 9
Light
Organics 1.0 - 1000 80 10
Halogenated
Organics 0.002 - 15.9 0.005 5
Heavy
Organics 0.01 - 0.59 0.1 8
* - A priority pollutant
ND - Not Detected
P - Present
REFERENCE
Ln
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
Reference Listing
1. Personal Communication. Mr. Leon Oberdick, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Reading, PA.
June 21, 1979.
2. Personal Communication. Mr. John Osgood, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
June 19, 1979.
3. Personal Communication. Mr. Thomas Massey. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA. May 17, 1979.
4. Personal Communication. Mr. Carlyle Westlund, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA.
June 19, 1979.
5. Hatayama, H.K., Simmons, B.P., and R.D. Stephens. The
Stringfellow Industrial Waste Disposal Site: A Technical
Assessment of Environmental Impact. California Department
of Health Services, Berkeley, CA. March 1979.
6. Buhts, R.E., Malone, P.G., and D.W. Thompson. Evaluation of
Ultraviolet/Ozone Treatment of Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA)
Groundwater (Treatability Study). Technical Report Y-78-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MI. January 1978.
7. Steiner, R.L., Keenan, J.D., and A.A. Fungaroli. Demon-
strating Leachate Treatment: Report on a Full-Scale
Operating Plant. SW-758, US EPA, Office of Water and Waste
Management, Washington, DC. May 1979.
8. US EPA, National Enforcement Investigations Center. Partial
Listing of Compounds in ABM-Wade Disposal Site Samples.
Unpublished Memorandum to US EPA Region III Enforcement
Division, Philadelphia, PA. April 25, 1979.
9. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Results
of DER Samples of Bridgeport Quarry Taken on April 23, 1979.
Unpublished Data. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Norristown, PA. April 23, 1979.
10. Personal Communication. Mr. F.A. Jones, Jr. Redstone
Arsenal Carbon Treatment Plant. Unpublished Data. Depart-
ment of the Army, US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. July 2, 1979.
158
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
11. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. The Prevalence of Subsurface
Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances at Selected
Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites. EPA/530/SW-634.
US Environmental Protection Agency. October 1977.
12. Earth, E.F. and J.M. Cohen. Evaluation of Treatability of
Industrial Landfill Leachate. Unpublished Report.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
November 30, 1978.
13. Dahl, T.O. NPDES Compliance Monitoring and Water/Waste
Characterization Salsbury Laboratories/Charles City, Iowa.
EPA 330/2-78-019, US Environmental Protection Agency,
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver, CO.
November 1978.
14. US Environmental Protection Agency. Report of Investigation
Salsbury Laboratories, Charles City, Iowa. US Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region VII Surveillance and Analyses
Division, Kansas City, MO. February 1979.
15. Atwell, J.S. Identifying and Correcting Groundwater Con-
tamination at a Land Disposal Site. In: Proceedings of
the Fourth National Congress Waste Management Technology
and Resource and Energy Recovery, Atlanta, GA.
November 1975. pp. 278-301.
16. Stroud, F.B., Wilkerson, R.T., and A. Smith. Treatment and
Stabilization of PCB Contaminated Water and Waste Oil: A
Case Study. In: Proceedings of 1978 National Conference
on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Miami Beach, FL.
April 1978. pp. 135-144.
17. Stover, E.L. and A.A. Metry. Hazardous Solid Waste Manage-
ment Report. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management, Harrisburg,
PA. November 1976.
18. Interagency Task Force on Hazardous Wastes. Draft Report
on Hazardous Waste Disposal in Erie and Niagara Counties,
New York. SW-Pll (3/79). Interagency Task Force on
Hazardous Wastes, Albany, NY. March 1979.
19. Personal Communication. Mr. Steven Lees, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati,'OH. August 2, 1979.
20. Beck, W.W. Jr., Evaluation of Chemical Analyses Windham
Landfill, Windham, Connecticut. Letter to Mr. Donald E.
Sanning. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,OH.
January 26, 1978.
21. Personal Communication. Mr. Steven Lees. Compilation of
Data Related to LiPari Landfill. US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, OH. August 2, 1979.
159
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
22= Personal Communication. Mr. Steven Lees. Compilation of
Love Canal Leachate Data. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. August 2, 1979.
23. Brezenski, F.T. Laboratory Results - Kin Buc Landfill.
Unpublished Data in Memorandum to R.D. Spear, Chief
Surveillance and Monitoring Branch. US Environmental
Protection Agency. January 24, 1978.
24. Isacoff, E.G. and J.A. Bittner. Resin Adsorbent Takes on
Chlororganics from Well Water. Water and Sewage Works,
126 (8): 41-42, 1979.
25. Sturino, E. Analytical Results: Samples from Story
Chemicals, Data Set Others 336. Unpublished Data.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Central
Regional Laboratory, Chicago, IL. May 1978.
26. Personal Communication. Mr. Andrew W. Hogarth. Unpub-
lished Data: Report of Sampling, Hooker Chemical Corp.
Monitoring Wells, Montague, Michigan. December 1978.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.
August 7, 1979.
27. O'Brien, R.P. City of Niagara Falls, New York, Love Canal
Project. Unpublished Report. Calgon Corp., Calgon
Environmental Systems Division, Pittsburgh, PA.
28. Recra Research Inc. Priority Pollutant Analyses Prepared
for Newco Chemical Waste Systems, Inc. Unpublished Report.
Recra Research Inc., Tonawanda, NY. April 16, 1979.
160
-------
APPENDIX C
CHEMICAL TREATABILITY
Appendix Table C-l presents information on the treatability
of individual chemical compounds by various concentration tech-
nologies. Primary organization of the table is by concentration
process. For each concentration process, the treatability of
individual chemical compounds is given with the compounds ar-
ranged in alphabetical order within chemical calssifications.
The following concentration processes are included:
Process Process Code No.
Biological I
Coagulation/Precipitation II
Reverse Osmosis III
Ultrafiltration IV
Stripping V
Solvent Extraction VII
Carbon Adsorption IX
Resin Adsorption X
Miscellaneous Sorbents XII
The chemical classification system used is described in the body
of this report; the following chemical classes are used in
Appendix C:
Chemical Classification Classification Code No.
Alcohols A
Aliphatics B
Amines C
Aromatics D
Ethers E
Halocarbons F
Metals G
PCBs I
Pesticides J
Phenols K
Phthalates L
Polynuclear Aromatics M
In order to present the large quantity of information in a
concise manner, it was necessary to code some of the information.
The coding system is explained in footnotes at the end of
161
-------
Table C-l.
Many chemical compounds are known by several names. At-
tempts were made to use preferred or generic names according to
The Merck Index. However, in some cases it was necessary to use
the names which were used in the reference documents„ Users of
Table C-l are advised to check for compounds under several po-
tential alphabetic listings.
162
-------
TABLE C-l CHEMICAL TREATABILITY
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols(A)
a
No.
IA-
1
IA-
2
IA-
3
IA-
4
IA-
5
IA-
6
IA-
7
IA-
8
IA-
9
IA-
10
b
Chemical
n-Amyl Alcohol
(1-Pentanol)
Borneal
Butanol
Butanol
Butanol
Butanol
Butanol
sec-Butanol
tert-Butanol
tert-Butanol
Description of Study
Study
Type c.
R
U
F
F
R
F
U
U
U
L
Waste
Type d
P
I
I
I
P
P
P
S
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of 42
lb/day/
1000 ft3
Results of Study
Toxic threshold to sensitive
aquatic organisms (approx)
>350 mg/1.
90.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
8.9 mg COD/g hr.
70-90% reduction.
98% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Toxic threshold to sensitive
aquatic organisms (approx)
<250 ppm.
95-100% reduction.
98.8% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
84 mg COD/g hr.
98.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
Substrate partially degraded.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Aerated lagoon
treatment.
Completely mixed acti-
tivated sludge process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Acclimated aerobic
culture.
(continue
Ref .
99
81
100
101
99
56
81
81
81
102
d)
i
U)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
IA-
11
IA-
12
IA-
13
IA-
14
IA-
15
IA-
16
IA-
17
IA-
18
IA-
19
IA-
20
IA-
21
IA-
22
,
Chemical
1 , 4-Butanediol
Cyclohexanol
Cyclopentanol
Dimethylcyclo-
hexanol
1 , 2-Ethanediol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethyl Butanol
Ethyl Butanol
Ethyl Butanol
2-Ethylhexanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
U
U
U
U
L
F
L
F
F
F
F
F
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
S
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
484 ppm
1000 ppm
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft1*
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft3*
Results of Study
98.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
28 mg COD/g hr.
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
92.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
21.6 mg COD/g hr.
74-76% reduction of BOD in
24 hrs. 7.5% of TOD exerted
in 24 hrs.
70-90% reduction.
>99% reduction of BOD in 24
hrs. 24% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
95-100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction .
30-50% reduction.
95-100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
75-85% reduction.
75-85% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Pure aerobic culture .
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Pure aerobic culture .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Ref .
81
81
81
81
103
100
103
101
100
101
56
56
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
IA-
23
IA-
24
IA-
25
IA-
26
IA-
27
IA-
28
IA-
29
IA-
30
IA-
31
IA-
32
b
Chemical
Furfuryl
Alcohol
Furfuryl
Alcohol
Hexanol
1-Hexanol
1-Hexanol
Isopropanol
Isopropanol
Isopropanol
Isopropanol
Isopropanol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
F
F
F
F
L
U
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
I
I
I
I
S
P
P
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day
1000 ft3
-
Results of Study
97.3% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
41 mg COD/g hr.
96.1% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
95-100% reduction.
70-90% reduction.
100% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
70-90% reduction.
96% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
100% reduction; acetone was
intermediate where upon 50%
reduced by bio-oxidation &
50% removed by air stripping
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
52 mg COD/g hr.
95-100% reduction.
Comments
Activated, sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
Acclimated aerobic
culture.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
81
81
56
100
101
100
101
102
81
56
5d>
I
en
Ln
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A
No.
IA-
33
IA-
34
IA-
35
IA-
36
IA-
37
IA-
38
IA-
39
IA-
40
IA-
41
IA-
42
IA-
43
b
Chemical
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
4-Methylcyclo-
hexanol
Octanol
Octanol
Pentarythritol
Phenyl Methyl
Carbinol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F
F
L
L
F
F,C
U
F
F
L
F
Waste
Type d
I
I
U
U
I
I
P
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 lb/dayy
1000 ft?
997 ppm
500 ppm
170-2550
ppb
Results of Study
75-85% reduction.
30-50% reduction.
2.4-5.7% reduction of BOD
24 hrs. 36 to 41 mg 02 used
in 24 hrs. 2.4 -1.7% of TOD
exerted in 24 hrs.
110 mg ®2 used in 24 hrs.
14 . 6% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
84% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
Effluent cone, of 150-510ppb
achieved.
94% reduction based on COD?
rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
75% reduction w/80% BOD
reduction.
30-50% reduction.
No toxic effect.
85-95% reduction
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Pure aerobic culture.
Pure aerobic culture .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge .
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
Activated sludge
process.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Aerobic culture .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge .
Ref .
56
100
103
103
101
65
81
101
100
104
101
(continued)
»
01
cr>
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
No.
IA-
44
b
Chemical
n-Propanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
U
Waste
Type
P
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
98.8% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
71 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
81
:d)
i
H
CD
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classifications Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
1
IB-
2
IB-
3
IB-
4
IB-
5
IB-
6
IB-
7
IB-
8
IB-
9
IB-
10
b
Chemical
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetonitrile
Acetylglycine
Acrolein
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F
F
F,C
F,C
F
B
B
B
0
F,C
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
I
S
u
S
D
I
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of 42 Ib
day/1000
ft*
120-900
ppb
100-600
ppb
490 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
50-150
ppb
Results of Study
70-90% reduction.
85-95% reduction.
Effluent cone, of 90-1350ppb
achieved.
Effluent cone, of 50-300 ppb
achieved .
70-90% reduction.
Completely degraded or lost
by stripping.
Oxygen consumption was to-
tally inhibited for 24 hrs.
Toxic or inhibitory during
oxidation periods up to 72
hrs. 1.4% TOD was exerted
in 72 hrs.
Readily oxidized w/9.3% of
TOD exerted after 6 hr &
18.5% after 24 hr of
oxidation.
Effluent cone, of 20-200 ppb
achieved .
Comments
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Activated sludge
process.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
See IB-3 for comments.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
No identifiable degra-
dation product.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
(continue
Ref .
100
56
65
65
100
102
103
106
106
65
d)
cr>
oo
-------
TABLE C-l{continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification;
Biological Treatment (I)
Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
11
IB-
12
IB-
13
IB-
14
IB-
IS
IB-
16
IB-
17
IB-
IS
IB-
19
IB-
20
IB-
21
Chemical
Acrylic Acid
Acrylic Acid
Acrylic Acid
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Adipic Acid
Alanine
Ammonium
Oxalate
Butanedinitrile
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
I
B
U
0
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
U
P
D
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 Ib/dav/
1000 ftJ
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft3
140 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
85-95% reduction.
50-70% reduction.
85-95% reduction.
70-90% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
100% reduction.
Readily oxidized w/7.1% of
TOD exerted after 24 hr of
oxidation.
Up to 39% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
92.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
40 mg COD/g hr.
Toxic at oxidation periods
up to 72 hrs.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Oxidation improved
greatly after 12 hrs.
Oxygen consumption
showed no lag period.
Material was readily
degraded.
Activated sludge
process.
Ref .
56
100
101
100
101
56
90
107
103
81
106
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
22
IB-
23
IB-
24
IB-
25
IB-
26
IB-
27
IB-
28
IB-
29
IB-
30
IB-
31
b
Chemical
Butanedinitrile
Butanenitrile
Butanenitrile
Butyleneoxide
Butyric Acid
Butyric Acid
Butyric Acid
Butyric Acid
Calcium
Gluconate
Caprolactam
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
O
0
O
F
O
F
O
L
U
Waste
Type d
D
D
D
D
I
D
I
D
U
P
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft?
500 ppm
250 ppm
Results of Study
Readily, but slowly, oxi-
dized, 3.8% of TOD exerted
after 24 hr of oxidation.
Inhibited oxidation for up
to 24 hrs; after 72 hrs,up
to 10.5% of TOD was exerted.
Readily, but slowly oxi-
dized. Most rapid oxidation
occurred in first 6 hrs,
1.7% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
9.6% of TOD exerted after
144 hrs of oxidation.
85-95% reduction.
Up to 43% of TOD exerted
after 72 hrs of oxidation.
50-70% reduction.
Rapidly oxidized for first
6 hrs; after 24 hrs of oxi-
dation up to 27.9% of TOD
was exerted.
13.6% of TOD exerted in
24 hrs.
94.3% reduction based on COD,
rate of biodegradation
16 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Oxygen uptake showed
plateau effect after
12 hrs.
See IB-23
for comments .
Degraded very slowly.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Activated sludge process
Ref .
107
106
107
108
56
106
100
107
103
81
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
32
IB-
33
IB-
34
IB-
35
IB-
36
IB-
37
IB-
38
IB-
39
IB-
40
IB-
41
IB-
42
„ . . b
Chemical
Citric Acid
Crotonaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Cystine
L-Cystine
Cyclohexa-
nolone
Cyclohexanone
Cyclopentanone
Diethylene
Glycol
2,3-Dithiabu-
tane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L
F
F
F
L
O
U
U
U
U
F,C
Waste
Type d
U
I
I
I
U
D
P
P
P
P
I
Influent
Char.
550 ppm
BOD load
of
42 Ib/daw
1000 ftj
1000 ppm
500 ppm
10-120ppb
Results of Study
35 mg of 0^ used in 24 hrs.
95-100% reduction.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
Completely inhibited any
consumption of 02 .
Slowly oxidized w/4.7% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs of
oxidation.
92.4% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
51.5 mg COD/g hr.
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
95.4% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
57 mg COD/g hr.
95% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
13.7 mg COD/g hr.
Not detectable in effluent.
Comments
Biodegradable, depressed
02 consumption.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
See IB-3
for comments.
Ref..
03
56
100
101
103
107
81
81
81
81
65
(continued)
I
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process;
Chemical Classification:
Biological Treatment (I)
Aliphatics (B)
No.
IB-
43
IB-
44
IB-
45
IB-
46
IB-
47
IB-
48
IB-
49
IB-
50
IB-
51
IB-
52
IB-
53
Chemical
Dulc it.ol
Erucic Acid
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl. Acrylate
Ethylene
Glycol
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
0
F
F
F
F
F
F
U
F
F
Waste
Type d
U
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
I
Influent
Char.
1700 ppm
500 ppm
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft3
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft*
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day,
1000 ft^
Results of Study
Slightly inhibitory
11% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
96.8% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
41.7 mg COD/g hr.
95-100% reduction.
90-100% reduction
Comments
Treated by aerobic
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process
Treated by aerobic
lagoon
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerobic
lagoon.
(continue
Ref .
109
107
100
101
56
56
100
101
81
56
100
d)
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
to
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification:
Biological Treatment (I)
Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
54
IB-
55
IB
56
ib
57
In—
58
IB-
59
IB-
60
IB-
61
IB-
62
IB-
63
B-
64
B-
65
B-
66
Chemical
2-Ethylhexyl-
acrylate
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Form amide
Formic Acid
Glutamic Acid
Glycerine
Glycine
Heptane
Heptane
Heptane
Heptane
Hydracrylo-
nitrile
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F
L
0
__
__ _
L
L
L
F
0
F
F
F
Waste
Type d
I
U
D
D
I
D
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
720 ppm
3000 ppm
500 ppm
720 ppm
720 ppm
720 ppm
BOD load
of
42 lb/dav/
1000 ft
500 ppm
Results of Study
95-100% reduction.
Chemical inhibited 02
consumption.
<99% reduction after 24 hrs
of aeration.
Slowly oxidized for first
12 hrs; 11.8% of TOD exerted
after 24 hrs of oxidation.
70% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
31% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs of oxidation.
248 mg of 02 used in 24 hrs.
58% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
95-100% reduction.
38.7% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
0-10% reduction.
Comments
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
pH held at 7.2.
No lag period during
oxidation.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process .
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
(continue
Ref .
101
103
104
107
107
103
103
103
56
L06
LOO
L01
LOO
d)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
67
IB-
68
IB-
69
IB-
70
IB-
71
IB-
72
IB-
73
IB-
74
IB-
75
IB-
76
IB-
77
IB-
78
IB-
79
IB-
80
Chemical
Isophorone
Lactic Acid
Laurie Acid
L-Malic Acid
DL-Malic Acid
Malonic Acid
Nitrilotri-
acetate
Oleic Acid
Oxalic Acid
Pentane
Pentanedini-
trile
Pentanedini-
trile
Pentanenitrile
Propanedini-
trile
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
L
0
0
0
0
L
0
L
O
0
0
0
0
Waste
Type
D
D
D
D
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
Influent
Char.
720 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
20 to
500 ppm
250 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
93% reduction.
78% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
6.1% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
44.8% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
20.8% of TOD exerted after
24 hrs.
Chemical inhibited 02
uptake .
>90% reduction after
acclimation.
02 uptake inhibited:
0 uptake inhibited.
02 uptake inhibited.
Toxic at oxidation periods
of up to 72 hrs.
Slowly oxidized with 2.9%
of TOD exerted after 24 hrs
of oxidation.
Toxic to 2 sludges at oxi-
dation periods up to 24 hrs.
Toxic for oxidation periods
up to 72 hrs.
Comments
21 day maximum reten-
tion time in a series
of lagoons.
A 10-16 hr lag period
was indicated.
Ref .
81
7
107
107
107
107
111
109
103
106
106
106
106
106
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
; Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
81
IB-
82
IB-
83
IB-
84
IB-
85
IB-
86
IB-
87
IB-
88
IB-
89
IB-
90
IB-
91
IB-
92
,
b
Chemical
Propanenitrile
3-Propiolacton«
Sodium Alkyl
Sulfonate
Sodium Lauryl
Sulfate
Sodium N-
Oleyl-N-Methyl
Taurate
Sodium a Sulfo
Methyl
Myri state
Tannic Acid
Thioglycollic
Acid
Thiouracil
Thiourea
Triethylene
Glycol
Urea
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L
0
0
u
L
Waste
Type d
D ,
D
D
D
P
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
1200 ppm
Results of Study
Toxic for oxidation periods
up to 72 hrs.
02 uptake inhibited.
22% of TOD exerted after
5 days .
65% of TOD exerted after
5 days.
47-52% of TOD exerted in
5 days .
33% of TOD exerted after
5 days.
02 uptake inhibited.
02 uptake inhibited within
24 hrs.
Chemical was oxidized but
very slowly. 12.8% of TOD
exerted after 144 hrs of
oxidation.
0 uptake was inhibited by
chemical for up to 144 hrs
of oxidation.
97.7% reduction based on COD
rate of biodegradation was
27 mg COD/g hr .
0 uptake inhibited.
Comments
Activated sludge proces
Ref .
106
108
112
112
112
112
109
103
108
L03
81
L03
(continued)
i
U1
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IB-
93
b
Chemical
Urethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
Waste
Type d
D
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
103
d)
-o
en
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
IC-
1
IC-
2
IC-
3
IC-
4
IC-
5
IC-
6
IC-
7
IC-
8
IC-
9
IC-
10
Chemical
Acetanilide
p-Aminoacetan-
ilide
m-Aminobenzoic
Acid
o-Aminobenzoic
Acid
p-Aminobenzoic
Acid
m-Aminotoluene
o-Aminotoluene
p-Aminotoluene
Aniline
Aniline
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
I
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
30°C
Results of Study
94.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
19 mg COD/g hr.
93% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11.3 mg COD/g hr.
97.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
27.1 mg COD/g hr.
97 . 5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
7.0 mg COD/g hr.
96.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
12.5 mg COD/g hr.
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
15.1 mg COD/g hr.
97.7% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
20 mg COD/g hr.
94.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
19 mg COD/g hr.
100% reduction in 15 hrs.
Comments
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonas.
(continue
Ref .
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
92
d)
1
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
IC-
11
IC-
12
IC-
13
IC-
14
IC-
15
IC-
16
IC-
17
IC-
18
IC-
19
IC-
20
IC-
21
b
Chemical
Aniline
Benzamide
Benzidine
Benzidine
Benzylamine
Butanamide
m-Chloroani-
line
o-Chloroani-
line
p-Chloroani-
line
Diethanolamine
2,3-Dimethyl-
aniline
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
0
0
F,C
0
0
U
U
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
0
0
D
D
D
D
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
1 . 6 ppb
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited for up
to 72 hrs.
02 uptake inhibited for
first 6 hrs. 63% of TOD
exerted after 144 hrs of
oxidation.
02 uptake inhibited.
0% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited.
Slowly oxidized w/6.4% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs
of oxidation.
97.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of "biodegradation
6.2 mg COD/g hr.
97.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
16.7 mg COD/g hr.
96.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
5.7 mg COD/g hr.
97% reduction based on, COD;
rate of biodegradation
19.5 mg COD/g hr.
96.5% reduction based on COD
rate of biodegradation
12.7 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Ref .
108
108
108
81
108
107
81
81
81
81
81
(continued)
i
H
-J
00
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
a
No.
IC-
22
IC-
23
IC-
24
IC-
25
IC-
26
IC-
27
IC-
28
IC-
29
IC-
30
IC-
31
IC-
32
IC-
33
Chemical
2, 5 -Dimethyl-
aniline
3 ,4 -Dimethyl-
aniline
Ethylene-
diamine
2-Fluorenamine
o-Nitroaniline
p-Nitroaniline
p-(Phenylazo)
aniline
Pentanamide
Phenylene-
diamine
m-Phenylene-
diamine
o-Phenylene-
diamine
p-Phenylene
diamine
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
0
U
U
0
0
0
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
P.
P
P
D
I
I
D
D
D
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
18.5 ppm
6 . 7 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
96.5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
3.6 mg COD/g hr.
7,6% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
30 mg COD/g hr.
97 . 5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
9.8 mg COD/g hr.
02 uptake showed inhibitory
effect but was slowly bio-
logically oxidized.
£99.9% reduction.
<99.9% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited after
72 hrs of oxidation.
Slowly oxidized w/13.6% of
TOD exerted after 24 hrs of
oxidation.
Toxic during 24 hrs of
aeration
60% reduction based on COD.
33% reduction based on COD.
80% reduction based on COD.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Powder activated carbon
& activated sludge
treatment.
See IC-26
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Ref .
81
81
81
108
58
58
108
107
113
81
81
81
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
No.
IC-
34
IC-
35
IC-
36
b
Chemical
Thioacetamide
2,4,6-Trichlo-
roaniline
2,4,6-Trichlo-
roaniline
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
U
0
Waste
Type
U
I
S
Influent
Char.
100 ppm
500 ppm
10 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited.
100% reduction in 30 hrs.
G£ uptake not inhibited.
Comments
See 1C- 10
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
103
92
113
jd)
H1
00
O
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
ID-
1
ID-
2
ID-
3
ID-
4
ID-
5
ID-
6
ID-
7
ID-
8
ID-
9
ID-
10
ID-
11
ID-
12
Chemical
sec-Amyl-
benzene
tert-Amyl-
benzene
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benze'ne
Benzene
Benzene
Sulfonate
Benzene thiol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
0
0
U
0
F
F
0
0
F
0
0
Waste
Type d
D
D
P
D
I
I
D
D
I
D
D
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
125 ppm
50-500
ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration .
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
02 uptake inhibited.
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
119 mg COD/g hr.
61.3% of TOD exerted after
144 hrs of oxidation.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
1.44-1.45g of oxygen uti-
lized per gram of substrate
added after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
°2 uptake of 34 ppm 02/hr
for 50 ppm chemical & 37 ppm
02/hr for 500 ppm chemical.
95-100% reduction.
Slowly oxidized for first 6
hrs; 62% of TOD exerted af-
ter 144 hrs.
02 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
113
113
109
81
108
100
101
114
114
56
108
108
Jd)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
Aromatics (D)
No.
ID-
13
ID-
14
ID-
15
ID-
16
ID-
17
ID-
18
ID-
19
ID-
20
ID-
21
ID-
22
ID-
23
ID-
24
ID-
25
b
Chemical
Benzole Acid
Benzoic Acid
Benzonitrile
3 , 4-Benzpyrene
sec-Butyl-
benzene •
tert-Butyl-
benzene
Chloranil
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Dibenz-
pyrene
m-Dichloro-
benzene
m-Dichloro-
benzene
o-Dichloro-
benzene
p-Dichloro-
benzene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
F
0
0
0
0
0
L
0
L
U
L
L
Waste
Type d
P ,
I
D
D
D
D
S
P
D
P
I
P
P
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 Ib/dav
1000 ft3^
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
10 ppm
200 ppm
500 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
Results of Study
99% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
88.5 mg COD/g hr.
95-100% reduction
02 uptake inhibited for up tc
72 hrs of oxidation.
02 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
Toxic for 24 hrs of aeration.
02 uptake inhibited.
100% reduction in 14 hrs.
Oj uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
100% reduction in 28 hrs.
100% reduction in 30 hrs.
100% reduction in 20 hrs.
100% reduction in 25 hrs.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonas
species.
See ID-20
for comments .
See ID-20
for comments.
See ID-20
for comments.
See ID-20
for comments .
Ref .
81
56
106
106
113
113
102
66
108
66
92
66
66
(continued)
00
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
ID-
26
ID-
27
ID-
28
ID-
29
ID-
30
ID-
31
ID-
32
ID-
33
ID-
34
ID-
35
ID-
36
ID-
37
b
Chemical
2,4-Dichloro-
phenoxyacetic
Acid
2,6-Dichloro-
phenoxyacetic
Acid
2,4-Dichloro-
phenoxypro-
pionic Acid
7,9-Dimethyl-
benzacridine
7,10-Dimethyl-
benzacridine
3,5-Dinitro-
benzoic Acid
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
L
L
0
0
U
F,C
R
F
U
F
L
Waste
Type d
D .
D
D
D
D
P
D
U
I
S
I
I
Influent
Char .
174 ppm
178 ppm
186 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
390 ppb
146-188
ppm
BOD load
of
42 Ib/day
1000 ft*
192 ppb
Results of Study
No reduction until after 5
days.
No reduction until after 3
days.
No reduction after 7 days.
02 uptake inhibited after
144 hrs of oxidation.
Q£ uptake inhibited after
after 144 hrs of oxidation.
50% reduction based on COD.
Not detectable in effluent.
90% reduction.
95-100% reduction
100% reduction.
90-100% reduction.
95-100% reduction
Comments
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
See ID-26
for comments .
See ID-26
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge .
(continue
Ref .
115
115
115
108
108
81
81
90
56
21
100
101
»d)
00
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
ID-
38
ID-
39
ID-
40
ID-
41
ID-
42
ID-
43
ID-
44
ID-
45
ID-
46
ID-
47
ID-
48
•
Chemical
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
4-Hydroxy-
benzenecarbo-
nitrile
2-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
3-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
4-Methylben-
zenecarbo-
nitrile
Methylethyl-
pyridine
m-Ni troben z-
aldehyde
o-Nitrobenzal-
dfehyde,. p-Ni*
trobenzaldehyde
Nitrobenzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
L
U
0
0
0
0
F
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
D
P
I
D
D
D
D
I
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
105 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
After 72 hrs of oxidation
1 . 7g of Oj was used per g
chemical added.
0% reduction in 120 hrs.
0% reduction in 120 hrs.
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation.
Toxic after 72 hrs of
oxidation .
10-30% reduction.
94% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
10 mg COD/g hr.
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
13.8 mg COD/g hr.
98% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
14 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
See ID-2Q
for comments .
See ID-20
for comments .
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
Activated sludge
process.
Ref .
114
66
92
106
106
106
106
100
81
81
81
(continued)
t
CO
ib.
-------
TABLE C-l( continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
ID-
49
ID-
50
ID-
51
ID-
52
ID-
53
ID-
54
ID-
55
ID-
56
ID-
57
ID-
58
ID-
59
Chemical
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzene
m-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
o-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
p-Nitrobenzoic
Acid
m-Nitrotoluene
6-Nitrotoluene
p-Nitrotoluene
Nitrof luorine
Paraldehyde
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
F,C
0
U
U
U
U
U
0
F
Waste
Type d
s .
I
D
D
P
P
P
P
P
D
I
Influent
Char.
175 ppb
530 ppb
58 ppb
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
100% reduction.
< 96.0% reduction.
>0.1 ppb effluent cone.
02 uptake inhibited for up
to 144 hrs of oxidation.
93.4% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
7 mg COD/g hr.
93.4% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
20 mg COD/g hr.
92% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
19.7 mg COD/g hr.
98 . 5% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
21 mg COD/g hr.
98% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
32.5 mg COD/g hr.
Slowly oxidized w/13.7% of
TOD exerted after 144 hrs.
30-50% reduction
Comments
Powder activated car-
bon & activated sludge
treatment.
21 day maximum reten-
tion time in a series
of lagoons.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
(continue
Ref .
21
58
81
108
81
81
81
81
81
108
100
id)
00
Ui
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
ID-
GO
ID-
61
ID-
62
ID-
63
ID-
64
ID-
65
ID-
66
ID-
67
ID-
68
ID-
69
ID-
70
ID-
71
Chemical
Pentamethyl-
benzene
n-Propylben-
zene
Sodium Alkyl-
benzene Sul-
fonate
Styrene
Styrene
1,2,3,4-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetra-
chlorobenzene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
0
0
F
F
L
L
U
0
F
F
0
Waste
Type d
D ,
D
I
I
P
P
I
0
I
I
D
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
37.5 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited during
first 24 hrs of aeration.
After 72 hrs of oxidation
0.67g of 02 were utilized pei
g of substrate added.
26% of TOD exerted after 5
days.
70-90% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
74% reduction in 120 hrs.
80% reduction in 120 hrs.
80% reduction in 120 hrs.
No 02 consumed during first
3 hrs; very slight uptake
thereafter for first 24 hrs
of aeration.
70-90% reduction.
95-100% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited or very
slightly oxidized for first
24 hrs of oxidation.
Comments
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
See ID- 20
for comments.
See ID- 20
for comments .
See ID- 20
for comments.
Treated by aerated
lagoon .
Completely mixed acti-
vated sludge process.
(continue
Ref .
113
114
112
100
101
66
66
66
113
100
101
108
d)
oo
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
ID-
72
ID-
73
ID-
74
ID-
75
ID-
76
ID-
77
ID-
78
ID-
79
ID-
80
ID-
81
ID-
82
ID-
83
,
Chemical
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
m-Toluidine
1,2,3-Trichlo-
robenzene
1,2,4-Trichlo-
robenzene
1,3,5-Trichlo-
robenzene
1,3,5-Trichlo-
robenzene
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxypro-
pionic Acid
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenoxy-
acetic Acid
2,6,6-Trini-
tro toluene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
O
0
F,C
F
U
L
L
U
L
L
L
L
Waste
Type d
D
D
I
I
I
P
P
I
P
O
D
I
Influent
Char.
100 ppm
500 ppm
8-150 ppb
BOD load
of 42 Ib
day/1000
ft5
500 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
107.5 ppm
53 ppm
100 ppm
Results of Study
0.53-0.65g of 02 used per g
of substrate added after 72
hrs of oxidation.
48.3% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs of oxidation.
1.0-10.0 ppb effluent cone.
95-100% reduction.
100% reduction in 10 hrs.
100% reduction in 43 hrs.
100% reduction in 46 hrs.
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
99% reduction in 16.5 days.
50% reduction in 14 days.
50-84% reduction in 3-14 hrs.
Comments
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
Activated sludge
process.
See ID-20 for comments.
See ID-20 for comments.
See ID-20 for comments.
See ID-20 for comments.
See ID-20 for comments.
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
Ref .
114
106
65
56
92
66
66
92
66
115
115
116
(continued)
t
CO
-------
TABLE C-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
ID-
84
ID-
85
b
Chemical
m-xylene
o-xylene
p-xylene
Xylene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
F,C
Waste
Type d
D'
I
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
20-200ppl
Results of Study
Q£ uptake inhibited after 24
hrs of oxidation.
1.0-15.0 ppb effluent cone.
- -
Comments
See ID-74
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
113
65
d)
00
CO
-------
TABLE c-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
a
No.
IE-
1
IE-
2
IE-
3
b
Chemical
Isopropyl
Ether
Isopropyl
Ether
Isopropyl
Ether
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F
F
F
Waste
Type d
I.
I
I
Influent
Char.
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft3
Results of Study
85-95% reduction.
70-90% reduction.
85-95% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process .
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Completely mixed
activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
56
100
101
Sd>
H
oo
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
Halocarbons (F)
Nof
IF-
1
IF-
2
IF-
3
IF-
4
IF-
5
IF-
6
IF-
7
IF-
8
IF-
9
IF-
10
b
Chemical
Bromoform
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1, 2-Dichloro-
ethane
Methylene
Chloride
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roethane
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roethane
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
ethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
U
F,C
F,C
F,C
F,C
U
F,C
F,C
F,C
Waste
Type d
I.
S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
0.4-1.9
ppb
177 ppb
13 ppb
0.4-260
ppb
10-430ppb
8.0-790
ppb
1305 ppb
78 ppb
214 ppb
8 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction.
100% reduction.
100% reduction.
1 . 4 ppb effluent cone .
2.0-50 ppb effluent cone.
1.0-20.0 ppb effluent cone.
£ 99.7% reduction.
100% reduction.
99% reduction
100% reduction
Comments
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants .
See IF- 1
for comments.
See IF- 1
for comments .
See IF- i
for comments .
See IF- i
for comments .
Powder activated carbon
S activated sludge
treatment.
See IF- 1
for comments .
See IF- 1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
65
21
65
65
65
65
58
65
21
65
d)
H
V£>
o
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
Nof
IG-
1
IG-
2
IG-
3
IG-
4
IG-
5
IG-
6
IG-
7
IG-
8
IG-
9
IG-
10
IG-
11
IG-
12
IG-
13
b
Chemical
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
(Cr+3)
Chromium
(Cr+*)
Cobalt
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Iron
(FeS
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
R
F,C
0
F
C,P
0
L
R
F
L
C,P
O
Waste
Type d
U.
U
I
U
D
D
U
S
U
D
S
D
U
Influent
Char.
1-100,000
ppm
6 ppb
27 ppb
1-100,000
ppm
ranged
from
CL8-3.6ppn
15 ppm
1-100,000
ppm
0.08-0.5
ppm
10 ppm
ranged
from
0.2-1.5ppn
5-30 ppb
50-560ppb
10 ppm
10-1000
ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited at cone.
greater than 100 ppm.
1.0 ppb effluent cone.
16 ppb effluent cone.
Cone, of 1-10 ppm inhibited
02 uptake.
22-78% reduc-
tions achieved.
0.2 ppb effluent cone.
02 uptake inhibited, at cone.
greater than 100 ppm.
Inhibited biological growth.
75% reduction.
7-77% reductions
achieved.
Stimulated biological growth
Inhibited biological growth.
75% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited at cone.
greater than 100 ppm.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Survey of 2 municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
Survey of municipal
wastewater treatment
plants.
Study of Nitrosomas
bacteria.
Activated sludge
process.
See IG-5
for comments .
See IG-8
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
109
90
65
109
122
123
109
124
118
122
124
125
109
sd)
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No.
IG-
14
IG-
15
IG-
16
IG-
17
IG-
18
IG-
19
IG-
20
IG-
21
IG-
22
IG-
23
IG-
24
Chemical
Iron
(Fe+3)
Iron
Lead
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Description of Study
Study
Type0
O
C,F
O
L
L
L
0
L
R
F
C,P
Waste
Type d
U
D
S
s
S
s
s
U
D
D
Influent
Char.
0.01-
100,000
ppm
7.17 ppm
total iror
0.6 ppm
soluble
iron
10-100ppm
5-50 ppb
12.5-50
ppm
50-100ppm
10 ppm
0-200 ppm
5-10 ppm
10 ppm
ranged
from
0.03-2.0
ppm
1-10 ppm
Results of Study
02 uptake inhibited at cone .
greater than 100 ppm.
83% reduction.
62% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited
No stimulation or inhibition
of biological growth.
Stimulated biological growth
Inhibited biological growth.
02 uptake inhibited.
02 uptake inhibited.
51-58% reduction.
28% reduction.
0-33% reduction
achieved.
28-42% reduction.
Comments
See IG- 8
for comments .
See IG- 8
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
See IG- 5
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
109
126
109
124
124
109
127
132
118
122
128
d)
H
VS>
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
Metals (G)
No.
IG-
25
IG-
26
IG-
27
IG-
28
IG-
29
IG-
30
IG-
31
IG-
32
IG-
33
IG-
34
k
Chemical
Nickel
Nickel
Strontium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,F
P
L
R
F
C,P
L
C,F
L
R
Waste
Type d
D.
D
S
U
D
D
S
D
S
U
Influent
Char.
270 ppb
10 ppm
5-50 ppb
10 ppm
ranged
from
0.3-2.2ppit
2 . 5 ppm
10 ppm
0.08-0.5
ppm
0.91 ppm
1 ppm
3 . 57 ppm
Results of Study
30% reduction.
28% reduction.
No stimulation or inhibition
of biological growth.
89% reduction.
20-91% reduction
achieved.
13% reduction in primary
treatment.
14% reduction in primary
treatment.
Biological growth inhibited.
60% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited.
57% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
See IG- 8
for comments.
Activated sludge
process.
See IG- 5
for comments.
See IG- 8
for comments.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
129
125
124
118
122
128
124
131
109
90
!d)
OJ
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
No?
IJ-
1
IJ-
2
IJ-
3
IJ-
4
IJ-
5
IJ-
6
IJ-
7
IJ-
8
IJ-
9
IJ-
10
IJ-
11
IJ-
12
IJ-
13
IJ-
14
Chemical
Aldrin
Aminotriazole
Chlordane
2,4-D-Isoctyl-
ester
DDT
DDVP
Diazinon
Diazinon
Dieldrin
Endrin
Ferbam
Heptachlor
Herbicide
Orange
Lindane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
O
O
O
O
O
L
L
0
O
0
O
O
F
0
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I
U
Influent
Char.
37.50C,
8.0 pH
20°C,
10.4 pH
500 ppm
1380 ppm
Results of Study
Not significantly degraded.
Not significantly degraded.
Slightly degraded.
Biodegradable .
Not significantly degraded.
462 min half-life.
144 hr half-life.
Not significantly degraded.
Not significantly degraded.
Not significantly degraded.
Biodegradable .
Slightly degraded.
77% reduction.
Not significantly degraded .
Comments
Biodegradation by
mutant pseudomonas
species.
See IJ-6 for comments.
Pure D£ & biological
seeding provided.
(continue
Ref .
121
121
121
121
121
92
92
121
121
121
121
121
81
121
d)
H
VD
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
No?
IJ-
15
IJ-
16
IJ-
17
IJ-
18
IJ-
19
IJ-
20
IJ-
21
IJ-
22
IJ-
23
IJ-
24
IJ-
25
IJ-
26
IJ-
27
Chemical
Malathion
Malathion
Maneb
Methyl
Parathion
Methyl
Parathion
Parathion
Parathion
Pentachloro-
phenol
Propoxur
Tetraethyl
Pyrophosphate
Thanite
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxyace-
tic Acid
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenoxyace-
tic Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
0
L
0
L
O
L
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
Waste
Type d
U
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Influent
Char.
25°C,
10.03 pH
15°C
15°C
75-150ppm
20°C,
10.0 pH
150 ppm
Results of Study
Not significantly degraded.
28 min half -life.
Biodegradable
7.5 min half-life.
Not significantly degraded.
32 min half -life.
Not significantly degraded.
Not significantly degraded.
40 min half -life.
Not significantly degraded.
Biodegradable
Slightly degraded.
99% reduction in 7.5 days.
Comments
See IJ- 6
for comments .
See IJ- 6
for comments .
See IJ- 6
for comments.
See IJ-6
for comments.
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
(continue
Ref .
121
92
121
92
121
92
121
121
92
121
121
121
115
d)
U)
in
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
IJ-
28
IJ-
29
b
Chemical
Ziram
Zireb
Description of Study
Study
Typec
O
O
Waste
Type d
U
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Slightly degraded.
Slightly degraded.
-- -
Comments
(continue
Ref .
121
121
•d)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
Nof
IK-
1
IK-
2
IK-
3
IK-
4
IK-
5
IK-
6
IK-
7
IK-
8
IK-
9
IK-
10
IK-
11
Chemical
4-Chloro-3-
Methylphenol
4-Chloro-3-
Methylphenol
2-Chloro-4-
Nitrophenol
2-Chlorophenol
m-Chlorophenol
o-Chlorophenol
o-Chlorophenol
p-Chlorophenol
p-Chlorophenol
m-Cresol
o-Cresol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
O
R
U
R
L
L
U
U
L
U
'%U
Waste
Type d
S.
U
P
U
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
10 ppm
50 ppm
100 ppm
25 ppm
V
150-200
ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
Results of Study
G£ uptake mildly inhibited.
02 uptake strongly inhibited.
Toxic
Biodegradable in 5 days.
71.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
5 . 3 mg COD/g hr .
90-95% reduction.
100% reduction in 28 hrs.
100% reduction in 26 hrs.
95.6% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
25 mg COD/g hr.
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11 mg COD/g hr.
100% reduction in 33 hrs.
96% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
54 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Biodegradation by mu-
tant pseudomonas
species.
See IK- 5
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
See IK- 5
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
102
90
81
90
66
66
81
81
66
81
81
d)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
Nof
IK-
12
IK-
13
IK-
14
IK-
15
IK-
16
IK-
17
IK-
18
IK-
19
IK-
20
IK-
21
IK-
22
IK-
23
b
Chemical
p-Cresol
2, 4-Diamino-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,5-Dichloro-
phenol
2,6-Dichloro-
phenol
2,3-Dimethyl-
phenol
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
2,5-Dimethyl-
phenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
R
U
L
L
L
L
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
U
I
P
I
P
I
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
60 ppm
200 ppm
200 ppm
64 ppm
200 ppm
64 ppm
Results of Study
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
55 mg COD/g hr.
83% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
12 mg COD/g hr.
98% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
10.5 mg COD/g hr .
Biodegradable in 5 days.
100% reduction in 35 hrs.
100% reduction in 33 hrs.
98% reduction in 5 days
100% reduction in 38 hrs.
99% reduction in 5 days .
95.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
35 mg COD/g hr.
94.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
28.2mg COD/g hr.
94.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
10.6 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
See IK- 5
for comments .
See IK- 5
for comments .
Subjected to continuous
aeration.
See IK- 5
for comments .
See IK- 18
for comments .
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process .
Ref .
81
81
81
90
90
90
115
66
115
81
81
81
(continued)
i
VD
CO
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
IK-
24
iK25
IK-
26
IK-
27
IK-
28
IK-
29
IK-
30
IK-
31
IK-
32
(
Chemical
2,6-Dimethyl-
phenol
3,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
3, 5 -Dimethyl-
phenol
2,4-Dinitro-
phenol
2,4-Dinitro-
phenol
m-Nitrophenol
P-
o-Nitrophenol
o-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
U
U
U
O
U
U
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
p
P
P
S
P
P
P
I
I
Influent
Char.
1 ppm
5 ppm
1275 ppb
725 ppb
Results of Study
94.3% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
9 mg COD/g hr.
97.5% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
13.4 mg COD/g hr.
89.3% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
11.1 mg COD/g hr.
Maximum 02 uptake was 27.7ppm
02/hr after 120 hrs of
aeration
Maximum 0% uptake was 21 . 3ppm
02/hr after 120 hrs of
aeration.
85% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
6 mg COD/g hr.
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
17.5 mg COD/g hr.
97% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
14 mg COD/g hr.
<_ 98.1% reduction.
£ 99.5% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process .
Activated sludge
process.
Powder activated carbon
& activated sludge
treatment .
See IK- 31
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
81
81
81
117
81
81
81
58
58
d>
VD
-------
TABLE c-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
: Phenols (K)
Nof
IK-
33
IK-
34
IK-
35
IK-
36
IK-
37
IK-
38
IK-
39
IK-
40
IK-
41
IK-
42
IK-
43
IK-
44
IK-
45
IK-
46
,
_. . , b
Chemical
Pentachloro-
phenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
p-Phenylazo-
phenol
Sodium Penta-
chlorophenol
2,3,5-Trichlo-
rophenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
L
R
U
F
F
0
0
B,C
L
U
0
L
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
U
I
I
I
D
D
I
P
I
D
D
I
Influent
Char.
200 ppm
200 ppm
150-200
ppm
19 ppm
200 ppm
5 ppm
18 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
120 ppm
@ 500 gpm
200 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
15 ppm
200 ppm
Results of Study
26% reduction in 120 hrs.
26% reduction in 120 hrs.
90-95% reduction.
< 99.9% reduction.
95% reduction.
71% reduction.
62% reduction.
11.6% of TOD exerted after
72 hrs of oxidation.
02 uptake inhibited for first
24 hrs of oxidation. 41.2%
TOD exerted in 144 hrs.
< 200 ppb effluent cone.
100% reduction in 8 hrs.
100% reduction in 10 hrs.
02 uptake inhibited.
0% reduction.
100% reduction in 55 hrs.
Comments
See IK- 5
for comments.
See IK- 5
for comments .
Activated sludge
process .
See IK- 31
for comments.
Activated sludge
process.
Acclimated aerobic
culture .
Activated sludge
process.
See IK- 5
for comments .
See IK- 5
for comments.'
See IK- 5
for comments .
{continue
Ref .
66
92
90
58
118
119
106
108
88
66
92
108
120
92
d)
to
o
o
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Biological Treatment (I)
; Phenols (K)
Nof
IK-
47
IK-
48
IK-
49
IK-
50
IK-
51
IK-
52
Chemical
2,3,5-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,5-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L
L
R
L
0
L
Waste
Type d
P
D
U
P
S
D
Influent
Char.
200 ppm
18.8 ppm
20 ppm
200 ppm
1-10 ppm
50-100ppm
Results of Study
100% reduction in 52 hrs.
99% reduction in 6.5 days.
Biodegradable in 5 days .
100% reduction in 50 hrs.
°2 uptake showed no inhibi-
tory effect.
02 uptake inhibited.
99% reduction in 5 days.
Comments
See IK- 5
for comments .
See IK- 18
for comments .
See IK- 5
for comments.
See IK- 18
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
66
115
90
66
102
115
d)
O
I-1
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
Nof
IL-
1
IL-
2
IL-
3
IL-
4
IL-
5
IL-
6
IL-
7
IL-
8
IL-
9
IL-
10
IL-
11
b
Chemical
Bis (2-ethylhex-
yl) Phthalate
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl
Phthalate
Diethyl
Phthalate
Di(2-ethylhex-
yl) Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl
Phthalate
Isophthalic
Acid
Phthalimide
Phthalic Acid
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
R
F
R
U
R
U
U
U
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
I
U
s
U
p
p
p
Influent
Char.
5 ppm
215 ppb
Results of Study
70-78% reduction.
Biodegradable .
Biodegradable in an environ-
mental system at a level of
200 ppm.
Biodegradable .
50-70% reduction.
Biodegradable, no inhibition
of bacteria at levels of
1000 ppm.
100% reduction.
Biodegradable in an environ-
mental system at a level of
63 ppm.
95% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
78.4 mg COD/g hr.
96.2% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
20.8 mg COD/g hr.
96.8% reduction based on COD;
rate of biodegradation
78.4 mg COD/g hr.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
100
90
21
90
81
81
81
d)
i
o
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
Nof
IM-
1
IM-
2
IM-
3
IM-
4
IM-
5
IM-
6
IM-
7
IM-
8
IM-
9
IM-
10
IM-
11
b
Chemical
Anthracene
Benzanthracene
Benzoperylene
D-Chloramphe-
nicol
a,a'-Diethyl-
stilbenediol
9,10-Dimethyl-
anthracene
9,10-Dimethyl-
1, 2-benzan-
thracene
1, 2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
7-Methyl-l,2-
benzanthracene
20-Methyl-
cholanthrene
Naphthalene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
0
O
R
U
O
0
O
F,C
0
0
F
Waste
Type d
D
D
U
P
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
341 ppb
@ 45 MGD
500 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
Toxic or inhibitory for up
to 24 hrs.
Slowly oxidized; 2.1% of
TOD exerted in 144 hrs of
oxidation.
Biodegradable from a cone.
of 4 x 10- 7 mg/1.
86.2% reduction based on
COD; rate of biodegradation
3 . 3 mg COD/g hr .
02 uptake inhibited.
02 uptake was not inhibited.
Up to 19.5% of TOD was
exerted after 144 hr of
oxidation.
Slowly oxidized; 12.7% of
TOD exerted after 144 hr
of oxidation.
28% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited at
least 24 hrs.
Chemical showed both toxic
or inhibitory effect & the
ability to undergo slow
biological oxidation.
70-90% reduction.
Comments
Activated sludge
process.
Activated sludge
process.
Treated by aerated
lagoon.
(continue
Ref .
108
108
90
81
108
108
81
108
108
100
d)
to
O
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Biological Treatment (I)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
IM-
12
IM-
13
IM-
14
b
Chemical
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F
O
F
Waste
Type d
I
D
I
Influent
Char.
500 ppm
BOD load
of
42 lb/day/
1000 ft*
Results of Study
85-95% reduction.
02 uptake inhibited for
24 hrs.
85-95% reduction.
Comments
Completely mixed
aerated lagoon
Activated sludge
process.
(continue
Ref .
101
108
56
d)
i
to
O
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
II
D-
1
II
D-
2
Chemical
Ethyl Benzene
Nitrobenzene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
Waste
Type
D+P
D+P
influent
Char.
153 ppb
160 ppb
Results of Study
56% reduction w/alum.
34% reduction w/alum.
^ -
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
See IID-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
21
21
>d)
O
Ul
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
II
F-
1
II
F-
2
b
Chemical
Carbon Tetra-
chloride
Trichloro-
ethylene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
Waste
Type d
D+P
D+P
Ihfluent
Char.
140 ppb
103 ppb
Results of Study
51% reduction w/alum.
40% reduction w/alum.
/
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
See IIF-1
for comments .
i
(continue
Ref .
21
21
id)
I
to
o
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No.
II
G-
1
II
G-
2
II
G-
3
II
G-
4
k
Chemical
Antimony
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
+ **
(As 5)
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P
P
F,C
R
Waste
Type
S
D+P
D
U
Influent
Char.
600 ppb
500 ppb
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
--
2.5 ppb
3 . 3 ppb
25 ppm
21 ppm
Results of Study
62% reduction w/alum; 28%
reduction w/lime .
65% reduction w/ferric
chloride .
Iron ,system- 90% reduction;
Low lime system- 80% reduc-
tion; High lime system- 76%
reduction .
-
56% reduction w/lirae.
24% reduction w/lime.
97% reduction by lime soften
ing.
94% reduction by precipita-
tion w/alum.
Comments
3 coagulants used: 220
ppm of alum @ pH=6.4.
40 ppm of ferric chlo-
ride @ pH=6.2; 415 ppm
of lime @ pH=11.5;
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
3 coagulant systems
were used: Iron 'sys-
tem used 45 ppm as Fe
of Fe2(S04) 3 @pH=6.0.
Low lime system used
20 ppm as Fe of Fe2
(SOi,) 3 & 260 ppm of CaO
@ pH=10.0. High lime
system used 600 ppm of
CaO @ pH=11.5. Chemi-
cal coagulation was
followed by multimedia
filtration.
Lime dose of 350-400ppm
as calcium oxide @
pH=11.3.
(continue
Ref .
39
63
64
90
3d)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
II
G-
5
II
G-
6
II
G-
7
II
G-
8
II
G-
9
II
G-
10
II
G-
11
II
("*— •
12
II
G-
13
b
Chemical
Barium
Barium
Barium
Beryllium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
P
P
R
P
P
P
P
F,C
Waste
Type d
D
D+P
S
U
S
S
S
D+P
D
Influent
Char.
81 ppb
81 ppb
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
500 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
700 ppb
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
29 ppb
9 ppb
Results of Study
49% reduction w/lime .
36% reduction w/lime.
Iron system- 94% reduction;
Low lime sytem-99% reduction;
High lime system-78% reduc-
tion.
79% reduction w/alum.
97.8% reduction by lime
softening.
98.1% reduction w/alum;
94% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 99.4% reduction w/lime
95.5% reduction w/ alum.
95.3% reduction w/lime.
94% reduction w/ferric
chloride .
45% reduction by ferric
chloride .
Iron system- 93% reduction;
Low lime system-95% reduction
High lime system-98% reduc-
tion.
92% reduction w/lime.
68% reduction w/lime.
Comments
See IIG-3
for comments.
See IIG-2
for comments .
See IIG-l
for comments.
-
See IIG-l
for comments.
See IIG- 1
for comments .
See IIG- 1
for comments.
See IIG- 2
for comments .
See IIG- 3
for comments.
Ref .
64
63
39
90
39
39
39
63
64
(continued)
to
o
00
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
Nof
II
G-
14
II
G-
15
II
G-
16
II
G-
17
II
G-
18
II
G-
19
II
G-
20
II
G-
21
II
G-
22
Chemical
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
(Cr+3)
Chromium
(Cr+3)
Chromium
(Cr+6)
Chromium
(Cr+6)
Cobalt
Copper
Copper
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
F,C
P
P
P
P
P
P
L,C
Waste
Type d
S
D
S
D+P
S
D+P
S
S
S
Influent
Char.
5 . 2 ppm
154 ppb
192 ppb
700 ppb
5 ppm
@ 4 gpm
@ pH=7.0
700 ppb
5 ppm
@ gpm
@ pH=7.0
500 ppb
800 ppb
700 ppb
4 . 6 ppm
Results of Study
26.9% reduction w/lime.
37% reduction w/lime.
54% reduction w/lime.
97 . 6% reduction w/f erric
chloride .
Iron system - 99% reduction;
Low lime system - 98% reduc-
tion; High lime system - <
98% reduction.
64% reduction w/f erric
chloride.
Iron system - 65% reduction;
Low lime system - 40% reduc-
tion; High lime system -
22% reduction.
18% reduction w/ferric
chloride; 91% reduction
w/lime.
49% reduction w/alum.
67% reduction w/alum.
97.8% reduction w/lime.
Comments
Lime dose of 50 ppm
added.
See IIG-3 for
comments.
See IIG-1 for
comments.
See IIG-2 for
comments .
See IIG-1 for
comments .
See IIG-2 for
comments .
See IIG-1 for
comments.
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-14 for
comments .
(continue
Ref .
16
64
39
63
39
63
39
39
16
d)
NJ
O
-------
TABLE c-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
II
G-
23
II
f* —
24
II
G-
25
II
G-
26
II
G-
27
II
G-
28
II
G-
29
II
G-
30
II
G-
31
Chemical
Copper
Copper
Copper
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead .
Lead
Lead
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P
F,C
R
L,C
P
F,C
L,C
P
F,C
Waste
Type d
D+P
D
U
S
D+P
D
S
D+P
D
Influent
Char.
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
266 ppb
285 ppb
15 ppm
10 ppm
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
179 ppb
325 ppb
4 . 9 ppm
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
40 ppb
19 ppb
Results of Study
Iron system- 95.6% reduction
Low lime system-92.8% reduc-
tion,- High lime system- 84%
reduction .
73% reduction w/lime.
93% reduction w/lime.
96% reduction.
99% reduction w/lime .
Iron system- 26% reduction;
Low lime system-94% reduction
91% reduction w/lime.
88% reduction w/lime.
100% reduction w/lime.
Iron system- 99% reduction;
Low lime system-99% reductior
High lime system-98% reduc -
tion.
43% reduction w/lime .
81% reduction w/lime.
Comments
See IIG- 2
for comments.
See IIG- 3
for comments .
See IIG- 14
for comments .
See IIG- 2
for comments.
See IIG- 3
for comments.
See IIG- 14
for comments.
See IIG- 2
for comments.
See IIG- 3
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
63
64
90
16
63
64
16
63
64
d)
O
-------
TABLEC-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
Nof
II
G-
32
II
G-
33
II
G-
34
II
G-
35
II
G-
36
II
G-
37
II
G-
38
II
G-
39
II
G-
40
b
Chemical
Lead
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Molybdenum
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
P
P
P
F,C
P
F,C
P
P
Waste
Type d
U
S
s
D+P
D
D+P
D
S
S
Influent
Char.
330 ppb
600 ppb
700 ppb
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
35 ppb
38 ppb
0 . 5 ppm
@ 4 gpm
@ pH=7.0
9 ppb
1.2 ppb
500 ppb
60 ppb
50 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
Results of Study
94.4% reduction w/lime.
95.5% reduction w/alum.
30% reduction w/alum.
Iron system- 18% reduction;
Low lime system-93% reduc-
tion; High lime system-98%
reduction.
87% reduction w/lime.
96% reduction w/lime.
High lime system-70% reduc-
tion.
71% reduction w/lime.
25% reduction w/lime.
70% reduction w/lime.
94% reduction w/alum.
98% reduction w/ferric
chloride.
68% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 0% reduction w/alum.
0% reduction w/lime.
Comments
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added .
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-1
for comments .
See IIG-2
for comments.
See IIG-3
for comments .
See IIG-2
for comments.
See IIG-3
for comments .
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
90
39
39
63
64
63
64
39
39
id)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
II
G-
41
II
G-
42
II
G-
43
II
G-
44
II
G-
45
II
G-
46
II
G-
47
II
G-
48
II
G-
49
b
Chemical
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Nickel
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Silver
Silver
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P
L,C
P
R
P
F,C
R
P
F,C
Waste
Type d
S
S
D+P
U
S
D
U
S
D
Influent
Char.
900 ppb
4 . 8 ppm
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7 . 0
100 ppb
500 ppb
<2.5 ppb
6 . 5 ppb
100 ppm
500 ppb
600 ppb
5.5 ppb
13 ppb
Results of Study
25% reduction w/alum.
100% reduction w/lime.
Iron system- 10% reduction;
Low lime system-94% reduc-
tion? High lime system-97%
reduction.
52.4% reduction w/lime.
75% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride.
35% reduction w/lime; 48%-
reduction w/alum.
0% reduction w/lime.
0% reduction w/lime.
80% reduction w/ferric
sulfate.
98.2% reduction w/ferric
chloride; 97.1% reduction
w/lime.
96.9% reduction w/alum.
85% reduction w/lime.
38% reduction w/lime.
Comments
See IIG-1
for comments .
See IIG-14
for comments .
See IIG-2
for comments .
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added .
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-3
for comments.
Ferric sulfate dose
of 100 ppm. •
See IIG-1
for comments .
See IIG-3
for comments.
Ref .
39
16
63
90
39
64
90
39
64
(continued)
to
M
to
-------
TABLE C-:Ucontinued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No.
II
G-
50
II
G-
51
II
G-
52
II
G-
53
II
G-
54
II
G-
55
II
G-
56
II
G-
57
II
(**— .
58
b
Chemical
Silver
Thallium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
p
p
p
p
p
p
L,C
Waste
Type
U
U
S
S
S
S
S
D+P
S
Enf luent
Char.
500 ppm
500 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
500 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
600 ppb
500 ppb
2 . 5 ppm
5 ppm @
4 gpm @
pH=7.0
6 . 4 ppm
Results of Study
96% reduction w/lime.
54% reduction w/lime .
30% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 31% reduction w/alum.
60% reduction w/lime.
98% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 92% reduction w/lime.
95.3% reduction w/alum.
98% reduction w/ferric chlo-
ride; 95.5% reduction w/lime
95.8% reduction w/alum.
97 . 2% reduction w/ferric
chloride; 94% reduction w/
alum; 57% reduction w/lime.
1% reduction w/alum.
Iron system- 63% reduction;
Low lime system-85% reduc-
tion; High lime system-76%
reduction.
100% reduction w/lime.
Comments
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-1
for comments.
See IIG-l
for comments .
See IIG-l
for comments.
See IIG-l
for comments.
See IIG-2
for comments.
See IIG- 14
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
90
90
39
39
39
39
39
63
16
Jd)
OJ
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No?
II
G-
59
II
G-
60
II
G-
61
b
Chemical
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
R
R
Waste
Type d
D
U
U
Influent
Char.
300 ppb
380 ppb
Results of Study
90% reduction w/lime .
37% reduction w/lime.
40.6% reduction by
sedimentation .
91.4% reduction w/lime.
* ' -v, ..
Comments
See IIG-3
for comments.
Lime dose of 400 ppm
added .
(continue
Ref .
64
90
90
?>
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
II
J-
1
II
J-
2
II
J-
3
II
J-
4
II
J-
5
II
J-
6
Chemical
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Lindane
Parathion
2,4,5-T ester
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
Waste
Type d
R+P
R+P
R+P
R-fP
R+P
R+P
Influent
Char.
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
Results of Study
98% reduction w/alum.
55% reduction w/alum.
35% reduction w/alum.
<10% reduction w/alum.
5% reduction w/alum.
* s
65% reduction w/alum.
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by sand
filtration.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
See IIJ-1 for comments.
(continue
Ref .
6
6
6
6
6
6
d)
I
to
M
tn
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation.(II)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
a
No.
II
L-
1
II
L-
2
II
Ij'~
3
Chemical
Bis (2- ethyl -
hexyl)Phtha-
late
Di-n-Butyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
D+P
Influent
Char.
0.5-3.5
ppb @
pH=10 . 0
2.5-4.5
ppb @
pH=10 . 0
183 ppb
Results of Study
80-90% reduction w/Al2(SOit)3
60-70% reduction w/A!2(SOtt) 3
15% reduction w/alum.
- -
Comments
Chemical coagulation
was followed by dual
media filtration.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
21
d)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
Nof
II
M-
1
M-
2
M-
3
II
M-
4
M-
5
M-
6
II
M-
7
M-
8
M-
9
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Benzanthracene
11,12-Benzo-
fluoranthene
1, 12-Benzo-
perylene
Benzo(a)-
pyrene
2-Chloro-
Napthalene
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
0.1-0.9
ppm
0.1-0.9
ppm
0.1-0.9
ppm
Results of Study
Precipitation w/alum.
Precipitation w/alum.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or "• sand
filtration.
Precipitation w/alum.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Comments
'
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
d)
K)
H1
-J
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: chemical Precipitation (II)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
II
M-
10
II
M-
11
b
Chemical
2 , 3-o-Phenylene
Pyrene
Pyreh'e
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
Waste
Type ^
U
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Separable by gravity or sand
filtration.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
90
d)
to
H
CO
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
Ill
A-
1
III
A-
2
III
A-
3
III
A-
4
III
A-
5
III
A-
6
j-,
Chemical
Ethanol
Ethanol
Methanol
Methanol
i-Propanol
i-Propanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
L
B
L
B
L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
@ 150 mis
1000 ppm
Results of Study
21.4% reduction w/CA membrane
70.3% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
80-100% reduction w/NS-200
membrane; 60-80% reduction
w/NS-100-T membrane; 40-60%
reduction w/AP & NS-100 mem-
branes; 20-40% reduction w/
CA3 & B-9 membranes; <20%
reduction w/CA, CA-T, CAB,
FBI, SPPO & B-10 membranes.
7.3% reduction w/CA membrane;
20% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
20-40% reduction w/B-9, NS-
200 & NS-100T membranes; •
<20% reduction w/B-10, AP,
SPPO, PBI, NS-100 membranes;
0% reduction w/CA, CA-T, CAB
& CA3 membranes.
40.9% reduction w/CA membrane
88.1% reduction w/C-PEl mem-
brane .
80-100% reduction w/NS-100,
NS-100T, NS-200, AP, B-9 &
B-10 membranes; 40-60% re-
duction w/CA-T, CA & CA3 mem-
branes; 20-40% reduction w/
SPPO, PBI S CAB membranes.
Comments
CA and C-PEl membranes
operated at 600 psig
and room temperature .
See IIIA- 1
for comments.
,
See IIIA-1
for comments.
Ref .
18
30
18
30
18
30
(continued)
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification; Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
Ill
B-
III
B-
2
III
B-
3
III
R —
4
III
B-
5
III
B-
6
III
B-
7
b
Chemical
Acetic Acid
Acetic Acid
Acetone
Acetone
Dimethyl Sulf-
oxide
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B
L
B
L
B
B
L
Waste
ji
Type a
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
250 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
32% reduction w/CA membrane;
68.1% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
60-80% reduction w/AP, NS-200
& NS-100T membranes; 40-60%
reduction w/NS-100 membrane;
20-40% reduction w/SPPO, B-9
& B-10 membranes; <20% re-
duction w/PBI, CA3, CAB,
CA-T S CA membranes .
14.9% reduction w/CA membrane
81.8% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
80-100% reduction w/NS-200 S
NS-100-T membrances; 60-80%
reduction w/AP & NS-100- mem-
branes; 40-60% reduction w/
B-9 & B-10 membranes; 20-40%
reduction W/CA3 membrane;
<20% reduction w/SPPO, FBI,
CAB, CA-T & CA membranes.
88.2% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 63.3% reduction
w/C-PEi membrane.
21.9% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 56.7% reduction w/
C-PEI membrane.
60-80% reduction w/NS-200
membrane; 40-60% reduction
w/AP, NS-100, CAB fi NS-100-T
Comments
CA and C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig S
room temperature.
See IIIB- 1
for comments.
See IIIB-1
for comments.
See IIIB-1
for comments.
Ref .
18
30
18
30
18
18
30
(continued)
i
fO
N)
O
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
Ill
B-
7
cont
III
B-
8
III
B-
9
III
B-
10
III
fi-
ll
b
Chemical
Glycerol
Glycerol
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Acetate
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
L
B
L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
Results of Study
membranes; 20-40% reduction
w/B-9, CAS & CA-T membranes;
<20% reduction w/CA, FBI,
SPPO S B-10 membranes.
89.9% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 97.8% reduction
w/C-PEI membrane.
80-100% reduction w/CA-T,
CAB, CA3, NS-100, NS-100T,
NS-200, AP, B-9 & B-10 mem-
branes; 60-80% reduction
w/CA membrane; 40-60% re-
duction w/PBI membrane; 20-
40% reduction w/SPPO membrane
4.6% reduction w/CA membrane
76.1% reduction w/C-PEI- .
membrane .
60-80% reduction w/NS-200,
NS-100-T & NS-100 membranes;
40-60% reduction w/B-9 mem-
brane; 20-40% reduction
w/B-10, AP & CA-T membranes;
<20% reduction w/SPPO, PBI &
CA3 membranes; 0% reduction
w/CA S CAB membranes.
Comments
See IIIB-i
for comments .
See IIIB-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
18
30
18
30
d)
1
K)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
3.
No.
Ill
C-
1
III
C-
2
b
Chemical
Aniline
Aniline
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
L
Waste
j
Type a
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
Results of Study
-3.4% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 82.9% reduction
w/C-PEI membrane.
80-100% reduction w/NS-100-T
membrane; 60-80% reduction
w/B-10, NS-200 & NS-100 mem-
branes; 40-60% reduction
w/B-9 membrane; 20-40% re-
duction w/AP, CA3 & CAB mem-
branes; <20% reduction
w/SPPO & PBI membranes; 0%
reduction w/CA & CA-T
membranes .
Comments
CA & C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature .
(continue
Ref .
18
30
d)
K)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification:
Aromatics (D)
a
No.
Ill
D-
1
III
D-
2
III
D-
3
III
D-
4
III
D-
5
III
D-
6
]-,
Chemical
Chlorobenzene
Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitro-
phenylhydra-
zine
Hexachloro-
benzene
Hydroquinone
Hydroquinone
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
B
B
R
B
L
Waste
Type d
U
P
P
U
P
P
nf luent
har .
<360 ppm
30 ppm
@ 150 ml
30 ppm
@ 150 ml
638 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
97-100% reduction @ 50-100
tg/cm2 .
7 . 2% reduction w/CA membrane
81.4% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
3 . 2% reduction w/CA membrane
91.1% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
52% reduction.
-2.5% reduction w/CA membrane
79.7% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
80-100% reduction w/AP fc -
NS-200 membranes; 60-80% re-
duction w/B-10, NS-100-T &
NS-100 membranes; 40-60% re-
duction w/B-9 membrane; 20-
40% reduction w/SPPO & CAB
membranes; <20% reduction
w/PBI & CA3 membranes; 0% re-
duction w/CA & CA-T membranes
Comments
CA & C-PEI membranes
operated @ 600 psig &
room temperature .
See HID- 2
for comments .
CA & C-PEI membranes
operated @ 600 psig &
room temperature.
s
(continu*
Ref .
90
18
18
90
18
30
3d)
t
N)
to
-------
TABLEC-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
Nof
III
E-
1
III
E-
2
III
E-
3
Chemical
bis(2-Chloro-
isopropyl)
Ether
Diethyl Ether
Ethyl Ether
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
B
L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
250 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
@ 150 ml
1000 ppm
Results of Study
37.3% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 94% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
9.5% reduction w/CA membrane
90.3% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
80-100% reduction W/AP,
NS-200, NS-100-T & NS-100
membranes; 60-80% reduction
w/B-10 membrane; 40-60% re-
duction w/B-9, SPPO & PBI
membranes; 20-40% reduction
CAB S CA3 membranes; <20%
reduction w/CA-T & CA
membranes.
Comments
CA & C-PEI membrane
operated at 600 psig
S room temperature .
See IIIE-1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
18
18
30
d) .
NJ
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
Ill
F-
1
Chemical
Trichloroace-
tic Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
Waste
Type d
P '
influent
Char.
250 ppm
@ 150 ml
Results of Study
49.3% reduction w/CA mem-
brane; 25% reduction w/C-PEI
membrane .
... .
Comments
CA & C-PEI membrane
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature .
(continue
Ref .
18
Jd)
i
at
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification; Metals (G)
No.
Ill
G-
III
G-
2
III
G-
3
III
G-
4
III
f*— -
5
III
f— •
6
III
f —
7
III
/"•„.
8
b
Chemical
Barium
t
Cadmium
Chromic Acid
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Iron
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
B
L,C
B
B
B
B
B
Waste
Type d
P
P
I
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
0.75 ppm
0.85 ppm
9.15 ppm
7.05 ppm
0.10 ppm
0.10 ppm
0 . 96 ppm
1.0 ppm
200 ppm
@ 20
g-al/hr./
12.5 ppm
12.5 ppm
0.94 ppm
1.01 ppm
8.65 ppm
9.35 ppm
12.5 ppm
0.65 ppm
0.7 ppm
6.25 ppm
6 . 5 ppm
12.5 ppm
Results of Study
>86.7% reduction w/CA membrane
>88.2% reduction w/CA membrane
97 . 8% reduction w/CA membrane
>98.6% reduction w/CA membrane
90% reduction w/CA membrane
90% reduction w/CA membrane
99% reduction w/CA membrane
98.7% reduction w/CA membrane
85% rejection over 200 hrs
w/polybenzimidazole membrane .
97.6% reduction W/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0.
91.3% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=11.0.
96.9% reduction w/CA membr.ane
95.0% reduction w/CA membrane
93.2% reduction w/CA membrane
85.1% reduction w/CA membrane
99.9% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0 S 11.0.
97% reduction w/CA membrane
94.8% reduction w/CA membrane
99.6% reduction w/CA membrane
99.2% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0 & 11.0.
Comments
CA membrane operated
at 400 psig & 16-22°C.
See IIIG-i
for comments .
Polybenzimidazole mem-
brane operated at
1500 psl.
C-PEI membrane operated
at 600 psig & room
temperature .
See IIIG-i
for comments .
See IIIG- 4
for comments.
See IIIG- 1
for comments.
See IIIG- 4
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
18
18
24
18
18
18
18
18
d)
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No.
Ill
G-l
III
G-
2
III
G-
3
III
G-
4
III
G-
5
k
Chemical
Lead
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
B
B
B
B
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
12.5 ppm
0.95 ppm
1 . 1 ppm
4.75 ppm
9 . 3 ppm
12.5 ppm
12.5 ppm
12.5 ppm
12.5 ppm
9.4 ppm
10.0 ppm
31.4 ppm
32.8 ppm
Results of Study
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0 & 11.0.
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
97.8% reduction w/CA membrane
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
97.8% reduction w/CA membrane
92.8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0.
97 . 6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=11.0.
96.6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=8.0.
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane @ pH=11.0.
96.9% reduction w/CA membrane
98.6% reduction w/CA membrane
98.8% reduction w/CA membrane
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
Comments
See IIIG-4
for comments.
See IIIG-1
for comments.
See IIIG-4
for comments.
See IIIG-l
for comments .
See IIIG-1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
18
18
18
18
18
3d)
I
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
Ill
J-
1
III
J-
2
III
J-
3
III
J-
4
III
J-
5
III
J-
6
III
J-
7
III
J-
8
III
J-
9
III
J-
10
Chemical
Aldrin
Atrazine
Captan
DDE
DDT
Diazinon
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor-
epoxide
Lindane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
142 pg
1102 pg
689 pg
69 pg
42 pg
474 pg
321 pg
145 pg
307 pg
506 pg
Results of Study
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
84% reduction w/CA membrane
97 . 8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
98 . 8% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
100% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
98.3% reduction w/CA membrane
88.1% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
100% reduction w/CA & C-PEI
membranes.
99.8% reduction w/CA & C-PEI
membranes .
99.5% reduction w/CA membrane
99.0% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
Comments
CA S C-PEI membranes
operated at 600 psig &
room temperature .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-l
for comments.
See IIIJ-l
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for • comments .
Ref .
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
(continued)
i
NJ
to
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
III
J-
13
III
J-
12
III
J-
13
III
J-
14
III
»J—
15
b
Chemical
Malathion
Methyl
Parathion
Parathion
Randox
Trifluralin
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
B
B
B
B
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1058 yg
913 yg
747 yg
327 yg
1579 yg
Results of Study
99.2% reduction w/CA membrane
99.7% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
99.6% reduction w/CA S C-PEI
membranes .
99.9% reduction w/CA membrane
99.8% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .•
72% reduction w/CA membrane
98 . 6% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
99.7% reduction w/CA membrane
100% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
Comments
See IIIJ-i
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments .
See IIIJ-1
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
18
18
18
18
18
id)
to
to
vo
-------
TABLE 01 (continued)
Concentration Process: Reverse Osmosis (III)
Chemical Classification; Phenols (K)
Nof
III
K-
1
III
K-
2
III
K-
3
III
K-
4
III
K-
5
j-j
Chemical
2-Chlorophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
B
P
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
P
s
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
l-100mg/l
each of
phenol ,
resorcin-
ol, o-
cresol ,
catechol
Results of Study
66.3% reduction.
Removable by reverse osmosis.
17.8% reduction.
-5.7% reduction w/CA membrane
76.5% reduction w/C-PEI mem-
brane .
In excess of 90% separation
at pH 8-10 w/optimum at pH 9
at flux rate of about 70 gpd/
ft . Results indicate that
hyperfiltration (reverse os-
mosis) produced higher re-
jection fi flux rates than
ultraf iltration. Increasing
pressure improves rejection
slightly S flux rate greatly.
Increasing pH increased re-
jection w/little effect on
flux rate . Cone . had little
effect on either rejection
or flux rate.
Comments
Sizes 60-130 gpd/ft^
flux. Duration: 0-60hrs
Pressures 250-950 psig.
Velocity: 15 fps. Mem-
branes: Hydrous Zr (IV)
oxide-PAA membrane on
carbon stainless steel
& selas support.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
18
54
d)
U)
O
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
IV
D-
1
„ . nb
Chemical
TNT
(accounted for
90% of TOC)
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
Waste
Type d
I+P
Influent
Char.
20 ppm
TOC @
pH=11.0
200 ppm
TOC @
pH=11.0
Results of Study
80% TOC reduction by PSAL
(Millipore) noncellulose
membrane .
93% TOC reduction by PSAL
(Millipore) noncellulose
membrane .
Comments
TDS cone, was 1200 ppm.
Average pressure: 25-60
psi. Estimated cost
for full scale opera-
tion was $1.85/1000 gal
(continue
Ref .
10
sd)
i
to
LO
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No?
IV
G-
1
IV
G-
2
IV
G-
3
IV
G-
4
Chemical
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Type0
C,P
C,P
C,P
C,P
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
0 . 44 ppm
6.8 ppm
4 . 9 ppm
1.8 ppm
Results of Study
0.08 ppm effluent cone.
1 . 0 ppm effluent cone .
0.52 ppm effluent cone.
0.38 ppm effluent cone.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
59
59
59
59
d)
to
UJ
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Ultrafiltration (IV)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (G)
-a
No.
IV
G-
1
Chemical
Phenols
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P
Waste
Type d
S.
Influent
Char.
1-100 ppm
each of
phenol ,
resorcin-
ol, o-
cresol,
catechol
Results of Study
Maximum rejection was 75% at
pH 10; rejection increased
as pH increased. Ionic state
of solute rather than mem-
brane material controlled re-
jection rate. Increased
temp resulted in increased
flux rate but rejection rate
was only slightly affected.
Solute rejection was not
affected by length of oper-
ating time.
Comments
Size: 30-160 gpd/ft2
flux. Duration: 0-200hr
Pressure: 200 psig.
Velocity: 15 fps
Temp: 25-55°C
Hydrous Zr ( IV) oxide ,
silicate membranes.
(continue
Ref .
54
sd)
N)
U)
U>
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)1
a
No.
VB-
1
b
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
Waste
Type d
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Flash vaporization from
water by high pressure
discharge.
•
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
d)
N)
U!
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
VD-
1
VD-
2
VD-
3
VD-
4
VD-
5
VD-
6
VD-
7
VD-
8
VD-
c
VD-
10
VD-
11
VD-
12
VD-
13
b
Chemical
Benzene
Benzene :
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
m-Dichloro-
benzene
o-
p-Dichloro-
benzene
1,2-Dichloro-
benzene
1,3-Dichloro-
benzene
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
C,P
R
F,C
R
R
F,C
F,C
F,C
F,C
R
P,C
R
Waste
Type
U
S
U
D
U
U
D
D
D
D
U
S
U
Influent
Char.
0 . 13 gpm
flow
0.66 Md/s
flow
0.66 MVs
flow
0.66 Md/s
flow
0.66 Md/s
flow
0.66 M3/s
flow
0.13 gpm
flow
Results of Study
Air & steam strippable.
95-99% reduction by steam
stripping.
Steam strippable .
60% reduction by air strip-
ping.
Air & steam strippable.
Steam strippable .
70% reduction by air 'strip-
ping.
80% reduction by air strip-
ping.
90% reduction by air strip-
ping .
80% reduction by air strip-
ping.
Air S steam strippable .
86-93% reduction by steam
stripping.
Steam strippable.
Comments
Estimated cost of
$3.35/1000 gal based on
0.03 MGD
'
See VD- 2
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
90
13
90
64
90
90
64
64
64
64
90
13
64
sd)
K)
U)
cn
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classifications Aromatics (D)
No?
VD-
14
VD-
15
VD-
16
VD-
17
VD-
18
VD-
19
Chemical
Nitrobenzene
Styrene
Toluene
Toluene
1,2,4-Trichlo-
robenzene
1,2,4-Trichlo-
robenzene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
P,C
P,C
R
F,C
R
Waste
Type d
U
S
S
U
D
U
Influent
Char.
450-2160
ppm
0.13 gpm
flow
0.13 gpm
flow
0.66 MJ/E
Results of Study
Steam strippable.
98-99% reduction by steam
stripping.
73-92% reduction
Air & steam strippable.
50% reduction by air strip-
ping.
Steam strippable.
Comments
See VD- 2
for comments .
See VD- 2
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
64
13
13
90
64
90
d)
t
NJ
U>
(Tl
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VF-
1
VF-
2
VF-
3
trp
VF-
5
6
b
Chemical
Bromodichlo-
rome thane
Bromome thane
Chloral
•— i -
Chloroethane
Chloroethy-
lene
Chloroform
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
P,C
R
R
P,C
Waste
-3
Type °
U
U
I
U
'- -" • i . ,.- ,
U
I
Influent
Char.
693.2 ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
140.3 ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
Results of Study
Air s steam strippable.
Air strippable.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 1213.0 171.9
2.8 1163.6 177.1
5.1 1185.5 172.6
2.3 with 2332.3 464.3
.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 2301.6 434.4
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
90% evaporation from H20-79
min with air stripping.
Air strippable
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppin)
2.3 1185.1 o
2.8 882.4 0
5.1 838 3 0
Comments
Gas at STP
Water quality:
TOC - 9022 ppm
COD - 15100 ppm
pH - 0.1
acidity - 102312 ppm
Cl-116,127 ppm
Numerous other halogens
present.
-
Gas at STP
See VF- 3 J
for comments.
Ref .
90
90
95
90
90
OR
(continued)
i
NJ
U)
-O
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No.
VF-
6
cont
VF-
7
VF-
8
VF-
9
VF-
10
,
y.
Chemical
Chlorome thane
Dibromochloro-
me thane
1,1-Dichloro-
e thane
1,2-Dichloro-
e thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppro)
2.3 with 412.3 0
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2,5 with 1124.3 64.7
1.4:1 re-
flux to '
overhead
ratio
Air strippable . ,
Air & steam strippable .
90% evaporation from H20 -
109 min with air stripping.
Air S steam strippable.
Comments
Gas at STP
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
d)
t
U)
00
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons
(F)
3
No.
VF-
11
VF-
12
VF-
13
VF-
14
,
j-j
Chemical
1,2-Dichloro-
ethane
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene
1, 2-trans-Di-
chloroethylene
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P,C
R
R
P,C
Waste
Type d
I
U
U
I
Influent
Char.
1583.3ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
61 . 5 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 350.8 373.7
2.8 269.7 1255.4
5.1 465.0 14.8
2.3 with 1320.9 16.1
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 679.9 0;
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead - -.. „
ratio
Air & steam strippable .
90% evaporation from H20 -
83 min with air stripping.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 124.4 32.8
5.1 111.2 0
2.5 with 179.9 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF-3 for comments.
See VF-3 for comments.
Ref .
95
90
90
95
(continued)
i
to
U)
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VF-
15
b
Chemical
Dichlorome thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P,C
Waste
Type
I
Influent
Char.
800.9 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 3511.8 114.1
2.8 3277.0 89.5
5.1 2736.5 175.6
2.3 with 1183.0 296.3
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 5159.9 131.7
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF-3 for comments.
(continue
Ref .
95
d)
tsj
*>
O
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VF-
16
VF-
17
VF-
18
VF-
19
j-,
Chemical
Dichlorome th-
ane
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
1 , 2-Dichloro-
propylene
Ethylene
Dichloride
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
P,C
Waste
Type d
U .
u
U
I
Influent
Char.
1593 ppm
§
250ml/mir
feed rate
Results of Study
90% evaporation from H20-60
min with air stripping.
Air & steam strippable.
Air & steam strippable.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 4383.5 42.2
2.8 4105.5 64.5
5.1 4731.5 43.1
2.3 with 3654.5 38.6
1.4:1 re-
flux to ---.•„
overhead
flow
2.5 with 5541.3 436.4
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF- 3
for comments.
_
-
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
95
id)
i
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons
(F)
a
No.
VF-
20
VF-
21
VF-
22
VF-
23
VF-
24
VF-
25
b
Chemical
Ethylene
Dichloride
Ethylene
Dichloride
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
cyclopenta-
diene
Perchloro-
ethylene
1,1,1,2-Tetra-
chloroe thane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
P,C
P,C
R
R
P,C
P,C
Waste
Type d
I
I
U
U
I
I
Influent
Char.
Average
6onc . of
4512 ppm
@ ave.
feed rate
of
325ml/mir
8700 ppm
§ 10 gpm
flow rate
14 . 9 ppm
e
250ml/min
feed rate
5l2.8ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
Results of Study
Average Average Average
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow Cone . Cone .
(ml/min) (ppm) (ppm)
20.8 21.6 20.3
99% reduction with average
stripping tower temperature
of 221 F.
Air & steam strippable .
Polymerizes with heat.
Overhead Overhead "• Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 Not reported 6.8
2.8 50.2 0
2.5 with 9.6 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 189.8 0
2.8 393.8 0.84
Comments
Wastewater quality:
COD - 615 ppm
TC - 1703 ppm
pH - 11.2
Alkalinity - 4840 ppm
Cl - 6564 ppm
See VF- 3
for comments .
See VF- 3
for comments,
(continue
Ref .
95
66
90
90
95
95
d)
to
-------
TABLE C-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VF-
25
cont
VF-
26
b
Chemical
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
P,C
Waste
Type
I
Influent
Char.
14.9 ppm
@
250ml/min
feed rate
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
5.1 22.7 0
2.3 with 25.8 0.5
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 392.5 1.6
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. -Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 14.9 32.7
2.8 121.7 49.5
5.1 444.4 78.4
2.3 with 8.7 0
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 24.2 0.1
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF-3
for comments .
Ref .
95
„ J \
(continufcu;
i
K)
**
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VF-
27
VF-
28
VF-
29
VF-
30
VF-
31
VF-
32
VF-
33
b
Chemical
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
me thane
Tribromome thane
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roe thane
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roethane
1 , 1 , 2-Trichlo-
roethane
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
R
PfC
R
P,C
Waste
Type d
, U
u
U
u
I
u
I
Influent
Char.
50.92 ppm
(§250 ml/
min feed
rate
14.14 ppm
@ 250 ml/
min feed
rate
Results of Study
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H2O - 72 min
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H2O - 97 min
Air & steam strippable.
Air & steam strippable.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.5 with 173.4 41.6
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H^O- 102 min
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 24.6 0.19
2.8 34.0 0
5.1 76.5 0
2.3 with 42.4 0
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Comments
See VF-3 for comments.
See VF-3 for comments.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
95
90
95
d)
NJ
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VF-
33
cont
VF-
34
VF-
35
VF-
36
j-j
Chemical
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
me thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
P,C
R
Waste
Type d
U
I
U
[nf luent
Char.
250ml/mir
feed rate
Results of Study
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.5 with 66.1 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Air & steam strippable, 90%
evaporation from H20-63 min.
Overhead Overhead Bottom
flow (% Cone. Cone.
of feed) (ppm) (ppm)
2.3 640.8 34.2
2.8 567.0 0
5.1 627.4 ~22".7'
2.3 with 640.8 37.2
1.4:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
2.5 with 644.5 0
0.9:1 re-
flux to
overhead
ratio
Air & steam, strippable, 90%
evaporation from H20-62 min.
Comments
See VF-3
for comments.
-
(continue
Ref .
90
95
90
3d)
to
ht^
U1
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: phenols (K)
a
No.
VK-
1
VK-
2
b
Chemical
Phenol
Chlorophenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Steam strippable.
Steam strippable.
-
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
90
d)
-------
TABLE C-1(continued)
Concentration Process: stripping (V)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatic (M)
a
No.
VM-
1
b
Chemical
Naphthalene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
Waste
Type
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Air stripping by 50:1
volumes of air.
•-. ,
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
id)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
VII
A-
1
b
Chemical
Ethanol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,C
Waste
Type
I
Influent
Char.
286 ppm
Results of Study
7% reduction.
•.. ,
Comments
Extraction of neutral-
ized oxychlorination
wastewater using 2-ethyl-
hexanol ( S/W=0 . 106) ;
RDC extractor used.
jf
(continue
Ref .
27
id)
to
J=.
05
-------
TABLE C-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
No.
VII
B-
1
VII
B-
2
VII
3
VII
B-
4
VII
B-
5
Chemical
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Isophorone
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
L,C
L,C
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
I
I
Influent
Char.
12200ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
12200ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
Results of Study
Extractable w/xylene. Sol-
vent recovery by azeotropic
distillation.
Extractable w/ethyl ether.
Extractable w/ethyl ether.
69% reduction.
88% reduction. ' - -
Comments
•
Sequential extraction o:
waste water from lube-
oil refining using butyl
acetate (S/W=0.10) &
isobutylene (S/W=0.101) ;
RDC extractor used .
Sequential extraction o:
waste water from lube-
oil refining using butyl
acetate (S/W=0.10) &
isobutylene (S/W=0.101)
RDC extractor used .
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
27
27
=d)
VD
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classifications Aromatics (D)
a
No.
VII
D-
1
VII
D-
2
VII
D-
3
VII
D-
4
VII
D-
5
VII
D-
6
VII
D-
7
VII
D-
8
Chemical
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
o-Dichloro-
benzene
m-
P-
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
2,6-Dinitro-
toluene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
L,C
L,C
L,C
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type
U
I
I
I
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
290 ppm
@ 3 gal/hi
71 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
81 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
600 ppm
Results of Study
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
97% reduction.
96% reduction.
97% reduction.
3 ppm effluent cone, using
chloroform solvent.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent.
Comments
Extraction of waste-
water from styrene man-
ufacture using isobuty-
Ine (S/W=0.107); RDC
extractor used.
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutylene (S/W=0.101)
RDC extractor used.
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutane (S/W=0.097);
RDC extractor used.
'
(continue
Ref .
90
27
27
27
90
90
90
90
d)
[-0
Cn
o
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
VII
D-
9
VII
D-
10
VII
D-
11
VII
D-
12
VII
D-
13
VII
D-
14
VII
D-
15
VII
D-
16
VII
D-
17
VII
D-
18
b
Chemical
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
Nitrobenzene
Styrene
Toluene
Toluene
1, 2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
Xylene
Xylene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,C
R
R
R
L,C
R
L,C
R
L,C
L, C
Waste
Type d
I
U
u
U
I
u
I
u
I
I
Influent
Char.
41-44ppm
@ 4.6
gal/hr
Results of Study
97% reduction.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
>93% reduction.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
94%-96% reduction.
Extractable w/suitable
solvent .
>97% reduction.
>97% reduction.
Comments
See VIID-2
for comments .
See VIID-2
for comments.
See VIID-3 & 4
for comments.
See VIID-3
for comments .
See VIID-4
for comments.
Ref .
27
90
90
90
27
90
27
90
27
27
(continued)
NJ
U1
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
No.
VII
E-
1
VII
E-
2
b
Chemical
bis-Chloro-
ethyl Ether
bis-Chloro-
isopropyl
Ether
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
Waste
Type d
V
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene .
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
.. ,
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
90
f5
to
Ul
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
Nof
VII
FI
VII
F-
2
VII
F-
3
VII
F-
4
VII
F-
5
VII
F-
6
VII
*7
VII
F-
8
VII
F-
9
b
Chemical
Bromgdichlo-
rometnane
Bromomethane
Chloral Hydrate
Chloroe thane
Chloroethylene
Chlorome thane
Dibromochloro-
methane
Dichlorodi-
fluoromethane
1,1-Dichloro-
ethane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
L,C
R
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type
U
U
I
U
U
U
U
U
U
[nf luent
Char.
15200 ppn
Results of Study
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
49% reduction.
Extractable w/alcohols and
aromatics.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Extractable w/organics ,
ethers and alcohols.
Extractable w/organics,
ethers and alcohols.
Extractable w/alcohols and
aromatics.
Comments
Extraction of neutral-
ized oxychlorination
wastewater using 2-
ethylhexanol (S/W=0.106)
RDC extractor used.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
27
90
90
90
90
90
90
:d)
I
U1
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
VII
F-
1
VII
F1—
2
VII
F-
3
VII
F-
4
VII
F-
5
VII
F-
6
VII
F-
7
VII
F-
8
b
Chemical
1,2-Dichloro-
e thane
Dichloro-
ethylene
Dichloro-
ethylene
1,1-Dichloro-
ethylene
1,2-trans-Di-
chloroethylene
Dichlorome thane
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
1,2-Dichloro-
propylene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
L,B
L,C
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
I
I
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
49 ppm
1500 ppm
Results of Study
Extractable w/alcohols and
aromatics .
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppm; Cio~c12 effluent
cone. - 1 + ppm
>99% reduction.
Extractable w/alcohols,
aromatics and ethers .
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Comments
Solvent extraction used
separatory funnel w/ker-
osene & Ci0~c12 hydro-
carbon solvents at 7 : 1
solvent to wastewater
ratio.
See VIIF-3
for comments .
(continue
Ref.
90
95
27
90
90
90
90
90
d)
to
Ul
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (P)
a
No.
VII
F-
9
VII
F-
10
VII
F-
11
VII
F-
12
VII
F-
13
VII
F-
14
j-,
Chemical
Ethyl Chloride
Ethylene
Chlorohydrin
Ethylene
Dichloride
Ethylene
Dichloride
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
e thane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,B
L,C
L,B
P,C
R
R
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
U
U
Influent
Char.
3 ppm
1640 ppm
320 ppm
23-1804
ppm @
2.76-3.76
1/min
Results of Study
Kerosene effluent cone. -
1 ppm; CIQ-CIZ hydrocarbon
effuent - 1 + ppm.
21% reduction.
«
No detectable cone . in kero-
sene effluent; CIQ-C^ hydro-
carbon effluent - 1 + ppm. ,
A 5.5:1 water to solvent ratic
gave 94-96% reduction. CIQ-
Ci2 paraffin solvent at 5:1
to 16.5:1 water to solvent
ratio showed 94-99% reduction
Soluble in most organics.
Extractable w/aromatics,
alcohols and ethers
Comments
Solvent extraction used
separatory funnel w/
kerosene & Clo~c12
hydrocarbon solvents at
7:1 solvent to waste-
water ratio.
See VIIF-3 for comments.
See VIIF-9 for comments.
Wastewater contained
other halocarbons in-
cluding 30-350 ppm
1,1, 2- trichloroe thane
and 5-197 ppm 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane. A
532 1/min extractor
w/1000 ppm influent es-
timated to have a capi-
tal cost of $315,000 and
total annual cost of
$143,000 including cred-
it for recovered EDC.
Ref .
95
27
95
95
90
90
Ul
Ul
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classifications Halocarbons (F)
Nof
VII
F-
15
VII
P...
16
VII
F-
17
VII
F-
18
VII
F-
19
VII
F-
20
VII
F-
21
VII
F-
22
VII
F-
23
VII
F-
24
b
Chemical
Pentachloro-
ethane
Perchloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
ethane
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroe thane
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
methane
Tribromome thane
Trichloroe thane
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roe thane
1,1,2-Trichlo-
roe thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,B
L,B
L,B
R
R
R
R
L,B
R
R
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
U
u
U
u
I
u
u
Influent
Char.
10 ppm
14 ppm
148 ppm
75 ppm
Results of Study
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppm; No detectable cone, in
C10~C12 hydrocarbon effluent.
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppra; CjQ-Ci2 hydrocarbon
effluent cone. - 1 ppm.
Kerosene effluent cone. -
7 ppm; CiQ~C\2 hydrocarbon
effluent cone. - 6 ppm.
Extractable w/aromatics,
alcohols and ethers.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Kerosene effluent cone. -
2 ppm? CiQ~Ci2 hydrocarbon
effluent cone. - 1 ppm.
Extractable w/alcohols and
aroma tics.
Extractable w/aromatics,
methanol and ethers.
Comments
See VIIF-9
for comments.
See VIIF-9
for comments.
See VIIF-9
for comments.
See VIIF-9
for comments.
Ref .
95
95
95
90
90
90
90
95
90
90
(continued)
i
Ni
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
No.
VII
F-
25
VII
F-
26
VII
F-
27
VII
F-
28
VII
F-
29
Chemical
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
ethylene
Trichloro-
fluorome thane
Trichloro-
me thane
Vinylidene
Chloride
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L,B
R
R
R
L,B
Waste
Type d
I
U
U
U
I
Influent
Char.
24 ppm
13 ppm
Results of Study
Kerosene effluent conc.-
6 ppm; Cio~c12 hydrocarbon
effluent cone. - 5 ppm.
Soluble in most organics.
Extractable w/alcohol, ether
and organics.
Soluble in most organics.
Kerosene effluent cone. -
1 ppm; Cio~c12 effluent
cone . - 1 ppm .
Comments
See VIIF- 9
for comments.
See VIIF- 9
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
95
90
90
90
95
Jd)
to
Ul
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
VII
G-
1
Chemical
Mercury
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
Waste
Type d
U
Influent
Char.
2 ppm
Results of Study
99% reduction w/high molec-
ular weight amines &
quartenary salts.
I
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
d)
to
l/l
00
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
3
No.
VII
K-
1
VII
K-
2
VII
K-
3
VII
K-
4
VII
K-
5
VII
K-
6
k
Chemical
4-Chloro-
3-Methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
m-Cresol
P-
o-Cresol
o-Cresol
o-Cresol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
Waste
Type d
U
U
I
I
I
I
Influent
Char.
291 ppm
307 ppm
890 ppm @
3.21 gal/
hr
890 ppm @
3.21 gal/
hr
Results of Study
Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol and nitrobenzene
..
Extractable w/Diisopropyl-
ether, benzene, butylacetate,
and nitrobenzene
91% reduction.
90% reduction.
99.9% reduction. " "
99.9% reduction.
Comments
Extraction of evapora-
tor condensate from
spent caustic process-
ing using isobutylene
(S/W=1.8) ; spray ex-
tractor used.
See VIIK- 3
for comments.
Sequential extraction
of wastewater from
lube-oil refining us-
ing butyl acetate
(S/W=0.100)& isobuty-
lene (S/W=0.101); RDC
extractor used.
Sequential extraction
of wastewater from
lube-oil refining us-
ing butyl acetate
(S/W=0.30) & isobuty-
lene (S/W=0.101) : RDC
extractor used.
Ref .
90
90
27
2V
27
27
(continued)
i
Ul
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Solvent Extraction (VII)
Phenols (K)
Nof
VII
V „,
1
VII
K-
8
VII
"If mil
9
VII
K-
10
VII
K"~"
11
VII
K-
12
VII
K-
13
VII
K-
14
VII
K-
15
Chemical
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dimethyl-
phenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-
Methylphenol
2 , 4-Dinitro-
phenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
L,C
Waste
Type
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I
Influent
Char.
67 ppm @
4.6 gal/
hr
Results of Study
Extractable w/benzene,
alcohol and nitrobenzene.
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol.
Extractable w/benzene and
acetone .
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol.
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol .
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol .
Extractable w/benzene and
alcohol and nitrobenzene .
Extractable w/diisopropyl-
ether , benzene , butylacetate
and nitrobenzene .
6% reduction.
Comments
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutylene (S/W=0.101)
RDC extractor used.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
27
d)
to
O
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
No.
VII
K-
16
VII
K-
17
VII
K-
18
VII
K-
19
VII
K-
20
VII
K-
21
]-,
Chemical
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
Xylenols
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
L,C
L,C
L,C
R
L,C
Waste
Type
I
I
I
I
U
I
Influent
Char.
69 pprn @
4.6 gal/
hr
579 ppm
8800 ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
8800 ppm
@ 3.21
gal/hr
227 ppm
Results of Study
4% reduction.
72% reduction.
97% reduction
98% reduction.
Extractable w/benzene ,
alcohol and nitrobenzene.
- •-. ,
96% reduction.
Comments
Extraction of ethylene
quench wastewater using
isobutane (S/W=0.097);
RDC extractor used.
See VI IK- 3
for comments.
See VIIK-5
for comments .
See VIIK-7
for comments.
See VIIK-3
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
27
27
27
27
90
27
sd)
ro
01
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classifications Phthalates (L)
Nof
VII
L-
1
VII
Jj~*
2
VII
L —
3
VII
L-
4
VII
L-
5
VII
L-
6
Chemical
Bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl) Phtha-
late
Butylbenzyl
Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl
Phthalate
Di ethyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl
Phthalate
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
& benzene.
Extractable w/ethyl ether
S benzene .
Extractable w/ethyl -ether,
& benzene.
Comments
(continue
Ref.
90
90
90
90
90
90
d)
to
en
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Solvent Extraction (VII)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
a
No.
VII
E-
1
b
Chemical
Anthracene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
Waste
Type d
U
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
Extractable w/toluene.
Comments
(continue
Ref .
90
'|d)
-------
TABLE C-ICHEMICAL TREATABILITY
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
£1
No.
IX
A-
1
IX
A-
2
IX
A-
3
b
Chemical
Allyl Alcohol
n-Amyl
Alcohol
(1-Pentanol)
Butanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
B,L
Waste
j
Type a
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
LOGO ppm
LOO ug/1
Results of Study
21.9% reduction; final cone.
of 789 ppm; capacity was
0.024 gm/gm of carbon. Ad-
sorbability found to increase
with molecular weight. For
compounds of <4 carbons or-
der of decreasing adsorption
was: undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when > 4
carbons, alcohols moved ahead
of esters) , glycols. Aromat-
ics had greatest adsorption.
Results of two component iso-
therm tests could be predict-
ed from single compound tests;
however, in four-component
tests, only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption occurred.
Continuous columns produced
60-80% of theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
71.8% reduction; 282 ppm
final cone., 0.155 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal. Desorption
of alcohols from carbon by
elutriating with various sol-
vents ranged from 4 to 110%.
Comments
Carbon dose was 5g/l
Westvaco Nuchar
See IXA- l for 'additional
results.
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included peri-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methyl
Ref .
35
35
20
(continued)
i
os
-------
TABLE C-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
IX
A-
4
IX
A-
5
IX
A-
6
IX
A-
7
IX
A-
8
IX
A-
9
IX
A-
10
IX
A-
11
IX
A-
12
b
Chemical
Butanol
Butanol
t-Butanol
Cyclohexanol
Decanol
Ethanol
2-Ethyl-
Butanol
2-Ethyl-
Hexanol
2-Ethyl-l-
Hexanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
B,L
B,L
I
I
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
000 ppm
000 ppm
500 ppm
100 ppm
000 ppm
00 /ug/1
LOO /ug/1
LOGO ppm
LOOO ppm
700 ppm
100 Aig/1
Results of Study
53.4% reduction; 466 ppm fina;
cone. i 0.107 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
75% reduction
67% reduction
78% reduction
29.5% reduction; 705 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.059 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Complete removal.
Complete removal.
10% reduction; 901 ppm final
cone., 0.020 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
85.5% reduction; 145 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.170 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
98.5% reduction; 10 ppm final
cone., 0.138 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Complete removal.
Comments
chloride-acetone, and
acetone .
See IXA-l for additional
results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon does was 10 times
chemical cone.
See IXA-l for additional
results.
See IXA-3 for additional
results.
See IXA-3 for additional
results.
See IXA-l for additional
results.
See IXA-l for additional
results.
See IXA-l for additional
results.
See IXA-3 for additional
results.
(continue
Ref .
35
72
35
20
20
35
35
35
20
sd)
to
(Tl
On
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
No.
IX
Ar
13
IX
A-
14
IX
A-
15
IX
A-
16
IX
A-
17
IX
A-
18
IX
A-
19
IX
A-
20
IX
A-
21
IX
A-
22
Chemical
m-Heptanol
m-Hexanol
Isobutanol
Isopropanol
Methanol
Methanol
Octanol
Pentanol
Propanol
Propanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
I
I
I
I
B,L
B,L
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 Aig/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
200 ppm
15 ppm
100 Aig/1
100 Aig/1
100 yug/i
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Complete removal.
95.5% reduction; 45 ppm
final cone., 0.155 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
41.9% reduction; 581 ppm
final cone., 0.084 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
12.6% reduction? 874 ppm
final cone., 0.025 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
3.6% reduction; 964 ppm
final cone., 0.007 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
17% reduction
33% reduction
33% reduction
Complete removal.
Complete removal.
Complete removal.
18.9% reduction; 811 ppm
final cone., 0.038 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
See IXA-3 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA- 1 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA- 1 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA- 1 for addi-
tional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
See IXA-3 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA- 3 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA- 3 for addi-
tional results.
See IXA-1 for addi-
tional results.
Ref .
20
35
35
35
35
72
20
20
20
35
(continued)
i
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
3
No.
IX
B-
1
IX
B-
2
IX
B-
3
IX
B-
4
b
Chemical
Acetaldehyde
Acetic Acid
Acetone
Acetone
Cyanohydrin
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
I
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
200 ppm
100 ppm
Results of Study
11.9% reduction; 881 ppm
final cone., 0.022 gm/gm
carbon capacity. Adsorbabil-
ity found to increase with
molecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons order of
decreasing adsorption was:
undissociated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ketones,
alcohols (when >4 carbons,
alcohols moved ahead of es-
ters) , gylcols. Aroma tics
had greatest adsorption. Re-
sults of two-component iso-
therm tests could be predict-
ed from single compound tests
however , in four-component
tests, only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption occurred.
Continuous columns produced
60-80% of theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
24% reduction; 760 ppm final
cone., 0.048 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
21.8% reduction; 782 ppm
final cone., 0.043 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
60% reduction
45% reduction
30% reduction
Comments
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
See IXB-i for-
additional results.
See IXB-i for
additional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10 time
Ref .
35
35
35
72
chemical cone. ,
(uuiibmUed)
CTi
-------
TABLE C-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
a
No.
IX
B-
5
IX
B-
6
IX
B-
7
IX
R—
8
IX
B-
9
IX
B-
10
IX
fi-
ll
IX
B-
12
IX
B-
13
IX
R —
14
Chemical
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrylic Acid
Acrylonitrile
Amyl Acetate
(primary)
Butyl Acetate
Butyl Acrylate
Butyraldehyde
Butyric Acid
Butyric Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
U
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 ppm
985 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 ug/1
Results of Study
30.6% reduction; 694 ppm
final cone., 0.061 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
30% reduction at 0.5% carbon
dose.
64.5% reduction; 355 ppm
final cone., 0.129 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
51% reduction
28% reduction
88% reduction; 119 ppm
final cone., 0.175 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
84.6% reduction; 154 ppm
final cone., 0.169 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
95.9% reduction; 43 ppm
final cone., 0.193 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
52.8% reduction; 472 ppm
final cone., 0.106 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
59.5% reduction; 405 ppm
final cone., 0.119 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete reduction; No de-
sorption from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
Comments
See IXB-i for
additional results.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether,
(continue
Ref .
35
90
35
72
35
35
35
35
35
20
d)
K)
cn
oo
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process; Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IX
R— •
14
cont
IX
B-
15
IX
B-
16
IX
B-
17
IX
B-
18
IX
B19
IX
B-
20
IX
B-
21
IX
B-
22
b
Chemical
Caproic Acid
Caproic Acid
Crotonaldehyde
Cyc lohexanone
Decanoic Acid
Dicyclo-
pentadiene
(DCPC)
Diethylene
Glycol
Diisobutyl
Ketone
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
I
I
B,L
P,C
I
I
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
I
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 ug/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 ug/1
82 to
1000 ppb
1000 ppin
300 ppm
Results of Study
90% reduction; 3% desorbed
from carbon by elutriating
with solvent.
97% reduction; 30 ppm
final cone., 0.194 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
45.6% reduction; 544 ppm
final cone., 0.092 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
66.8% reduction; 332 ppm
final cone., 0.134 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete reduction; 2%
desorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
Diisopropyl methylphosphonate
(DIMP) and TOG used to
measure performance. DCPC
found to vaporize.
26.2% reduction; 738 ppm
final cone., 0.053 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
100% reduction; 0.060 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
methylene chloride-
acetone, methyl chlo-
ride-acetone, and
acetone .
See IXB-l4for
additional results
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
See IXB-1 for
additional results.
See IXB-l for
additional results.
See IXB-14for
additional results.
Contaminated ground-
water. See IXB-23
for remarks .
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
See IXB- 1 for
additional results.
(continue
Ref .
20
35
35
35
20
86
35
35
Jd)
M
cn
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
3.
No.
IX
R—
23
j-,
Chemical
Diisoproply
Methyl-
phosphonate
(DIMP)
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P,C
Waste
Type d
I
(Bog
Water)
I
(Bog
Water)
Influent
Char.
210 to
430 ppb
DIMP; TOC
about 40
ppm;
pH 7.6 to
8.0
290 to
470 ppb
Results of Study
Average DIMP removal was
99.75% ( <1.9 ppb in
effluent)
Average DIMP removal was
98.77% (6.4 ppb in effluent)
DIMP removal averaged 99% at
350 Ajg/1 carbon dose and
96.33% at 250 ug/1 carbon
dose. Optimum anionic/cati-
onic mixture was found to be
anionic-0.13 gm/1 and
120 cc/min, cationic -
1.59 gm/1 & 25 cc/min.
DIMP removal ranged from 92.5
to 97.5% at 175 /ug/1 carbon
dose and 98.7% at 220 ug/1
carbon dose.
Comments
Test 1- Influent flow
7 gpm; carbon feed rate
1649 /ug/1, anionic poly-
mer Herufloc 836.2 at
0.556 gm/1 cone, and
1000 cc/min flow added;
cationic polymer Cat-
floc at 4 /ug/1 cone.
and 26.5 cc/min flow
added; duration of test
4 weeks; 28,600 gal.
throughput .
Test 2- Carbon feed
1000 ug/1 duration of
test 3 weeks; other con-
ditions similar to
Test 1.
Test 3- Influent flow
rate 5 gpm; anionic
cone, and flow-0.13 gm/3
& 120 cc/min; cationic
cone, and flow-
1.59 gm/1 & 25 cc/min;
carbon feed at 350 ug/1
& 250 /ug/1 for 1 week
each.
Ref .
86
(continued)
to
•^1
o
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
No.
IX
B-
22
cont
IX
B-
•24
IX
B-
2
b
Chemical
Dipropylene
Glycol
Dodecane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
I
(Bog
Water)
I
(Ground
Water)
P
P
Influent
Char.
400 ppb
2680 ppb
2400 ppb
2564 ppb
1000 ppm
100 ug/1
Results of Study
DIMP removal steadily de-
creased to about 40% at
carbon dose of 100 /ug/1.
DIMP cone, reduced to 50 ppb,
reactivated carbon tested
17000 gal before break-
through, virgin carbon
treated 9600 gal; reactivated
carbon capacity-3.8 ug
DIMP/gm carbon (0.9 Ib car-
bon/1000 gal) ; virgin carbon
capacity 2.3 «g DIMP/gm car-
bon (1.41b carbon/1000 gal.)
98% removal at carbon dose
of 252 ug/1
94 to 97% removal at carbon
dose of 200 Aig/1
Could not achieve steady
state performance at carbon
dose of 252 ug/1 & flow rate
of 225 gal/hr.
16.5% reduction; 835 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.033 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; 28% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
Comments
••
Filtrasorb 300 carbon
was used.
Hydrodarco C carbon;
duration of test-
13100 qal.
Hydrodarco C carbon;
duration of test -
9000 gal.
Aqua Nuchar carbon;
duration of test -
15200 gal (2 .weeks) .
See IXB-1
for additional results.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
35
20
id)
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IX
B-
26
IX
B-
27
IX
B-
28
IX
B-
29
IX
B-
30
IX
B-
31
IX
B-
32
IX
B-
33
IX
B-
34
Chemical
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethylene
Glycol
Formaldehyde
Formic Acid
Heptanoic Acid
Hexadecane
Hexylene Glycol
Isobutyl
Acetate
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
I
I
B,L
B,L
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
1015 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 ug/1
100 ug/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
50.5% reduction; 495 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.100 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
77.7% reduction; 226 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.157 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
6.8% reduction; 932 ppm fi-
nal cone . , 0 . 014 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
9.2% reduction; 908 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.018 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
23.5% reduction; 765 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.047 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
10% reduction; 1% desorbed
from carbon by elutriating
with solvent.
Complete reduction; 12% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriating with solvent.
61.4% reduction; 386 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.122 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
82% reduction; 180 ppm fi-
nal cone . , 164 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- l
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB-1
for additional results .
See IXB-1
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
Ref .
35
35
35
35
35
20
20
35
35
(continued)
i
to
•vj
NJ
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
IX
^
IX
B-
36
IX
B-
37
IX
o_
38
IX
B-
39
IX
B-
40
IX
B-
41
IX
B-
42
IX
B-
43
IX
B-
44
Chemical
Isoprene
Isopropyl
Acetate
Laurie Acid
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Butyl
Ketone
Methyl
Decanoate
Methyl
Dodecanoate
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone
Methyl
Hexadecanoate
Methyl Isoamyl
Ketone
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
I
B,L
I
I
B,L
B,L
I
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
500 ppm
1000 ppm
100 Aig/1
1030 ppm
988 ppm
100 mg/1
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
100 yug/i
986 ppm
Results of Study
86% reduction
86% reduction
68.1% reduction; 319 ppm
final cone., 0.137 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; No desorp-
tion from carbon by elutria-
tion with solvent.
26.2% reduction; 760 ppm
final cone . , 0 . 054 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
80.7% reduction; 191 ppm
final cone., 0.159 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; 71% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
Complete removal; 50% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
46.8% reduction; 532 ppm
final cone., 0.094 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; 35% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
85.2% reduction; 146 ppm
final cone., 0.169 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
See IXA-5
See IXB- 1
for additional results
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results .
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results .
•.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
72
35
20
35
35
20
20
35
20
35
:d)
to
-J
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
(IX)
No?
IX
B-
45
IX
B-
4e
IX
B-
47
IX
B-
48
IX
B-
49
IX
B-
50
IX
B-
51
IX
B-
52
IX
B-
53
IX
B-
54
Chemical
Methyl
Octadecanoate
Methyl Propyl
Ketone
Myristic Acid
Octadecane
Octanoic Acid
Propional-
dehyde
Propionic Acid
Propionic Acid
Propyl Acetate
Propylene
Glycol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
I
B,L
B,L
B,L
L
B,L
I
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 Aig/1
1000 ppm
100 Aig/1
100 Aag/1
100 Aig/1
1000 ppm
100 Aig/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Complete removal; 40% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
69.5% reduction; 305 ppm
final cone., 0.139 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; no de-
sorption from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
Complete removal; no desorp-
tion from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
50% removal; 1% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
27.7% reduction; 723 ppm
final cone., 0.057 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal, no desorp-
tion from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
32.6% reduction; 674 ppm
final cone., 0.065 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
75.2% reduction; 248 ppm
final cone., 0.149 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
11.6% reduction; 884 ppm
final cone., 0.024 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
See IXB-14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 14
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
Ref .
20
35
20
20
20
35
20
35
35
35
(continued)
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
No.
IX
B-
55
IX
B-
56
IX
B-
57
IX
R —
58
IX
B-
59
IX
B-
60
IX
B-
61
IX
B-
62
Chemical
Propylene
Oxide
Pyruvic Acid
Tetradecane
Tetraethylene
Glycol .
Triethylene
Glycol
Valeric Acid
Valeric Acid
Vinyl Acetate
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
B,L
B,L
I
I
B,L
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
100 Aig/1
100 Aig/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 Aig/i
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
26.1% reduction; 739 ppm
final cone., 0.052 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; no desorp-
tion from carbon using
organic solvent.
Complete removal; 25% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
58.1% reduction; 419 ppm
final cone., 0.116 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
52.3% reduction; 477 ppm
final cone., 0.105 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Complete removal; 10% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
79.7% reduction; 203 ppm
final cone., 0.159 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
64.3% reduction; 357 ppm
final cone., 0.129 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
Comments
See IXB- 1
for additional results.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
See IXB-1
for additional results.
See IXB-14
for additional results.
See IXB-i
for additional results.
See IXB-l
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
35
20
20
35
35
20
35
35
,d)
to
•>4
tn
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
IX
C-
1
IX
c-
2
IX
c-
1
]rj
Chemical
Allyamine
Aniline
Aniline
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
100 pg/1
1000 ppm
Results of Study
31.4% reduction; 686 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.063 gm/gm carbon
capacity. Adsorbability
found to increase with molec-
ular weight. For compounds
of <4 carbons order of de-
creasing adsorption was : un-
dissociated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ketones,
alcohols (when >4 carbons,
alcohols moved ahead of es-
ters) , glycols. Aromatics
had greatest adsorption.
Results of two component is-
otherm tests could be pre-
dicted from single compound
tests; however, in four com-
ponent tests only 60% of
predicted adsorption oc-
curred. Continuous columns
produced 60-80% of theoreti-
cal isotherm capacity.
100% reduction; No desorptior
from carbon by elutriation
with solvents.
74.9% removal; 251 ppm final
cone.; 0.15 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
„
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methyl
chloride-acetone, and
acetone .
See IXC-1 for addition-
al results.
Ref .
35
20
35
(continued)
to
-J
en
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
No.
IX
C-
4
IX
C-
5
IX
C-
6
IX
C-
7
IX
C-
8
IX
("*—
9
IX
("*-.
10
IX
c-
11
IX
c-
12
IX
O~"
13
Chemical
Butylamine
Butylamine
Cyclohexyl-
amine
Dibutylamine
Di-N-
Butylamine
Diethanolamine
Diethylene-
trianiine
Dihexylamine
Diisopropan-
olamine
Dimethylamine
Description of Study
Study
TYPec
B,L
I
B,L
B,L
I
I
I
B,L
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
100 Ajg/1
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
996 ppm
1000 ppm
100 /ag/l
1000 ppm
100 /ug/1
Results of Study
100% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
52% reduction; 480 ppm final
cone., 0.103 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 38% desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; No desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
87% removal; 130 ppm final
cone., 0.174 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
27.5% removal; 722 ppm final
cone., 0.057 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
29.4% removal; 706 ppm final
cone., 0.062 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 24% desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
45,7% removal; 543 ppm final
cone., 0.091 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 82% desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
Comments
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results .
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
Ref .
20
35
20
20
35
35
35
20
35
20
(continued)
i
to
-J
-------
TABLEC-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
No.
IX
C-
14
IX
C-
15
IX
C-
16
IX
C-
17
IX
C-
18
IX
C-
19
IX
C-
20
IX
c-
21
IX
C-
22
IX
c-
23
„ . , b
Chemical
Dimethyl-
nitrosamine
Di-N-
Propylamine
Ethylene-
diamine
N-Ethyl-
morpholine
Hexylamine
2-Methyl-5-
Ethylpyridine
N- Methyl
Morpholine
Monoethan-
olamine
Monoisopro-
panolamine
Morpholine
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
I
B,L
I
I
I
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
100 Aig/l
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1012 ppm
1000 ppm
100 Aig/l
Results of Study
Not adsorbed.
80.2% removal; 198 ppm final
cone., 0.174 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
10.7% removal; 893 ppm final
cone., 0.021 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
47.3% removal; 527 ppm final
cone., 0.095 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 24% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
89.3% removal; 107 ppm final
cone., 0.179 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
42.5% removal; 575 ppm final
cone., 0.085 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
7.2% removal; 939 ppm final
cone., 0.015 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
20% removal; 800 ppm final
cone . , 0 . 04 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 67% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
Comments
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results .
Ref .
31
35
35
35
20
35
35
35
35
20
(continued)
i
N)'
*J
CO
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
No.
IX
C-
24
IX
C-
25
IX
C-
26
IX
C-
27
IX
C-
28
IX
C-
29
IX
c-
30
jj
Chemical
B-Napthylamine
Octylamine
Piperidine
Pyridine
Pyrrole
Tributylamine
Triethanol-
amine
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
B,L
B,L
I
B,L
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 Aig/1
100 /ug/1
1000 ppm
100 /ug/1
100 ,ug/l
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 77.4 0.361
Filtrasorb 166.0 0.234
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to
0.1 mg/1: Darco - 27
Filtrasorb - 10
100% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 73% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
53.3% removal; 467 ppm final
cone., 0.107 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal; 16% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
33% removal; 670 ppm final
cone . , 0 . 067 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
'
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC-1
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 2
for additional results.
See IXC- 1
for additional results
(continue
Ref .
31
20
20
35
20
20
35
id)
I
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
3
No.
IX
b-
1
IX
D-
2
b
Chemical
Acetophenone
Acetophenone
Description of Study
Study
f*
Typec
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 Aig/1
1000 ppm
Results of Study
50% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
97.2% removal; 28 ppm final
cone., 0.194 gm/gm carbon
capacity. Adsorbability
found to increase with mo-
lecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons order
of decreasing adsorption
was: undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when > 4
carbons, alcohols moved
ahead of esters) , glycols.
Aromatics had greatest ad-
sorption. Results of two
component isotherm tests
could be predicted from sin-
gle compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of predicted
adsorption occurred. Con-
tinuous columns produced
60-80% of theoretical iso-
therm capacity.
Comments
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, methey
chloride-acetone, and
acetone .
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
Ref .
20
35
(continued)
to
CO
o
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
(IX)
a
No.
IX
D-
3
IX
D-
4
IX
D-
5
IX
D-
6
IX
D-
7
IX
D-
8
IX
D-
9
•
b
Chemical
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
I
P,C
I
I
I
Waste
A
Type a
P
P
P
H
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 Mg/1
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
500 ppm
100 ppm
1 ppb
1 ppm
416 ppm
Results of Study
50% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
94% reduction; 60 ppm final
cone . , 0 . 188 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
99% removal
99% removal
98% removal
90% removal (to 0.1 ppb ef-
fluent cone.) achieved in
8.5 min. contact time.
0.7 mg/gm carbon capacity.
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows :
Carbon K l/n
Darco 26.8 1.305
Filtrasorb 18.5 1.158
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 678
Filtrasorb - 705
95% reduction; 21 ppm final
cone., 0.080 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
Spilled material treat-
ed using EPA's mobile
treatment trailer.
See IXD- 2
for additional results.
Ref .
20
35
72
6
21
31
35
(continued)
i
00
H
-------
TABLE c-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
IX
D-
10
IX
D-
11
IX
D-
12
IX
D-
13
IX
D-
14
IX
D-
15
IX
D-
16
Chemical
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzil
Benzoic Acid
Benzoic Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
I
R
I
B,L
*
B,L
I
Waste
Type
I
P
U
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1500 ppm
TOC
500 ppm
250 ppm
50 ppm
416 ppm
100 ug/1
100 ug/1
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of 30 ppm TOC
achieved (98% removal)
95% removal
91% removal
60% removal
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Isotherm kinetics were as
as follows:
Carbon K l/n
Darco 85.4 0.253
Filtrasorb 173 0.288
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 19
Filtrasorb - 10
50% removal; 8% desorbed from
carbon by elutriation with
solvent.
Complete removal; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
91.1% removal; 89 ppm final
cenc., 0.183 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
At contact time of 55
min.; 0.15 MGD flow;
pretreatment included
pH adjustment.
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
• •
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
(continue
.
Ref .
38
72
90
31
20
20
35
d)
to
00
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No.
IX
D-
17
IX
D-
18
IX
D-
19
IX
D-
20
IX
D-
21
IX
D-
22
IX
D-
23
IX
D-
24
b
Chemical
Chlorinated
Aromatics
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
l-Chloro-2-
Nitrobenzene
Cumene
o-Dichloro-
benzene
o-Dichloro-
benzene
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
I
F,C
R
I
B,L
B,L
R
Waste
Type d
I
P
D
U
P
P
P
U
Influent
Char.
6000 ppm
TOG
1 mg/1
416 ppm
1 ppm
100 pg/1
100 yg/1
416 ppm
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of 3000 ppm
TOG achieved (50% reduction).
High effluent cone, because
activated carbon served as
pretreatment before biologi-
cal system.
93 mg/gm carbon capacity.
50% reduction.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
103 mg/gm adsorption
capacity.
Complete removal; 8% desorbec
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
Complete removal; 5% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Comments
At contact time of 1375
min; flow of 6000 gpd;
pretreatment included
chemical reduction.
,
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m3/sec bio-
logical system.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
See IXD-1
for additonal results.
(continue
Ref .
38
21
64
90
21
20
20
90
d)
K)
OO
UJ
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
IX
D-
25
IX
D-
26
IX
D-
27
IX
D-
28
IX
D-
29
IX
D-
30
IX
D-
31
b
Chemical
m-Dichloro-
benzene
m-Dichloro-
benzene
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
p-Dichloro-
benzene
p-Dichloro-
benzene
3 , 3 ^ -Dichloro-
benzidine
Dime thylani line
(Xylidine)
Description of Study
Study
TYPec
B,L
R
F,C
B,L
R
I
P,C
Waste
Type d
P
U
D
P
U
P
H
Influent
Char.
100 jug/1
416 ppm
100 /ug/1
416 ppm
380 ppb
Results of Study
Complete removal; 15% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
60% removal
100% removal; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 126 0.253
Filtrasorb 240 0.194
Carbon dose (mg/1) to reduce
1 mg/1 to 0.1 mg/1:
Darco - 12.8
Filtrasorb - 5.7
94% removal (23 ppb in efflu-
ent) achieved in 85 min.
contact time.
Comments
See IXD- 1
for additional results.
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m3/sec bio-
logical system.
See IXD- 1
for additional results.
250,000 gal. spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
(continue
.
Ref .
20
90
64
20
90
31
6
d)
NJ
CXI
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
IX
D-
32
IX
D-
33
IX
D-
34
IX
D-
35
IX
D-
36
IX
D-
37
IX
D-
38
IX
D-
39
IX
D-
40
IX
D-
41
b
Chemical
2,4-Dinitro-
toluene
2,6-Dinitro-
toluene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro-
benzene
Hydroquinone
Isophrone
Isophrone
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
I
I
F,C
R
R
I
I
R
Waste
Type d
u
u
p
L
D
U
U
P
P
U
Influent
Char.
416 ppm
416 ppm
l mg/l
115 ppm
115 ppm
416 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
53 mg/gm carbon capacity.
84.3% reduction; 21 ppm
final cone., 0.08 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
50% removal
84.3% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
83.3% removal; 167 ppm
final cone., 0.167 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
96.6% removal; 34 ppm final
cone . , 0 . 193 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
96.6% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Comments
Not thermally regener-
able.
Not thermally regener-
able.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 m /sec bio-
logical system.
See IXD-2
for additional results
See IXD-2
for additional results
Ref .
90
90
21
35
64
90
90 :
35
35
90
(continued)
i
Ul
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classifications Aromatics (D)
(IX)
No.
IX
D-
42
IX
D-
43
IX
D-
44
IX
D-
45
IX
D-
46
IX
D-
47
IX
D-
48
IX
D-
49
Chemical
4,4' -Methylene
Bis-(2-Chloro-
aniline
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Ni trobenzene
Paraldehyde
Pyridine
Pyridine
Styrene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
R
1
i
I
I
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
U
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1 ppm
1023 ppm
416 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
500 ppm
1 ppm
Results of Study
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows :
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 120 0.96
Filtrasorb 240 0.982
Carbon dose ing/1) to reduce
1 mg/l to 0.1 mg/ls
Darco - 27
Filtrasorb - 15
68 mg/gm adsorption capacity
95.6% removal; 44 ppm final
cone., 0.196 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
73.9% removal; 261 ppm final
cone., 0.148 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
47.3% removal; 527 ppm final
cone . , 0 . 095 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
86% removal; 145 ppm final
cone., 86% removal; 71 ppm
final cone.
120 m g/gm adsorption
capacity.
Comments
See IXD-2
for additional results.
See IXD-2
for additional results .
See IXD- 2
for additional results .
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10 '
times chemical cone.
Ref .
31
21
35
90
35
35
72
21
,d)
to
en
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
IX
D-
50
IX
D-
51
IX
D-
52
IX
D-
53
IX
D-
54
IX
D-
55
IX
D-
56
IX
D-
57
IX
D-
58
IX
D-
59
b
Chemical
Styrene
Styrene
Styrene Oxide
Toluene
Toluene
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Tri-
chlorobenzene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
P,C
I
R
I
B,L
F,C
R
Waste
Type
P
P
P
H
P
U
I
P
D
U
Influent
Char.
180 ppm
200 ppm
100 ppm
20 ppm
1000 ppm
120 ppb
317 ppm
317 ppm
155 ppb
pH 7.0
100 jjg/1
416 ppm
Results of Study
88.8% removal; 44 ppm final
cone., 0.196 gin/gin carbon
capacity.
97% removal
93% removal
55% removal
95.3% removal; 47 ppm final
con., 0.19 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
99.8% removal (0.3 ppb in
effluent achieved in 8.5 min
contact time .
79.2% removal; 66 ppm final
cone., 0.05 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
79% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose .
>99% removal; <1 ppb final
cone., 42 mg/gm carbon
capacity.
100% removal ; no desorption
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
70% reduction.
95% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Comments
See IXD-2 for additional
results.
24 hr contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
See IXD-2
for additional results.
See IXD-1
for additional results.
Treatment of effluent
from 0.66 mVsec bio-
logical system.
, (continue
Ref .
35
72
35
6
35
90
66
20
64
90
>A\
__,
00
-J
-------
TABLEC-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classifications Aromatics (D)
(IX)
Si
No.
IX
D-
60
IX
D-
61
IX
D-
62
b
Chemical
2,4,6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
2,4, 6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
and other muni-
tions plant
wastewaters:
Cyclonite(RDX) ,
Nitramine
(Tetryl) , and
cyclotetrameth-
ylene tetrani-
tramine (HMX) .
Xylene
Description of Study
Study
j-«
Type1'
P,C
R
P,C
Waste
A
Type
I
I
H
Influent
Char.
108 ppm
Not
reported
140 ppb
Results of Study
Carbon adsorption capacity
was 0.125 gm/gm at 1 ppm
breakthrough after 600 bed
volume (B.V.)
Adsorption capacities
(Lb/Lb carbon) :
Contami- Break- Satura-
nant through tion
TNT 0.098 0.125
RDX 0.300 0.550
RDX & 0.008 0.048
TETRYL 0.002 0.024
TNT & 0.125 0.181
RDX 0.074 0.090
TNT & 0.134
HMX 0.006
(Note: breakthrough cone.
not defined. )
Typical cone, of contami-
nants in wastewaters :
TNT - 0-400 ppm
RDX - 50-100 ppm
pH - 3.5-7.0
Flow - 0.02-1.0 MGD
Temp - 60-160°F
>99.9% removal ( 0.1 ppb
in effluent) achieved in
8.5 min. contact time.
Comments
Filtrasorb 300 used.
Thermal regeneration
not possible because of
explosion potential.
TNT is preferentially
adsorbed over RDX; when
RDX > TNT cone. TNT
capacity reduced 50%.
For 80 gpm facility
costs estimated to be
$8.90/1000 gal.
250,000 gal. spilled
materials treated with
EPA mobile treatment
trailer.
(continue
Ref .
2
40
6
d)
CO
00
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
a
No.
IX
b-
63
b
Chemical
Xylene
•
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
Waste
Type
P
nf luent
Char.
200 ppm
100 ppm
Results of Study
86% removal
68% removal
Comments^
24 hr. contact time;
carbon dose was 10
times chemical cone.
(continut
Ref .
72
2d)
NJ
00
ua
-------
NJ
U>
O
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: nj_. .„.
3.
No.
IX
•ri1
1
IX
E-
2
IX
E-
3
Chemical
Bis { 2-chloro
isopropyl)
Ether
Bis (chlgEp-
y -L i
Butyl Ether
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
R
I
Waste
Type d
U
U
P
Influent
Char.
Not re-
ported
94 ppb
197 ppm
.. ..JJ«,..V-J.^1J^»
Results of Study
100% removal at 0.5% car-
bon dose .
50% removal
100% removal; 0.039gm/gm
carbon capacity. Adsorb-
ality found to increase
with molecular weight.
For compounds of <4 car-
bonsjorder of decreasing
adsorption was: undisso-
ciated organic acids,
aldehydes, esters, ke-
tones, alcohols (when>4
carbons, alcohols moved
ahead of esters), gly-
cols. Aromatics had
greatest adsorption. Re-
sults of two-component
isotherm tests could be
predicted from single
compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption oc-
curred. Continuous col-
umns produced 60-80% of
theoretical isotherm
capaci ty .
Comments
Carbon dose was 5g/l
Westvaco Nuchar .
Ref .
90
90
35
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Ethers (E)
a
No.
IX
E-
4
IX
E-
5
IX
E-
6
IX
E-
7
IX
E-
8
IX
E-
9
IX
E-
10
IX
E-
11
IX
E-
12
IX
E-
13
• "1
b
Chemical
Dichloroiso-
propyl Ether
Diethylene
Glycol Mono-
butyl Ether
Diethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
Ethoxytri-
glycol
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
butyl Ether
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
ethyl Ether
Acetate
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
hexyl Ether
Ethylene
Glycol Mono-
methyl Ether
Isopropyl
Ether
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
1008 ppm
1000 ppm
1010 ppm
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
1022 ppm
1000 ppm
975 ppm
1024 ppm
1023 ppm
Results of Study
100% removal; 0.20 gm/gm
carbon capacity.
82.7% removal; 173 ppm final
cone., 0.166 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
43.6% removal; 570 ppm final
cone., 0.087 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
69.7% removal; 303 ppm final
cone., 0.139 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
55.9% removal; 441 ppm final
cone., 0.112 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
31% removal; 705 ppm final
cone., 0.063 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
65.8% removal; 324 ppm final
cone., 0.132 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
87.1% removal; 126 ppm final
cone., 0.170 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
13.5% removal; 886 ppm final
cone., 0.028 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
80% removal; 203 ppm final
cone., 0.162 gm/gm carbon
capacity.
Comments
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results.
See IXE-3
for additional results
See IXE-3
for additional results
( c^nt inu£
Ref .
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
A\
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
3
No.
IX
F-
1
IX
F-
2
IX
F-
3
IX
F-
4
IX
F-
5
IX
F-
6
IX
F-
7
b
Chemical
Bromochloro-
methane
Bromodi-
chloro-
methane
Bromof orm
Bromof orm
Bromomethane
Carbon
Tetrachlo-
r ide
Carbon
Tetrachlo-
ride
v^m.^cx.L wJ.clo0xi.J.u«l.J.uIi. Haiocarbons (F)
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
R
L
B,L
R
P,C
I
Waste
r\
Type a
P
S
S,M
U
W
P
U
H
P
Influent
Char.
Not re-
ported
0. 2ppb
100 ppb
1 . 1 ppb
Not re-
ported
Results of Study
Sorptive capacity x/m at
residual cone (C ) of
100 ppb was 3.37 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
2.56 in a mixture and
0.875 in secondary
ef fluent .
Reported to be adsorbed
100% removal; 10% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
Reported to be adsorbed.
Not detected in effluent
after 8.5 min contact
time .
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(Cf) of
100 ppb was 4.66 mg/g
Comments
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
See IXF- 44
for results.
*
Filtrasorb 300 used
Solvent included
pentane-acetone.
diethylether , methy-
lene chloride-ace-
tone, methyl chlo-
ride-acetone, and
acetone .
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer.
Ref .
21
90
46
20
90
6
21
(continued)
ID
NJ
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
Nof
IX
F-
8
IX
F-
9
IX
F-
10
IX
F-
11
IX
F-
12
IX
F-
13
IX
U1 —
14
b
Chemical
Carbon
Tetrachlor id;
Chloroethane
Chloroethy-
lene
Chloroform
Chloroform
Dibromochlo-
romethane
Dibromochlo-
rpmethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
I
L
L
I
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
P
S
S,M
W
W
P
S
S,M
Influent
Char.
Not re-
ported
3.9 ppb
Not re-
ported
Results of Study
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(C-) of
100 ppb was 1.58 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
0.93 in a mixture, and
0.365 in secondary
effluent .
At 2 ppm chloroform,
equilibrium capacity was
12 mg/g.
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(Cf) of
100 ppb was 7.52 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
4.54 in a mixture, and
0.885 in secondary
effluent.
Comments
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
sedondary effluent.
See IXF-44
for results .
See IXF- 44
for results .
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
21
46
46
21
>d)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Halocarbons(F)
Chemical Classification:
Nof
IX
TJl — _
15
IX
F-
16
IX
F-
17
IX
F-
18
IX
F-
19
IX
F-
20
IX
F-
21
IX
F-
22
Chemical
Dibromochlo^
romethane
Dichloro-
e thane
Dichloro-
ethane
1 , 1-Dichloro-
ethane
1 , 1-Dichloro-
ethane
1 , 2-Dichloro-
ethane
1 , 2-Dichloro-
ethane
1 , 1-Dichloro-
e thyle ne
Description of Study
Study
Type0
R
P,C
I
L
R
L
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
H
P
S
S,M
W
U
W
U
U
Influent
Char.
12 ppb
Not re-
ported
2 . 3 ppb
2.1 ppb
lOOOppm
Results of Study
Reported to be adsorbed.
Not detected in effluent
after 8.5 min contact
time .
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual conc.(Cf) of
100 ppb was 1.07 mg/g in
pure compound studies,
0.44 in a mixture, and
0.52 in secondary
effluent .
Reported to be adsorbed.
81.1% removal at 0.5%
carbon dose .
Reported to be adsorbed.
Comments
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer.
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
See IXF-44
for results.
See IXF-44
for resul ts .
(continue
Ref .
90
6
21
46
90
46
90
90
d)
KJ
U)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
IX
F-
23
IX
F-
24
IX
F-
25
IX
F-
26
IX
F-
27
IX
F-
28
IX
F-
29
IX
F-
30
•
t,
Chemical
1 , 2-Dichloro-
ethylene
1, 2-trans-
Dichloro-
ethylene
Dichloro-
f 1 uorome thane
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
Dichloro-
me thane
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
1,2-Dichloro-
prppylene
Ethylene
Dichloride
(EDC)
Description of Study
Study
Type
L
R
R
R
R
R
R
I
Waste
j
Type
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
L
Influent
Char.
0.2 ppb
4 ppm
TOC at
1 MGD
1000 ppm
1000 ppm
Results of Study
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Effluent cone, of 0.05 ppm
TOC achievable at contact
time of 8 min.
Reported to be adsorbed.
92.9% removal at 0.5% carbon
dose.
Reported to be adsorbed.
81.1% reduction, 189 ppm
final cone., 0.163 g/g car-
bon capacity. Adsorbabil-
ity found to increase with
molecular weight. For com-
pounds of <4 carbons, order
of decreasing adsorption
was: undissociated organic
acids, aldehydes, esters,
ketones, alcohols (when
Comments
See 1XF-44
for results.
Flow equalization used
as pretreatment.
Carbon dose was 5 g/1
Westvaco Nuchar.
Ref .
46
90
90
38
90
90
90
35
(continued)
i
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
(IX)
No.
IX
F-
30
cont
IX
F-
31
0
Chemical
Ethylene
Dichloride
1 pnp ^
\ CiLs^* f
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
Waste
Type d
I
Influent
Char.
Indus-
trial
waste-
waters
contain-
ing num-
erous
halocar-
bons
with
predomi-
nately
EDC at
up to
9000ppm
Results of Study
>4 carbons, alcohols
moved ahead of esters) ,
glycols. Aromatics had
greatest adsorption. Re-
sults of two-component
isotherm tests could be
predicted from single
compound tests; however,
in four-component tests,
only about 60% of pre-
dicted adsorption oc-
curred. Continuous col-
umns produced 60-80% of
theoretical isotherm
capacity .
Carbon adsorption capaci
ty to achieve 10 ppm EDC
residual ranged from 0.47
to 1.25 gm EDC/gm carbon
Capacity to achieve 0.1
ppm EDC residual ranged
from 0.0145 to 0.13 gm
EDC/gm carbon. To obtain
0.5 ppm TOC residual,
capacity ranged from
0.052 to 0.7 gm TOC/gm
carbon. Capacity to
achieve 50 ppm TOC resid
ual ranged from 7 . 0 to
150 gm TOC/gm carbon.
Comments
Calgon (Filtrasorb
400), Westvaco (WVG)
WITCO, and Barneby-
Cheney (BCNB-9377)
carbons were used.
Capacity was depend-
ent on wastewater
being tested and the
carbon .
Ref .
95
(continued)
VO
CPi
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
(IX)
rl
No.
IX
F-
32
IX
F-
13
IX
F-
34
Chemical
Ethylene
Dichlor ide
(EDC)
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
ethane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,C
3 col
urns in
series
20 mm
ID by
450mm
.ength
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type
I
P
P
Influent
Char.
Indus-
trial
waste-
waters
contain-
ing num
erous
halo-
carbons
with
predom-
inately
EDC. TC
1200ppm
EDC-
6400 to
6800ppm
total
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
-SOOOppm
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
EDC did not breakthrough
(to original concentra-
tion) at up to 57 BV;
however, reduction
dropped below 90% after
between 10 and 28 BV as
flow increased from
^0.85 to 2.40 L/sq m.
Westvaco WVG performed
slightly better than
Calgon Filtrasorb 400.
Minimum level of efflu-
ent TC attainable was
300 ppm .
100% removal? 31% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
100% removal; 98% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
Comments
100 g of loaded
carbon was regener-
ated with 1 atm of
steam for 5 min; af-
ter 5 regenerations
carbon capacity was
0.186 gm EDC/gm car-
bon or 93% of fresh
carbon .
See IXF-4
for additional
comments .
See IXF-4
for additional
comments .
Ref .
95
20
20
~ J \
(continued;
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process; Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification; Halocarbons (F)
No.
IX
F-
35
IX
F-
36
IX
F-
37
IX
F-
38
IX
F-
39
IX
F-
40
IX
F-
41
IX
F-
42
j-,
Chemical
Hexachloro-
e thane
Methylene
Chloride
Propylene
Bichloride
Tetrachloro-
e thane
1,1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroe thane
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tribrotno-
me thane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
P,C
I
B,L
R
L
R
R
Waste
Type
U
H
L
P
U
W
U
U
Influent
Char.
190 ppb
1000 ppm
100 ppb
179 ppb
Results of Study
Reported to be adsorbed.
73% removal with 51 ppb de-
tected in effluent after
8 . 5 min contact time .
92.9% reduction, 71 ppm fi-
nal cone., 0.183 g/g carbon
capacity.
100% removal? 70% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
with solvent.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
'
Comments
250,000 gal spilled
materials treated with
EPA. mobile treatment
trailer.
See IXF-32
for additional results.
See IXF-4
for additional comments
See IXF-44
for results.
(continue
Ref .
90
6
35
20
90
46
90
90
d)
CO
-------
TABLE c-l(continue<3)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
(IX)
a
No.
IX
F-
43
IX
F-
44
IX
F-
45
IX
F-
46
Chemical
Tribromo-
methane
1,1, 1-Tri-
chloroethane
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
1,1, 2-Tri
chloroethane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
L
R
R
Waste
Type d
P
S
S,M
W
U
U
Influent
Char.
Not re-
ported
551 ppb
Results of Study
Sorptive capacity (x/m)
at residual cone. (cf)
of 100 ppb was 28.7 mg/g
in pure compound studies,
10.8 in a mixture, and
1.53 in secondary
effluent.
Performance for treat-
ment of water containing
several halogens.
Virgin Regenerated
BV to
33ppb
com-
pound
leak-
age
Days 13.3 10.4
Gal 38,250 30.000
treat-
ed/cu
ft
sor-
bent
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Comments
Mixture of 6 halo-
carbons added to
secondary effluent.
Column studies 14mm
dia glass tubes,
height 4" (15 cu cm
adsorbent) Flow-2
gpm/cu ft (16 BV/hr)
Regenerated at 37 ]b
steam/cu ft @5 psig
Ref .
21
46
90
90
(continued)
•'"'•' - B
VD
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Halocarbons(F)
Chemical Classification:
a
No.
IX
F-
47
IX
F-
48
IX
F-
49
IX
F-
50
„. . ,b
Chemical
Ttichloro-
ethylene
(TCE)
Tr ichloro-
ethy lene
Trichloro-
f luoro-
methane
1, 2,3-Tri-
chloropro-
pane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
P,C
R
R
B,L
Waste
Type d
H
U
U
P
Influent
Char.
21 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
98.6% removal with
0.3 ppb detected in
effluent after 8.5 min
contact time.
Reported to be adsorbed.
Reported to be adsorbed.
100% reduction; 35% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation with solvent
Comments
250, 000. gal spilled
materials treated
with EPA mobile
treatment trailer.
See IXF-4
for additional
comments .
(continue
Ref .
6
90
90
20
d)
Ui
o
o
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
IX
G-
1
IX
G-
IX
G-
3
IX
G-
4
IX
G-
S
IX
G-
6
IX
G-
7
j-,
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium*^
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
F,C
F,C
P,C
F,C
F,C
L, I
Waste
Type d
M
M
M
R
M
M
P
Influent
Char.
1.1 ppb
1 . 8 ppb
32 ppb
31 ppb
2.5 ppb
1 . 8 ppb
0 . 029-ppjr
84 . Oppb
41 . Oppb
100 ppm
Results of Study
No reduction.
Increase to 2.4 ppb.
No reduction .
No reduction.
12% reduction; 2.2 ppb
effluent cone.
6% reduction; 1.7 ppb
effluent cone.
With virgin Piltrasorb
200 average removal was
19%; w/exhausted FS 200
average removal was 37%.
43% reduction; 48.0 ppb
effluent cone .
37% reduction; 26.0 ppb
effluent cone.
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 5
1,000 7.5
Comments
Carbon used as ad-
vanced treatment of
biologically & chem-
ically treated waste
water. Plant capaci-
ty 0.66 cu m/sec.
Data presented for
two time periods.
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
Study consisted of
8 tests of about 100
hr duration each.
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments.
Test chemical used
was Cr C13 with 24
hr carbon contact
time .
Ref .
64
64
64
82
64
64
72
(continued)
I
U)
o
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
(IX)
No.
IX
G-
7
cont
IX
G-
8
IX
G-
9
IX
G-
10
IX
G-
11
IX
G-
12
IX
G-
13
b
Chemical
Chromium+e>
Copper
Copper
Copper
Iron
Iron
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,I
F,C
F,C
L,I
F,C
F,C
Waste
Type d
P
M
M
P
M
M
Influent
Char.
100 ppm
88 ppb
49 ppb
100 ppm
207 ppb
40 ppb
Results of Study
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
5,000 17.5
10,000 47.5
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 16
1,000 26
5,000 34
10,000 36
69% reduction; 27 ppb
effluent cone.
35% reduction; 32 ppb
effluent cone .
Carbon Dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 8
1,000 10
5,000 73
10,000 96.4
68% reduction; 66 ppb
affluent cone.
Cone, increased to 45 ppb
in effluent.
Comments
24 hr contact time,
test chemical was
K2Cr20?
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
24 hr contact time,
test chemical was
Cu 804
See IXG-1
for comments.
See IXG-1
for comments .
Ref .
72
64
64
72
64
64
(continued)
G>
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
Nof
IX
G-
14
IX
G-
15
IX
G-
16
IX
G-
17
IX
G-
18
IX
G-
19
IX
G-
20
b
Chemical
Lead
Lead
Lead
Manganese
Manganese
Manganese
Mercury
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
F,C
L,I
F,C
F,C
L,I
F,C
Waste
Type d
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
Influent
Char.
22 ppb
4 . 7 ppb
100 ppm
6 . 2 ppb
2 . 3 ppb
100 ppb
3.6 ppb
Results of Study
Cone, increased to 26 ppb
Cone, increased to 5.3
ppb.
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 - 13
1,000 17.7
5,000 84.0
10,000 93.0
21% reduction? 4.9 ppb
effluent cone.
Cone, increased to 4.1
ppb.
Carbon dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 1
1,000 3
5,000 25
10,000 50
Cone, increased to 6.7
ppb.
Comments
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
Pb (NO3) 2
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-1
for comments .
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
was MnCl2 •
See IXG- 1
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
64
64
72
64
64
72
64
id)
OJ
o
-------
TABLE c-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
(IX)
a
No.
IX
G-
21
IX
G-
22
IX
G-
23
IX
G-
24
IX
G-
25
IX
G-
26
Chemical
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Nickel
S elenium
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F,C
L,I
U
R
L,I
R
Waste
Type d
M
P
U
U
P
U
Influent
Char.
1.2 ppb
100 ppm
10 ppb
100 ppm
500 ppm
Results of Study
Cone, increased to 4.9
Ppb.
Carbon Dose % Removal
(ppm)
0 0
500 99
1,000 99
5,000 99
10,000 99
80% reduction achieved
with carbon dose of 100
Mg/1. PAC + chelating
agent .
80% reduction by PAC &
Alum Coagulation.
Carbon dose % Removal
(pp m )
0 0
500 4
1,000 5
5,000 10.5
10,000 52
GAG treatment after Lime
ppt. yielded 96% reduc-
tion .
Comments
See IXG- l
for comments .
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
was Hg Cl2 •
Efficiency of reduc-
tion was dependent
on pH . Optimum pH
was 7.0. Tannic Ac-
id and Citric Acid
were ineffective as
chelating agents.
GAC reduction of Hg
enhanced by use of
chelating agent.
24 hr contact time,
test chemical used
was Ni Cl 2 •
Ref .
64
72
87
90
72
90
(continued)
i
co
o
*».
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
a
No.
IX
G-
27
IX
G-
28
IX
G-
29
b
Chemical
Thallium
Zinc
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
F,C
F,C
Waste
Type d
U
M
M
Influent
Char.
670 ppb
412 ppb
Results of Study
GAG treatment after Lime
ppt. yielded 84% reduc-
tion .
81% reduction; 124 p'pb
effluent cone.
61% reduction; 162 ppb
effluent cone.
Comments
See IXG-1
for comments .
See IXG-l
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
90
64
64
2d)
o
Ul
-------
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
TABLE C-l(continued)
Activated Carbon (IX)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (I)
Nof
IX
I-
1
IX
I-
2
IX
I-
3
IX
I-
4
IX
I-
5
IX
I-
6
IX
I-
7
IX
I-
8
IX
I-
9
IX
I-
10
Chemical
PCS ' s
(Unspecified)
PCS' s
(Unspecified]
PCB ' s
( Unspeci f i ed]
Arochlor
1242
Arochlor
1242
Arochlor
1242
Arochlor
1242
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,P
C,P
C,P
L,B,I
I
I
I
L,B,I
I
I
Waste
Type
H
H
H
P
P
S
I
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
19 ppb
400 ppb
@ 0.6 MG
treated
1.0 ppb
@ 12 MG
treated
45 ppb
45 ppb
45 ppb
45 ppb
49 ppb
160 ppb
ll.lSppb
and
37.5 ppb
Results of Study
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 60 min contact
time .
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 30-40 min con-
tact time.
Not detectable in efflu-
ent with 8.5 min contact
time .
<0.5 ppb final cone.
carbon capacity was
25 mg/g.
4.3 ir,g/g capacity for a
1.1 ppb final cone.
25 mg/g capacity for a
<0.5 ppb final cone.
25 mg/g capacity for a
<0.5 ppb final cone.
72 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final cone, of
<0.5 ppb
15.75 mg/g capacity for
98.5% reduction.
0.37 mg/g capacity for
99% reduction.
Comments
Treatment by EPA
trailer .
See IXI- l
for comments .
See IXI-1
for comments .
Pulverized FS-300
Pulverized FS-300
used.
Ref .
6
6
6
8
22
38
66
8 •
22
22
(continued)
i
o
01
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (I)
Nof
IX
I-
11
IX
I-
12
IX
I-
13
IX
I-
14
IX
I-
15
IX
I-
16
Chemical
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Arochlor
1254
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,L
F,C
I
I
I
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
S
I
P
Influent
Char.
0.25 ppb
at 100ml
per hr
50 ppb
49 ppb
49 ppb
pH=7.0
49 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
<0.05 ppb final cone.
for 240 BV.
<1.0 ppb final effluent
at 0.006 Ib/lb capacity.
1.0 mg/g capacity for
1.2 ppb effluent.
7.2 mg/g capacity for
final cone, of 0.5 ppb.
See IXI-13 results
94.4% average reduction;
14% desorbed from carbon
by elutriation w/solvent
Comments
Experiment lasted
5 days .
Cost estimate for
full scale columns
are $0.65/100 gal
at 0.25 Mgd.
FS-300 used.
Solvents included
pentane-acetone , di
ethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-ace-
tone , chloroform-
acetone, acetone.
(continue
Ref .
22
22
22
38
66
20
sd)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
Activated Carbon (IX)
: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
IX
J-
1
IX
J-
2
IX
J-
3
IX
J""
4
IX
J-
5
IX
J-
6
IX
J-
7
IX
J-
8
IX
J-
9
IX
J5
Chemical
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
2,4-D butyl
ester
Chlordane
Chlordane
ODD
ODD
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
I
L,B,I
C,P
C,P
L,B
C,P
C,P
I
I
Waste
Type
P
S
P
H
H
P
H
H
S
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
48 ppb
48 ppb
8 . 5 ppb
0 0.1 MG
treated
60.5 ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated.
100 ppb
13 ppb
@ 1.0 MG
treated
1430 ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated
56 ppb
pH = 7.0
56 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 2% desorbed
by elutriation with solvent.
30 mg/g of carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
<1.0 ppb.
30 mg/g of carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
<1.0 ppb.
98% reduction w/17 min
contact time.
99.8% reduction w/240 min
contact time .
100% reduction; 10% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
97.3 reduction; w/17 min
contact time .
99.99% reduction; w/240 min
contact time .
130 mg/g carbon capacity for
a final cone, of 0.1 ppb.
See IXJ-9 results.
Comments
Calgon FS-300 used.
pH = 7.0
Pulverized FS-300
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
See IXJ-4
for comments.
Calgon FS-300 used.
See IXJ-4
for comments .
See IXJ-4
for comments.
Pulverized FS-300 used.
(continue
Ref .
20
38
8
6
6
20
6
6
38
8
d)
LJ
O
00
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
No.
IX
J-
11
IX
J —
12
IX
tj —
13
IX
J-
14
IX
J-
15
IX
J-
16
IX
J-
17
IX
J-
18
IX
J-
19
IX
J-
20
Chemical
ODD
DDE
DDE
DDE
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
Dieldrin
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
I
I
I
I
L,B,I
C,L,R
B ,L
I
I
Waste
Type d
I
I
P
S
S
P
P»R
P
I
S
Influent
Char.
56 ppb
?H=7.0
38 ppb
ph=7.0
38 ppb
38 ppb
pH=7 . 0
41 ppb
?H = 7
41 ppb
10 ppb
100 ppb
41 ppb
?H = 7
19 ppb
Results of Study
See IXJ-9 results.
9.4 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
< 1 . 0 ppb .
See IXJ-12 results.
See IXJ-12 results.
11 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final cone.
of 0.1 ppb
11 mg/g of carbon capac-
ity for a final cone, of
0.15 ppb.
Greater than 99% reduc-
tion achieved.
100% reduction; 51% de-
so rbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
See IXJ- 15 results.
15 mg/g carbon capacity
for a final cone, of
0.05 ppb.
Comments
Pulverized FS-300
used .
Pulverized FS-300
Cumulative removal
following prechlo-
rination and coagu-
lation-filtration
Calgon FS-300
(continue
Ref .
66
66
8
38
38
8
6
20
66
38
d)
i
CO
o
-------
TABLE C-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
IX
J-
21
IX
J-
22
IX
J-
23
IX
J —
24
IX
J-
25
IX
J-
26
IX
J-
27
IX
J-
28
IX
J™
29
Chemical
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin
Endrin
Description of Study
Study
Typec
L,B,I
C,P
C,P
B g L f R
C,L,R
I
I
L,B,I
B,L,R
Waste
Type d
P
H
H
P,R
P,R
I
I
P
P, R
Influent
Char.
19 ppb
11 ppb
@ 0.1MG
treated
60.5ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated .
10 ppb
10 ppb
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
IX
J-
30
IX
J-
31
IX
J-
32
IX
J-
33
IX
J-
34
IX
J-
35
IX
J-
36
IX
J-
37
Chemical
Endrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Herbicides
(unspecified)
Herbicides
(unspecified)
Kepone
Lindane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,L,R
I
C,P
C,P
R
R
C,P
B,L,R
Waste
Type d
P,R
S
H
H
U
U
H
P,R
Influent
Char.
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
62 ppb
pH = 7.0
6.1 ppb
@ 0.1 MG
treated
80 ppb
@ 3000
gal
treated
10,000
ppm TOG
@ 0.02
MGD
1500 ppm
TOC @
0.02 MGD
4000 ppb
@ 0.225MG
treated
10 ppb
Results of Study
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
See IXJ-27 results.
99% reduction w/17 min
contact time.
99.9% reduction w/240 min
contact time .
99% TOC reduction achieved
w/412 min contact time.
90% TOC reduction achieved
w/412 min contact time.
No detectable levels in
effluent w/45 min contact
time .
Carbon Cone . % Removal
5 mg/1 30
10 mg/1 55
20 mg/1 80
Comments
See IXJ-24
for comments.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
Pretreatment included
pH adjustment.
Pretreatment included
settling and filtration
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
6
38
6
6
38
38
6
6
d)
-------
Concentration Process:
Chemical Classification
TABLE C-l(continued)
Activated Carbon (IX)
Pesticides (J)
No.
IX
J-
38
IX
J| —
39
IX
J-
40
IX
J-
41
IX
J-
42
IX
J-
43
IX
3 ~~
44
IX
J-
45
b
Chemical
Lindane
Parathion
Parathion
2,4,5-T ester
2,4,5-T ester
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,L,R
B,L,R
C,L,R
B,L,R
C,L,R
C,P
L,B,I
I
Waste
Type d
P,R
P,R
P,R
P,R
P,R
P
P
S
Influent
Char.
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
10 ppb
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
36 ppb @
0.25 MG
treated
155 ppb
155 ppb
Results of Study
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
Carbon Cone . % Removal
5 mg/1 >99
10 mg/1 >99
20 mg/1 >99
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved.
Carbon Cone. % Removal
5 mg/1 80
10 mg/1 90
20 mg/1 95
Greater than 99% reduction
achieved .
97% reduction w/26 min
contact time .
42 mg/g carbon capacity for
a final cone, of <1.0 ppb.
See IXJ-44 results.
Comments
See IXJ-24
for comments .
See IXJ-24
for comments .
See IXJ-24
for comments.
See IXJ-24
for comments.
See IXJ-24
for comments .
Treated by EPA mobile
trailer.
Pulverized FS-300.
(continue
Ref .
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
38
d)
I
UJ
H
KS
-------
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Phenols(K)
(IX)
Chemical Classification:
Nof
IX
K-
1
IX
K-
2
IX
K-
3
IX
K-
4
IX
K-
5
IX
K-
6
IX
K-
7
Chemical
Butyl Phenol
4-Chloro-
3-Methyl-
phenol
Cresol
2, 3-Dichloro
phenol
Dimethyl-
phenol
3 , 5-Dimethyl
phenol
2 , 4-Dinitro-
phenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,P
B,L
C,P
B,L
C,P
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
H
P
H
P
H
P
P
Influent
Char.
300 ppb
100 ppb
230 ppb
100 ppb
L220 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
95% reduction w/8.5 min
contact time .
100% reduction? 10% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
96.5% reduction w/8.5
min contact time.
100% reduction; 14% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
99.6% reduction w/8.5
min contact time.
100% reduction; 5% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
For pH=3.0:
Carbon capacity=405mg/g
K =168
1/n =0.38
r =0.99
Comments
250,000 gal spill
treated by EPA mo-
bile treatement
trailer .
Calgon FS-300 used.
Solvents included
pentane-acetone, di-
ethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-
acetone and acetone.
250,000 gal spill
treated by EPA
mobile treatment
trailer .
See IXK-2
for comments.
See IXK-3
for comments .
See IXK-2
for comments.
(continue
Ref .
6
20
6
20
6
20
21
d)
10
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon
Chemical Classification: Phenols(K)
(IX)
a
No.
IX
K-
7
cont
IX
K-
8
IX
K-
9
b
Chemical
Nonylphenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
I
I
Waste
Type d
P
P
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
For pH=7.0:
Carbon capacity=160mg/g
K =18
1/n =0.95
r =0.94
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=75 mg/g
K =41
1/n =0.25
r =0.87
For pH=3.0:
Carbon capacity=570mg/g
K =55
1/n =1.03
r =0.97
For pH=7.0:
Carbon capacity=595mg/g
K =254
1/n =0.37
r =0.98
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=275mg/g
K =148
1/n =0.27
r =0.98
For pH=3.0:
Carbon capacity=635mg/g
K =260
1/n =0.4
r =0.98
Comments
Ref .
21
21
(continued)
i
OJ
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
IX
K-
9
ront
IX
K-
10
IX
K-
11
IX
K-
12
b
Chemical
Pentachloro-
phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
C,P
B,L
I
Waste
Type d
H
P
P
Influent
Char.
10 ppm
100 ppb
Results of Study
For pH=7.0:
Carbon capacity=385mg/g
K =145
1/n =0.42
r =0.98
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=260mg/g
K =100
1/n =0.41
r =0.98
Not detectable in efflu-
ent after 26 min contact
time .
100% reduction; 6% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
For pH=3.0:
Carbon capacity=85 mg/g
K =12
1/n =0.38
r =0.92
For pH=7.0:
Carbon capacity=80 mg/g
K =13
1/n =0.77
r =0.91
For pH=9.0:
Carbon capacity=70 mg/g
K =22
Comments
215,000 gal treated
by EPA mobile treat-
ment trailer.
See IXK-2
for comments .
Ref .
6
20
21
(continued)
I
OJ
H
-------
TABLEC-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated CArbon
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
(IX)
No.
IX
K-
12
cont
IX
K-
13
IX
K-
14
IX
K-
15
IX
K-
16
IX
K-
17
IX
K-
18
IX
K-
19
IX
K-
20
_,. . . b
Chemical
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Description of Study
Study
Type0
I
C,P
L,I
I
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
P
H
P
S
U
u
U
u
Influent
Char.
1 . 0 ppm
140 ppb
100 ppm
500 ppm
1000 p.pm
LOGO ppm
200 ppm
@ 0.05
MGD
600 ppm
a 0.2MGD
800 ppm
30. 15MGD
L200 ppm
30.15MGD
Results of Study
1/n =0.49
r =0.94
Adsorption capacity
21 mg/g
100% reduction w/8 . 5 min
contact time .
99% reduc tion
99% reduction
99% reduction
80% reduction; 194 ppm
final cone., 161 mg/g
carbon capacity.
Effluent cone, of 0.01
ppm achievable at con-
tact time of 165 min.
Effluent cone, of lOOppm
achievable at contact
time of 41 min.
Effluent con. of O.OSppm
achievable at contact
time of 24 min.
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achievable at contact
time of 55 min.
Comments
See IXK- 3
for comments .
24 hr contact time
time w/carbon dose
of lOx phenol cone.
Settling, equaliza-
tion & mixed media
filtration used as
pretreatment .
Equalization used
as pretreatment.
Biological & mixed
media filtration
used as pretreatmert
Sand filtration S
settling used as
pretreatment .
(continue
Ref .
21
6
72
35
38
38
38
38
d)
U)
H
cr>
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
Nof
IX
K-
21
IX
K-
22
IX
K-
23
IX
K-
24
IX
K-
25
IX
K-
26
Chemical
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Res orcinol
2, 4,6-Tri-
chlorophenol
Trimethy 1-
phenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
B, L
B,L
B,L
C,P
Waste
Type d
U
U
P
P
P
H
Influent
Char.
80 ppm
0. 3MGD
000 ppm
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
130 ppb
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achievable at contact
time of 33 min.
80.6% reduction achieved
100% reduction; 6% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
100% reduction; 0% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
100% reduction; 0% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
92% reduction w/8.5 min
contact time .
Comments
Biological, set-
tling & multi media
filtration used as
pretreatment .
500 mg/1 carbon
dose used.
See IXK- 2
for comments .
See IXK- 2
for comments .
See IXK- 2
for comments .
See IXK- 3
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
38
90
20
20
20
6
sd>
LO
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
Nof
IX
L-
1
IX
L-
2
IX
L-
3
IX
L-
4
Chemical
Bis(2-ethyl-
fcsexyl) Phthalate
Bis(2-Ethyl-
hexyDPhthalate
Dibutyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B
R
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
I
U
P
P
Influent
Char.
1300 ppb
@
1 . Ogpm/f t
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
Final cone, of <22 ppb achiev
able at 90 min EBCT.
Reduction by flocculation
w/Al 2 (SO*) ^improved w/granu-
lar activated carbon pre-
treatment.
100% reduction? 38% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction? 13% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Comments
TOC cone, of influent
was 15000 ppm; estimated
cost excluding pretreat-
ment was $27.00/1000 gal
Calgon FS-300 used. Sol-
vents included pentane-
acetone, diethyl ether,
methylene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-ace-
tone and acetone .
See IXL- 3
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
5
90
20
20
d)
U)
H
oo
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification:
a
No.
IX
M-
IX
M-
2
IX
M-
3
IX
M-
4
IX
M-
5
IX
M-
6
b
Chemical
Biphenyl
Cumene
Dimethyl-
Naphthalene
1 , 1-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
Fluoranthrene
Napthalene
Description of Study
Study
Type
B,L
B,L
B,L
I
B,L
I
Waste
j
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
pH=7 . 5
100 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 2% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 8% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
80% reduction; 11% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 94.8 0.279
Filtrasorb 149.0 0.232
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce 1.0 mg/1 to O.lmg/L
Darco - 18.0
Filtrasorb - 10.0
80% reduction; 5% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Isotherm kinetics were as
follows:
Carbon K 1/n
Darco 62,8 0.30
Filtrasorb 1.69 0.56
Comments
Calgon FS-300 used. Sol-
vents included pentane-
acetone, diethyl ether,
methylene chloride-ace-
tone, chloroform-acetone
and acetone .
See IXM-1
for comments .
See IXM-i
for comments .
See IXM- i
for comments.
Ref .
20
20
20
31
20
31
(continued)
i
OJ
H
VD
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Activated Carbon (IX)
Chemical Classification: PolynuclearAromatics (M)
No.
IX
M-
6
:ont
IX
M-
7
IX
M-
8
IX
M-
9
Chemical
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
F?C
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
M
P
P
Influent
Char.
Cone.
not re-
ported
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
Carbon dose (mg/1) required
to reduce l.Omg/1 to O.lmg/ib
Darco - 29.0
Filtrasorb - 19.0
70% reduction achieved in
carbon treatment phase.
80% reduction; 6% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/ solvent.
80% reduction; 5% desorbed
from carbon by elutriation
w/solvent.
Comments
Carbon used as advanced
treatment of biological-
ly s chemically treated
wastewater. Plant ca-
pacity 0.66 M3/sec.
See IXM- i
for comments.
See IXM- l
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
64
20
20
d)
to
o
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
a
No.
XA-
i
XA-
2
XA-
3
XA-
4
XA-
5
XA-
6
Chemical
Butanol
Cyclohexanol
Decanol
2-Ethyl-l-
Hexanol
m-Heptanol
Octanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
r-l
Type a
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 yug/1
Results of Study
Complete removal. 38% de-
sorption of butanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal. 81% de-
sorption of cyclohexanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal. 89% de-
sorption of decanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal. 100% de-
sorption of 2-Ethyl-l-Hexa-
nol by elutriation with sol-
vent was achieved.
Complete removal. 100% de-
sorption of n-Heptanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal. Greater
than 100% desorption of
Octanol by elutriation with
solvent was reported.
Comments
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2 . Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides . Carbon
was more efficient for
alkanes; neither effec-
tive for acidic com-
pounds .
See XA- i
for additional results.
See XA-1
for additional results.
See XA-1
for additional results.
See XA-1
for additional results.
See XA-i
for additional results.
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
(continued)
i
OJ
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Alcohols (A)
Nof
XA-
7
XA-
8
Chemical
Pentanol
Propanol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
Influent
Char.
] 00 /ig/1
100 /ig/1
Results of Study
Complete removal. 67% de-
sorption of pentanol by
elutriation with solvent
was achieved.
Complete removal . Propanol
could not be desorbed by
elutriation with solvent.
Comments
See XA~i
for additional results.
See XA-1
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
,d)
to
to
-------
10
to
U)
TABLE c-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aliphatics (B)
Nof
XB-
1
XB-
2
XB-
3
XB-
4
XB-
5
XB-
6
XB-
7
XB-
8
Chemical
Butyric Acid
Caproic Acid
Decanoic Acid
Dodecane •
Heptahoic Acid
Hexadecane
Laurie Acid
Methyl
Decanoate
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 Aig/1
100 /ug/1
100 yug/3
100 ,/ug/3
100 ,ug/l
100 ,ug/l
100 ,ug/l
loo Aig/i
Results of Study
100% reduction; no desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
50% reduction; 6% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
25% reduction; No desorptior
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
50% reduction; 4% desorptior
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
25% reduction; No desorptior
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 50% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Comments
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2 . Resin found, to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides; carbon
more efficient for
alkanes; neither effec-
tive for acidic com-
pounds .
See XB-1
for additional results .
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-l
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-i
for additional results.
See XB-i
for additional results.
See XB-i
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
rH
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classifications Aliphatics (B)
Nof
XB-
9
XB-
10
XB-
11
XB-
12
XB-
13
XB-
14
XB-
15
XB-
16
XB-
17
XB-
18
Chemical
Methyl
Dodecanoate
Methyl Hexa-
decanoate
Methyl Octa-
decanoate
Myristic Acid
Octadecane
Octanoic Acid
Propionic Acid
Pyruvic Acid
Tetradecane
Valeric Acid
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
100 Aig/1
100 Aiq/1
100 Aig/1
100 Aig/1
100 ,/ug/l
100 /ag/1
100 /ug/1
100 xag/1
100 Aig/1
Results of Study
100% reduction; 72% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 67% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 54% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
25% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
90% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
50% reduction; 23% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
50% reduction; 2% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Comments
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results.
See XB-1
for additional results .
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
(continued)
i
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
XC-
1
xc-
2
xc-
3
xc-
4
xc-
5
xc-
6
XC
7
]-,
Chemical
Aniline
Butylamine
Cyclohexyl-
amine
Dibutylamine
Dihexylamine
Dimethylamine
Hexylamine
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
100 xug/1
100 Atg/1
100 Aig/1
100 Aig/1
100 /ug/1
100 Aig/1
Results of Study
Complete removal; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Complete removal; 74% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Complete removal; 94% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Complete removal; 62% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Complete removal; 11% desorp
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% removal; 50% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent .
100% removal; 110% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Comments
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2 . Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides; carbon
was more efficient for
alkanes; neither effec-
tive for acidic com-
pounds .
See XC-i
for additional results.
See XC-i
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-i
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results
See XC-i
for additional results
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
5d)
CO
M
cn
-------
TABLE C-1 (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Amines (C)
Nof
xc-
8
XC-
9
XC-
10
XC-
11
XC-
12
Chemical
Morpholine
Octylamine
Piperidine
Pyrrole
Tributylamine
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
100 ,ug/l
100 /ug/1
100 /ug/1
Results of Study
100% removal; 28% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 15% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 42% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 5% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 108% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
Comments
See XC-i
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
See XC-l
for additional results.
(continue
.
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
d)
to
CTi
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aroraatics (D)
a
No.
XD-
1
XD-
2
XD-
3
XD-
XD-
5
XD-
6
j-,
Chemical
Acetophenone
Benzaldehyde
Benzil
Benzoic Acid
Benzene,
Toluene,
Xylene (BTX)
Cumene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
P
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
I
P
Influent
Char.
100 ^g/1
100 ;ig/l
100 pq/l
100 jig/l
20 to
300 ppm
100 tag/1
/
Results of Study
100% reduction; 80% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 79% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; 63% desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
100% reduction; No desorp-
tion from resin by elutria-
tion with solvent.
Effluent (leakage) is 0.2ppm
100% removal; 63% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
Comments
Resin was Amberlite
XAD-2. Resin found to
be more effective than
carbon for phthalate
esters, most aromatics,
and pesticides; carbon
more efficient for al-
kanes; neither effective
for acid compounds.
See XD-1
for additional results.
See XD-1
for additional results.
See XD-1
for additional results.
Costs estimated to be
$3.36/1000 gal. at
250 gpm and 300 ppm BTX.
Resin regenerant is
steam. Recovery of BTX
reduces costs to $1.09/
1000 gal.
See XD-1
for additional results.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
32
20
•d)
CO
w
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
Nof
XD-
7
XD-
8
XD-
9
XD-
10
XD-
11
XD-
12
Chemical
m-Dichloro-
benzene
o-Dichloro-
benzene
p-Dichloro-
oenzene
1,2, 4-Trichloro
Denzene
2,4, 6-Trinitro-
toluene (TNT)
2,4, 6-Tr initro-
toluene (TNT)
and other muni-
zions plant
wastewaters :
Cyclonite(RDX) ,
tfitramine
(Tetryl) and
:yclotetrameth-
i'lene tetrani-
;ramine (HMX) .
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
P,C
R
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
I
I
Influent
Char.
100 jig/1
100 jig/1
100 jig/1
100 jig/1
81 to
116 ppm
Not
reported
Results of Study
100% removal; 52% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 61% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal; 35% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
100% removal? 67% desorption
from resin by elutriation
with solvent.
Resin adsorption capacity was
0.116 to 0.154 gm/gm at 1 ppm
areakthrough . No loss in
capacity after 15 regenera-
tion cycles. 1 ppm break-
through occurred after 633
to 1193 B.V.
Adsorption capacities (Lb/Lb
Amberlite XAD-4 resin) :
Contami- Break- Satura-
nant through tion
TNT 0.020 0.050
RDX 0.236 0.382
RDX & 0.003 0.019
TETRYL 0.001 0.006
TNT S 0.116 0.278
RDX 0.020 0.030
TNT & 0.179
HMX 0.002
Comments
See XD-i
for additional results.
See XD-l
for additional results.
See XD-i
for additional results.
See XD-l
for additional results.
Amberlite XAD-4 used;
acetone regenerant. Less
costly than carbon due
to regenerability.
For 80 gpm facility
costs estimated to be
$5.08/1000 gal.
(continue
i
Ref .
20
20
20
20
2
40
d)
UJ
KJ
00
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Aromatics (D)
No?
XD-
12
:ont.
Chemical
-
Description of Study
Study
Type0
Waste
Type d
Influent
Char.
Results of Study
(Note: breakthrough cone, not
defined. )
Typical cone, of contaminants
Ln wastewaters:
TNT - 0-400 ppm
RDX - 50-100 ppm
pH - 3.5-7.0
Flow - 0.02-1.0 MGD
Temp - 60-160°F
Comments
(continue
Ref .
>d)
to
to
VD
-------
TABLE C-Kcontinued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
XF-
1
XF-
2
XF-
3
XF-
4
XF-
5
XF-
6
b
Chemical
Broraof orm
Bromof orm
Bromodichlo-
me thane
Carbon
Tetrachlo-
ride
Chloroform
Chloroform
Description of Study
Study
f*
Type0
L
B,L
L
P
P
L
Waste
j
Type a
W
P
W
I
I
W
Influent
Char.
0.2 ppb
100 ppb
100 to
7000 ppm
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
100 to
7000 pprr
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
1.1 ppb
Results of Study
100% removal; 28% de-
sorption from resin by
elutriation w/solvent.
At 2 ppm, equilibria m
capacity was 48 mg/g.
Effluent of
-------
TABLE C-Xcontinued)
Concentration Process: Re sin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
Nof
XF-
7
XF-
8
XF-
9
XF-
10
XF-
11
XF-
12
XF-
13
XF-
14
XF-
15
XF-
16
Chemical
Dibromochlo-
romethane
1 ,1-Dichlo-
roethane
1 , 2-Dichlo-
roethane
1 , 2-Dichlo-
roethylene
Ethylene
Dichloride
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
ethane
Tetrachloro-
ethane
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
Description of Study
Study
Type0
L
L
L
L
P
B,L
B,L
B,L
L
L
Waste
Type d
W
W
W
W
I
P
P
P
W
W
Influent
Char.
3 . 9 ppb
2 . 3 ppb
2 . 1 ppb
0.2 ppb
100 to
7000
ppm
chlori-
nated
hydro-
carbons
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
179 ppb
551 ppb
Results of Study
Effluent of
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Halocarbons (F)
a
No.
XF-
16
conl
XF-
17
b
Chemical
1,2, 3-Tri-
chloropro-
pane
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
Results of Study
Virgin Regenerated
^ t0, 9000 8500
33 ppb
com-
pound
leakage
Days 23.4 22.1
Gal
treated/
cu ft 67500 63750
sorbent
Complete removal w/com-
plete desorption by
elutriation w/solvent.
Comments
Flow-2 gpm/cu ft
(16 BV/hr) Regener-
ated at 37 Ib steam/
cu ft @ 5 psig
See XF-2
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
20
,d)
to
OJ
to
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (I)
Nof
XI-
1
XI-
2
XI-
3
Chemical
Arochlor 1254
Arochlor 1254
Arochlor 1254
S 1260
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
C,L
C
Waste
Type d
P
P
M
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
0-25 ppb
lOOml/hr
1-25 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 76.6% de-
sorbed from carbon by
elutriation w/solvent.
Final effluent cone, was
0-0.25 ppb for 192 B.V.
60% reduction wAmberlite
XAD-4. 23% ± 2% reduction
w/Amberlite XAD-2..
Comments
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone S acetone.
5 day study.
In continuous flow
system reduction de-
creased greatly w/time.
(continue
Ref .
20
22
57
Jd)
to
w
to
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
a
No.
XJ-
1
XJ-
2
XJ-
3
XJ-
4
XJ-
5
b
Chemical
Aldrin
Atrazine
Chlorinated
Pesticides
(Unspecified)
2,4-D Butyl
ester
2,4-D and re-
lated herbi-
cides
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L '
L
B,L
U
Waste
Type d
P
P
I
P
I
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
100 ppb
33 to
118 ppm
100 ppb
20-1500
ppm @70-
80 gpm
Results of Study
\
100% reduction; 39% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 38% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Column studies indicatd that
Amberlite XAD-4 could pro-
cess about four times more
throughput before experienc-
ing some leakage as carbon
column. Leakages of <1 ppm
maintained at longer than
120 BV. Resirt could be ef-
fectively regenerated w/2 BV
of isopropanol whereas even
8 BV did not effectively
generate carbon.
100% reduction; 10% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Effluent cone, reduced to
<1.0 ppm.
Comments
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone and acetone
See XJ- i
for comments .
Solvents ranking in
terms of decreasing ef-
fectiveness were acetone
isopropanol, and metha-
nol; however, acetone
is very flammable. Col-
umn study conditions:
50-150 BV passed, 4 BV/hr
flow, 12.5-125 hr dura-
tion. Costs estimated
to be $0.83 for resin
sorption and $1.33/1000
gal for carbon.
See XJ- 1
for comments .
Amberlite XAD-4 resin
used.
(continue
Ref .
20
20
49
20
20
d)
U>
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Pesticides (J)
Nof
XJ-
6
XJ-
7
XJ-
8
Chemical
DDT
Endrin and
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
F
U
Waste
Type d
P
I
I
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
0.1-2.0
ppm
@ 100 gpm
70-2600
ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 49% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Effluent cone, reduced to
<3.0 ppb.
Effluent cone, reduced to
0.1-4.2 ppb.
Comments
See XJ-i
for comments .
Amber lite XAD-4 used.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
(continue
Ref .
20
32
32
d)
i
u>
OJ
in
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
XK-
1
XK-
2
XK-
3
XK-
4
XK-
5
XK-
6
_ . . b
Chemical
Bisphenol-A
Bisphenol-A
Brine Phenol
Brine Phenol
4-Chloro-3-
methylphenol
m-Chlorophenol
w/13% NaCl
Description of Study
Study
Type0
C,L
C,L
U
u
B,L
U
Waste
Type d
I
I
I
I
P
I
Influent
Char.
900 ppm
2 BV/hr
280 ppm
2 BV/ r
20% brine
w/10-150
ppm
phenol
10% brine
w/10-400
ppm
phenol
100 ppb
350 ppm
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
Results of Study
At pH 11.4, poor adsorption
achieved on either XAD-4 or
XAD-7. At pH 10.0, XAD-4
treated 33.5 B.V.'s to SOppm
breakthrough. XAD-7 treated
16 B.V. to 50 ppm break-
through.
At pH 6.9, XAD-4 capacity
was 34 g/1 and XAD-7 capa-
city was 16 g/1.
Effluent cone, reduced to
<0 . 5 ppm .
Effluent cone, reduced to
<2.0 ppm phenols using cross
linked polystyrene macrore-
ticular resin.
100% reduction; 70% de-
sorbed from resin by
elutriation w/solvent.
At zero leakage sorption
capacity was 0.07 Ib/lb.
Comments
95% regeneration
achieved w/1 B.V. of
4% NaOH S. 4 B.V.
deionized water.
See XK-1
for comments.
Wastewater of brine
purification process
5 B.V. of 4% NaOH re-
quired for regeneration
Wastewater from a
phenoxy acid pesticide
manufacturer.
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included
pentane-acetone ,
diethyl ether, methy-
lene chloride-acetone ,
chloroform-acetone and
acetone.
15 min contact time
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
(continue
Ref .
23
23
33
33
20
66
d)
to
co
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Phenols (K)
a
No.
XK-
7
XK-
8
XK-
9
XK-
10
XK-
11
XK-
12
XK-
13
XK-
14
b
Chemical
2,4-Dibromo-
phenol
Dichlorophenol
2,3-Dichloro-
phenol
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
3-Napthol
p-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol
Pentachloro-
phenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
U
B,L
U
B,L
C,L
U
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
I
P
I
P
I
I
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
1500 ppm
w/15%
brine,
pH = 2-3
100 ppb
430 ppm
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
100 ppb
700-1300
Ppm
@ 50 C
1000-
1800 ppm
@ pH=2.0
100 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 44% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Resin capacity was 5.6 Ib
phenols/ft3 @ 5 ppm break-
through .
100% reduction; 54% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
At zero leakage sorption
capacity was 0,116 Ib/lb.
100% reduction; 76% desorbed
by elutriation w/solvent.
Effluent cone, reduced to
5.0-6.0 ppm for 32 B.V.
Resin capacity was about
40 g/1. Efficient ethanol
regeneration.
Effluent cone, reduced to
1-5 ppm by cross-linked
polystyrene adsorbent resin.
100% reduction; 60% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Comments
See XK-5
for comments.
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
2% caustic soda heated
to 80°-85°C used as
regenerant.
See XK-5
for comments.
15 min contact time.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
See XK-5
for comments .
Amberlite XAD-7 used.
20 ml columns used
w/experimental runs of
up to 40 B.V.
Effluent from parathion
manufacturer. 4% aque-
ous caustic soda (2B.V.
followed by water rinse
used as regnerant.
See XK-5
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
20
33
20
66
20
23
33
20
sd)
u>
U)
-J
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: phenols (K)
a
No.
XK-
15
XK-
16
XK-
17
XK-
18
XK-
19
XK-
20
Chemical
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Regorcinol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
2,4,6-Trichlo-
rophenol
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C,L
U
U
B,L
B,L
U
Waste
Type d
P
I
I
P
P
I
Influent
Char.
6700 ppm
500-1500
ppm
5000 ppm
100 ppb
100 ppb
510 ppm
@ 0.5
gpm/ft3
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of <1.0 ppm
achieved.
Effluent cone, of 1.0~3.0ppm
achieved.
Effluent cone, reduced to
<25 ppm.
100% reduction? 35% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 60% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
At aero leakage sorption
capacity was 0.272 Ib/lb.
•
Comments
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
Acetone & methanol used
as regenerants.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
Wastewater from Bisphe-
nol A manufacturer con-
taining 0.5-1.5% phenol,
0.5-1.0% NaCl, 100-1000
ppm acetone @ pH=0.2-
1.5. Acetone & metha-
nol used as regenerant.
Wastewater from phenolic
resin manufacturer.
Warm 44% formaldehyde
used as regenerant.
See XK-5
for comments.
See XK-5
for comments.
15 min contact time.
Amberlite XAD-4 used.
(continue
Ref .
23
33
33
20
20
66
d)
CO
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Phthalates (L)
a
No.
XL-
1
XL-
2
XL-
3
b
Chemical
Dibutyl
Phthalate
Diethylhexyl
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Phthalate
Description of Study
Study
Type0
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 108% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
100% reduction; 76% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 62% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent .
Comments
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl-
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone & acetone .
See XL-i
for comments.
See XL-1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
d)
(jj
U3
-------
TABLE c-1(continued)
Concentration Process: Resin Adsorption (X)
Chemical Classification: Polynuclear Aromatics (M)
No.
XM-
1
XM-
2
XM-
3
XM-
4
XM-
5
XM-
6
XM
7
b
Chemical
Acenapththa-
lene
Biphenyl
Cumene
Dime thy 1-
naphthalene
Fluoranthrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Description of Study
Study
Typec
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
B,L
Waste
Type d
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Influent
Char.
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
100 ppb
Results of Study
100% reduction; 78% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 73% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 63% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 90% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 66% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 41% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
100% reduction; 63% desorbed
from resin by elutriation
w/solvent.
Comments
Amberlite XAD-2 used.
Solvents included pen-
tane-acetone, diethyl
ether, methylene chlo-
ride-acetone, chloro-
form-acetone s acetone.
See XM- 1
for comments.
See XM- 1
for comments .
See XM-1
for comments .
See XM-1
for comments .
See XM-i
for comments .
See XM-1
for comments .
(continue
Ref .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
d)
U)
*.
o
-------
TABLE (continued)
Concentration Process: Miscellaneous Sorbents (XII)
Chemical Classification: Metals (G)
No.
KII
XII
G-
2
KII
G-
3
KII
G-
4
G-
5
KII
G-
6
KII
G-
7
KII
f1 —
8
KII
G-
9
b
Chemical
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Lead
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Description of Study
Study
Typec
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Waste
Type d
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Influent
Char.
25 ppm
25 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
25 ppm
25 ppm
25 ppm
10 ppm
Results of Study
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achieved .
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achieved .
100% removal.
100% removal .
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achieved .
Residual of <5.0 mg/1
achieved .
Effluent cone, of 1 . Oppm
achieved .
Final cone, of 10 ppb
achieved .
Final cone, reduced to
0.1 ppb.
Comments
Silicon alloy used.
Silicon alloy used.
High clay soil used
High clay soil used.
Silicon alloy used.
Ground redwood bark
used .
Silicon alloy used.
Silicon alloy used.
Si02 & CaO slags
used .
(continue
Ref .
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
!d)
U)
-------
TABLE C-l(continued)
Concentration Process: Miscellaneous Sorbents (XII)
Chemical Classification: Polyihlorinated Biphenyls (I)
a
No.
XII
I-
1
b
Chemical
Arochlor 1254
& 1260
Description of Study
Study
Typec
C
Waste
Type d
M
Influent
Char.
1-25 ppb
Results of Study
73% reduction in raw sewage
w/PVC chips. Polyurethane
foam adsorbed 35% ± 3%.
Comments
In continuous flow
system reduction de-
creased greatly w/time.
Ref .
57
U)
Footnotes;
a. Three part code number assigned to each individual chemical compound. First
part is a Roman numeral which corresponds to the concentration process code
number. Second part is a capital letter corresponding to the chemical class-
ification code number.. Third part is unique number for each individual
compound. •.
b. Chemicals are presented in alphabetical order generally according to The Merck
Index preferred or generic name. However, it is recommended to check for a
compound under several potential names.
Co Describes the scale of the referenced study:
B - Batch Flow
C - Continuous Glow
F - Full Scale
I - Isotherm Test
L - Laboratory Scale
N - Flow Not Controlled
0
P
R
S
U
Respirometer Study
Pilot Scale
Literature Review
Slug Dose Chemical Addition
Unknown
(continued)
i
-------
Footnotes (continued):
d. Describes the type of wastewater used in the referenced study:
D - Domestic wastewater
H - Hazardous material spill
I - Industrial wastewater
P - Pure Compound (one solute in a solvent)
R - River water
S - Synthetic wastewater
U - Unknown
W - Well water
U)
£»
UO
------- |