United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and
Development
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response
EPA/540/S-95/503
July 1995
&EPA Ground Water Issue
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids Compatibility
with Materials Used in Well Construction,
Sampling, and Remediation
Douglas R. McCaulou(1), David G. Jewett(2), and Scott G. Huling
(3)
Background
The EPA Regional Ground Water Forum is a group of EPA
professionals representing Regional Superfund and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Offices (RCRA),
committed to the identification and resolution of ground-water
issues impacting the remediation of Superfund and RCRA
sites. The Forum is supported by and advises the Superfund
Technical Support Project. The compatibility of remediation,
well construction, and sampling materials with nonaqueous
phase liquids (NAPLs) is an issue that is a concern of
Superfund decision-makers.
This issue paper provides a comprehensive literature review
regarding the compatibility of NAPLs with a wide variety of
materials used at hazardous waste sites. A condensed
reference table of compatibility data for 207 chemicals and 28
commonly used well construction and sampling equipment
materials is provided. Field experiences illustrating
incompatibility problems of common wastes are also included.
This will assist monitoring and recovery system design
personnel with the decision making process concerning the
most effective materials to be used in heavily contaminated
subsurface environments.
For further information contact Scott G. Huling (405-436-
8610).
Introduction
NAPLs typically have been divided into two general
categories, dense and light. Dense nonaqueous phase
liquids (DNAPLs) have a specific gravity greater than water,
and light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs) have a specific
gravity less than water [Huling and Weaver, 1991]. Both of
these liquids are of major environmental concern because
they are commonly found in the subsurface at Superfund sites
as well as other hazardous waste sites.
A national Superfund DNAPL site assessment study
concluded that approximately 60% of the National Priorities
List sites are expected to have a medium to high potential of
having DNAPL present [Hubbard etal., 1993]. It is also
known that LNAPLs affect ground-water quality at thousands
of sites across the country [Newell et al., 1995]. DNAPLs
[Mercer and Cohen, 1990; Huling and Weaver, 1991; Cohen
and Mercer, 1993] and LNAPLs [Newell et al., 1995] present
significant technical challenges to remediation efforts and
their transport and fate are often complex.
DNAPLs commonly found at Superfund sites include
halogenated solvents (e.g., tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
trichloroethylene (TCE), dichloroethane (DCA) and carbon
tetrachloride); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); pesticides;
chlorinated benzenes and phenols; and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). Common LNAPLs include fuels and
oils. Constituents of NAPLs include volatile aromatics
(benzene, toluene, styrene and xylenes); halogenated
volatiles (vinyl chloride and chloroethane); and volatile
ketones and furans. Due to the diverse characteristics of
these chemicals in conjunction with the broad range of
(1) Hydrologist, Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., Tucson, AZ
(2) Asst. Prof., Geology Dept., Indiana Univ.-Purdue Univ.
Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN
(3) Environmental Engineer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK
Superfund Technology Support Center for
Ground Water
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, US EPA, Washington, DC
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
-------
materials available, it is apparent that the incompatibility issue
is complex and broad in scope.
Contaminants may be introduced into the subsurface as a
LNAPL or DNAPL, but may partition into the soil pore water
and ground water; volatilize into the gaseous phase; and
partition onto soil and aquifer material. The two phases of
contamination that will be the focus of this issue paper are the
nonaqueous phase and the soluble phase. NAPLs may be
held relatively immobile by capillary forces as small
discontinuous blobs or isolated droplets, generally referred to
as residual saturation. As the NAPL saturation increases, the
NAPL phase becomes continuous and the mobility of the
NAPL increases. NAPLs at residual saturation may affect
equipment and materials similar to continuous phase NAPLs.
Lastly, the soluble constituents of mixed NAPLs differentially
dissolve into the ground water as a function of their mole
fraction and solubility. Although these dissolved compounds
are no longer NAPLs, near-solubility concentrations of some
organic compounds may adversely affect the structural
integrity of some materials.
All ground-water sampling, well construction, and remediation
materials are subject to degradation or corrosion in the
natural environment. For example, metal components may
corrode when:
• pH<7.0,
dissolved oxygen > 2 ppm,
•H 2S > 1 ppm,
total dissolved solids > 1000 ppm,
OC 2 > 50 ppm, or
chloride > 5000 ppm [Alleret al., 1989].
Materials exposed to NAPLs may also be degraded or
corroded, which may lead to structural failure. This
vulnerability applies to materials exposed to these chemicals
in both the subsurface and above ground. A design
consideration during any NAPL recovery program should
include a material compatibility review to minimize failures
[Huling and Weaver, 1991]. Additionally, at sites where the
presence of NAPLs is suspected, a materials compatibility
review should be conducted. Since the time requirements for
subsurface remediation systems (product recovery, ground-
water remediation) at most RCRA and CERCLA sites are
usually long-term, it is economically and technically important
that these systems be constructed of materials with known
chemical resistance qualities to provide reliable service over
many years.
Compatibility
There are two types of effects that NAPLs have on materials
used in well construction, sampling, and remediation. First,
the structural integrity of a material may be compromised by
corrosion or solvation. Secondly, dissolved ground-water
contaminants from NAPLs can sorb to or leach from
monitoring materials which affect ground-water quality
measurements. Another way of viewing these two effects is
from a concentration perspective. Sorption to monitoring
surfaces may have the greatest effect on water quality
measurements when contaminants are present at low
dissolved concentrations. Conversely, sorption of
contaminants present as NAPLs or in high dissolved
concentrations, may have a minimal effect on water quality
measurements, while the effects on the structural integrity of
the materials may be at a maximum. Compatibility in the
Chemical Compatibility Table of this issue paper is defined as
a material's ability to withstand corrosion or degradation
under specific experimental conditions. This refers to the
effects that NAPLs and high concentrations of dissolved
organic compounds have on the structural integrity of
materials. While the focus of this issue paper is the structural
integrity issue, a short discussion on incompatibility issues
from a water quality measurement point of view is included for
clarification.
Water Quality Measurement Incompatibility
Incompatibility caused by contaminants sorbing to or leaching
from monitoring well materials and sampling devices yielding
misleading information on the quality of ground water has
been demonstrated repeatedly [Llopis, 1992; Gillham and
O'Hannesin, 1990; Barcelona et al., 1988; Jones and Miller,
1988; Sykes et al., 1986]. This type of incompatibility is
greatest with low dissolved concentrations of heavy metals
and organic compounds. Presently, the high degree of
accuracy (parts per billion) required of some chemical
analyses dictates that all potential sources of error of a
ground-water sampling program be identified and minimized
[Llopis, 1992]. Correspondingly, a properly installed ground-
water monitoring well should be constructed so that well
materials do not influence the ground-water sample for at
least 30 years [Morrison, 1986].
The composition of contaminated ground water and sediment
(pH, Eh, conductivity, temperature, specific organic
compound species, and co-solvent effects) in contact with
well construction and sampling materials influences sorption
and leaching processes. In addition, the complex and varied
nature of site-specific ground-water contamination in
conjunction with numerous material types makes it
challenging to predict the sorption and leaching potential of
various sampling materials. However, recent studies show a
general agreement on which well casing materials are the
best to use to reduce measurement anomalies.
Rigid polyvinylchloride (PVC), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE),
and fiberglass reinforced epoxy (FRE) had relatively low
sorption rates when exposed to trichloroethane,
tetrachloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
hexachloroethane, and bromoform compared to flexible
polymers [Reynolds etal., 1990]. Stainless steel, rigid PVC,
and fluoropolymer well casings generally adsorb minor
amounts of trace-level organic compounds once equilibrated
with the subsurface environment and none of the casings
leached organic compounds when solvent cements were not
used to connect the casings [Gillham and O'Hannesin, 1990;
Parker et al., 1990: Parker and Ranney, 1994\. Some iron-
based casing materials may influence abiotic degradation of
halogenated aliphatics [Reynolds et al., 1990; Gillham and
O'Hannesin, 1994\.
Studies indicate that stainless steel can leach dissolved
metals under anoxic conditions [Hewitt, 1989; 1992; 1993;
Parker etal., 1990].
-------
Structural Integrity Incompatibility
Structural integrity of materials can be affected by both pure-
phase NAPLs and dissolved organic compounds in ground
water. In the following discussion, corrosion of metals and
the types of polymer degradation are presented with a review
of concentration-related effects of dissolved organic
compounds with monitoring materials. The Chemical
Compatibility Table in this issue paper was prepared to
evaluate the effects of pure-phase or 100% concentrations of
compounds, except where noted.
Corrosion: Chemical corrosion results from chemical
reactions with metals and soil or water [U.S. Dept. of Interior,
1981]. The corroded metal usually goes into solution and is
carried away from the point of attack [Moehrl, 1961]. Galvanic
corrosion occurs when two or more dissimilar metals are in
contact and an electrolyte is present [Schweitzer, 1991].
Accordingly, corrosion in this issue paper applies to the
breakdown of a metal surface attacked by chemicals,
resulting in a measurable reduction of metal thickness over
time.
Degradation: Plastics do not exhibit a corrosion rate, but
undergo degradation by various mechanisms. Types of
plastic degradation in a ground-water environment are
oxidative, mechanical, microbial, and chemical attack.
Oxidative degradation of polymers is catalyzed by heavy
metals, such as copper, in a redox reaction in which peroxide
groups are decomposed, accelerating the degradation
reaction [AI-Malaika, 1987]. However, many polymeric
formulations include antioxidants which inhibit oxidation
reactions. Bond cleavage may result in mechanical
degradation when stress is imposed on polymer chains
through grinding, milling, or stretching [Dole, 1983; Agarwal
and Porter, 1988]. Mechanical degradation is a term that
describes changes in a material when applied stresses from
manufacturing, machining, handling, and installation
techniques cause chips, fractures, and other deformations.
It has been observed that enzymes attack noncrystalline
regions preferentially; therefore, the resistance of susceptible
polymers to microbial degradation is related directly to the
degree of crystallinity of the polymer [Bradley et al., 1973].
Chemical resistance of a polymer is its ability to withstand
attack by chemicals over a period of time without excessive
changes in dimensions, weight, or mechanical properties
[Seymour, 1989]. Plastic materials are primarily degraded by
solvation, which is the penetration of the plastic by an organic
solvent that causes softening, swelling, and ultimate failure
[Schweitzer, 1991]. At a given chemical concentration,
diffusion of a chemical into the polymer will proceed until
equilibrium conditions are attained. Due to the inter-polymer
diffusion of these chemicals, polymers may dissolve, swell
due to absorption and diffusion, or they may stress crack by
selectively absorbing solvents [Seymour, 1989]. The
Chemical Compatibility Table in this issue paper does not
differentiate between types of degradation.
Concentration-Related Effects: Ambiguity exists on the
subject of structural compatibility. This is partially attributed to
studies being conducted at different aqueous concentrations,
from NAPLs to below solubility concentrations. For example,
a lack of agreement exists concerning the use of PVC well
casing in the presence of gasoline [U.S.EPA, 1986]. EPA has
concluded that PVC is not an acceptable material for
monitoring well construction because the PVC casing may
swell and deteriorate in the presence of the aromatic
hydrocarbon fraction of gasoline. This finding is consistent
with the Chemical Compatibility Table in this report where
pure-phase aromatic compounds (e.g., benzene, toluene, and
xylenes), which are a few of the numerous components of
gasoline, will degrade Type I PVC. However, Schmidt [1987]
published an opposing report concerning PVC and gasoline
compatibility that included both laboratory immersion tests
and field observations. Schmidt's conclusion was that
"Schedule 40, rigid, Type I PVC casing and screen could be
used with confidence when monitoring for the occurrence of
gasolines on the ground water table." The literature review
conducted for this issue paper found that all chemical
resistance test data recommend Type I PVC for use in
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels. The conflicting
recommendations of these reports may be related to the
different concentrations of aromatic compounds tested.
Recent work with methylene chloride, an excellent solvent of
PVC, softened PVC at activities as low as 0.1 (10% of the
solubility \\m\t)[Parker and Ranney, 1994]. Activity of a
compound was estimated by dividing the aqueous
concentration by its solubility. Experiments with TCE, which
is not as good a solvent of PVC as methylene chloride,
suggest that softening of PVC did not occur at activities below
0.6. A mixed-organic-solvent study indicated that when
dealing with an aqueous mixture of organic solvents there is
some type of cumulative or interactive effect resulting in
softening of PVC at activities above 0.3 [Parker and Ranney,
1994\. Acetone, miscible in water and a good solvent of PVC,
caused rapid softening at 50% concentrations (0.5 g/ml)
[Parker and Ranney, 1994].
Another example illustrating the lack of agreement involves
structural degradation effects under high concentrations.
Barcelona et al., [1988], suggested that significant losses of
strength and durability of rigid PVC may be expected under
conditions where organic contaminants are present in high
concentrations. However, Taylor and Parker [1990\ reported
that PVC, PTFE, and stainless steel (304, 316) casing
material did not change surface structure (using scanning
electron microscopy) when exposed to dichlorobenzenes,
toluene, and PCE at activities of 0.25 after 6 months. This
discrepancy may be partly due to the different compatibility
testing protocols; strength and durability versus visual effects.
Annular Sealants and Barrier Wall Materials
Compatibility of annular sealant materials, cements, and
grouts with NAPLs has not been comprehensively studied.
However, the permeability of clay and other materials in
landfill liners and barrier walls has been measured to study
the deterioration effect of various leachates and select soluble
organic liquids.
Abdul et al., [1990], found that organic solvents (benzene,
toluene, p-xylene, nitrobenzene, TCE, PCE, ethyl acetate, 2-
butanone, and phenol) at 0.1 to 0.5 activities in water
solutions did not significantly increase the permeability of
bentonite or kaolin clays that were first stabilized with
0.005 N CaSO4. The hydraulic conductivity of bentonite in all
of the 0.1 solutions was lower than with water, while kaolin
was slightly more permeable with these solutions. However,
it was determined that neat (100%) solutions increased the
-------
measured hydraulic conductivity of the clay materials by up to
two orders of magnitude. Phenol, ethyl acetate, and p-xylene
neat solutions increased the permeability of bentonite.
Benzene, phenol, and toluene neat solutions increased the
permeability of kaolin. In general, hydrophobic solvents
caused clays to shrink, producing distinct large vertical
cracks. The hydrophillic solvents typically caused the clays to
aggregate and fracture, forming a network of cracks [Abdul et
al., 1990].
In another study, cement-asphalt (Aspemix), bentonite-sand,
and organophilic clay-cement mixtures were found to have
increased hydraulic conductivities above 1x10"7 cm/s when
contacted with pure methylene chloride [Sai and Anderson,
1992\. In the same study, attapulgite clay-cement (Impermix)
mixture maintained hydraulic conductivities below 1x10"7 cm/s
in the presence of pure methylene chloride.
DNAPL composed of dichloromethane, xylene, halogenated
semi-volatiles and a mixture of other solvents (density 1.1
g/cm3) was used to evaluate the effects of DNAPL on the
integrity of cement and a 3% bentonite-cement grout [Cassil
and Barton, 1994]. In column studies where cement was
added to tubes containing varying amounts of DNAPL, the
DNAPL amended columns were discolored, pitted, and had
channels where the DNAPL had moved along the interface of
the tube wall and the grout. This was not observed in the
control where water was initially present. In a column study
where a 3% bentonite-cement grout was added to the same
DNAPL in a column, the permeability was significantly greater
than in the control where an equal volume of water was
added. The grout was mottled, irregular, and had the
presence of voids, cavities, and channels. The control
column which initially contained water did not exhibit these
characteristics. Therefore, both the cement and cement-
bentonite mixture were more permeable when set in a DNAPL
environment.
In light of these few studies, NAPLs may act to promote
vertical migration of contaminants along a well casing or
breach containment systems designed to separate
contaminated zones from cleaner zones. However, this issue
has not been fully investigated. The compatibility of NAPLs
with annular sealants, well packing, and barrier wall materials
should be determined on a site-specific basis by testing the
proposed materials and chemicals that are likely to be in
contact with those materials.
Annular sealants, well packing, and barrier wall materials are
not included in the Chemical Compatibility Table because of
the limited information available.
Field Experience and Practical Considerations
Relatively little field experience is reported in the literature
regarding remediation, well construction, and sampling
materials compatibility with contaminants. This may be due to
several reasons. The environmental field is relatively young
and many materials may not have had sufficient contact time
for significant failures to be observed. Lack of reporting may
also be due to the inherent hidden effects of subsurface
chemical incompatibility with materials. For example,
extraction and monitoring well structural failures are seldom
observed from the surface. Wells that do appear to be
malfunctioning are usually sealed or grouted without knowing
the real cause of the problem. Additionally, silting-in of a well
is routinely diagnoised as a screen size design problem, but
may acutally be the result of screen deterioration from
chemical incompatibilty.
Field experience with various types of wastes and materials
commonly found at hazardous waste sites provides useful
information. While the information is qualitative, it illustrates a
few guidelines regarding chemical compatibility.
Creosote Wastes: Creosote manufacturers generally
recommend against the use of PVC and recommend the use
of steel materials when creosote is pumped under pressure.
In the field, the PVC will become "gummy", (i.e., altered
physical integrity) and will definitely fail under pressure [Sale,
1993\. However, PVC has been used with creosote fairly
reliably as a product thickness well, or gravity drainline, where
it is not under pressure. Polyethylene was used successfully
as creosote drainline material ( i.e., DNAPL recovery). These
drainlines have been jet-routed to remove solids which have
accumulated in the pipe and continue to operate successfully.
Most of the components used in pumps are made of steel.
However, there are some butyl rubber or plastic washers and
seals which will fail in the presence of creosote [Sale, 1993].
Therefore, it is recommended to examine the various
pumping parts that come in contact with creosote and
ascertain that they are not butyl rubber or plastic.
Specifications for pump parts can be provided by pump
manufacturers. Typically, incompatible washers, seals, and
bushings may be replaced with more chemically resistant Kel-
F® orViton-A®.
Coal Tars'. There are several distinct types of coal tars from
manufactured gas plant processes, hereinafter all types are
inclusive to the term coal tar. There are similarities between
coal tar and creosote; they are both a by-product from the
production of coke from coal and when coal tar is distilled, the
200° to 400° C fractions are creosote [McGinnis et al., 1988].
Many of the same PAHs in creosote are also found in coal tar
[Ripp et al., 1993]. Taylor [ 1993] and Unites [ 1993] report that
PVC material used in heavily contaminated coal tar sediments
under non-pressurized conditions appears to function
properly. However, PVC wells placed in coal tar sediments
did appear swollen after prolonged exposure and the
screened interval may have been compromised [Villaume,
1993]. Others have observed that screened intervals
become clogged with coal tar, presumably due to the viscous
nature of coal tar [Murarka, 1993]. Based on the chemical
similarities between creosote and coal tar, it is reasonable to
assume that PVC is suitable for product thickness wells, or
gravity drainlines, under non-pressurized conditions, but it
may fail under pressurized conditions.
Mixed NAPL (Solvents) Wastes: Hazardous waste sites
usually involve the co-disposal of various chemicals which
collectively float or sink as a NAPL. For example, a mixed
DNAPL composed primarily of bis, 2-chloro-ethyl ether (38%),
DCA (2.5%), styrene, TCE, and an oil carrier was found at a
Superfund site in Texas. At this site, a dedicated PVC bailer
in a PVC cased well underwent partial solvation due to the
incompatibility between the dedicated PVC material and the
NAPL. The remaining PVC bailer and well casing were
-------
sufficiently degraded so that both materials became fused
together as a single unit. This resulted in a permanent
"cementation" of the bailer to the casing requiring
abandonment of the well and construction of a new well with
compatible materials [Newell, 1993]. This field observation is
consistent with information in the Chemical Compatibility
Table. For example, PVC is reported as unacceptable
material to use with ethers (general), dichloroethane, styrene,
and trichloroethylene.
At the same site, a paddle-wheel flowmeter was used to
evaluate flow of a water-DNAPL mixture. The flowmeter had
a rubber seal component that lasted approximately 48 hours
before failure. A Viton® covered rubber (inflatable) packer
and a pump with Viton® seals were unaffected after 30 days
by the same DNAPL. The Chemical Compatibility Table does
not include butyl rubber. However, butyl rubber is known to
be vulnerable to degradation in the presence of some organic
solvents. In this particular case, there is a conflict in the
literature regarding the compatibility of Viton® with ethers
(general) and trichloroethylene. Therefore, the potential for
failure exists in this situation.
Material incompatibility with chemical wastes generally
requires the use of a more resistant, and usually more costly
material. One approach to minimize cost is to use PVC
casing that is not in contact with the incompatible chemical,
with a resistant (stainless steel) screen which is in more
immediate contact with the chemical. This must be evaluated
and designed on a site specific basis [Newell, 1993].
Additionally, the use of PVC material on the periphery of the
source area where NAPL is not present may also minimize
construction costs.
While very little information regarding fiberglass reinforced
epoxy (FRE) exists and is not included in the Chemical
Compatibility Table, field information from a DNAPL
Superfund site in Texas was obtained with respect to FRE
compatibility with chlorinated solvents. An interception well
field with five extraction wells was installed to collect DNAPL
and prevent it from discharging to a stream. The DNAPL
primarily consisted of 1,1,2-trichloroethane, vinyl chloride, and
1,2-DCA with a smaller amount of methylene chloride.
Previous experience at this site indicated that PVC material
was clearly incompatible due to its almost instantaneous
deformation upon installation [Meyer, 1993]. The potentially
responsible party selected FRE casing and screens due to its
predicted superior performance. Approximately one month
after installation of the FRE wells, the pumps in two wells with
DNAPL failed due to clogging with pieces of fiberglass.
Subsequently, complete deterioration of the screen and/or the
casing occurred as evidenced by the silting up of the pumps.
The pumps were cleaned and the wells were retrofitted with
smaller diameter stainless steel insert wells which presently
are functioning appropriately [Meyer, 1993].
Surfactants: There is a significant amount of surfactant
research presently being conducted for its potential use in the
field. Since there is very little information on the compatibility
of surfactants with remediation materials, specific
compatibility testing should be conducted. One case study
involves the use of an alkaline polymer surfactant (APS) in a
pilot treatability study at a creosote waste site in Laramie,
Wyoming. The APS completely destroyed PVC material
under non-pressure conditions presenting significant
incompatibility problems [Sale, 1993]. Ultimately, steel piping
was necessary to minimize incompatibility failures.
General DNAPL Consideration: Due to the known
heterogeneous nature of stratigraphy at any site, it is likely for
DNAPLs to be present at numerous vertical locations.
Therefore, compatibility evaluations need to be made for each
contaminated zone along the complete length of a well
casing. It is possible that subsequent degradation or
corrosion of well casing material or annular sealants may
create a vertical pathway where DNAPLs can migrate through
previously uncontaminated hydrostratigraphic units.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a compromised
well, through improper construction or deterioration, may
facilitate the transport of DNAPLs.
Remediation, Well Construction, and Sampling
Material
Well casing and screening, plumbing appurtenances, bailers,
sampling tubes, sample bottles, pumps, water-level
indicators, interface probes and a variety of water chemistry
probes all may be exposed to corrosive and degrading
compounds in heavily contaminated subsurface
environments. The information available from equipment
manufacturers for each of these products currently on the
market either does not exist or is too voluminous to assimilate
into a single compatibility table. These products do have a
common ground, namely the materials from which they are
constructed. Therefore, the materials provide the basis for
the Chemical Compatibility Table. Many manufacturers use
similar chemical resistance data for their materials to specify
acceptable applications for their products.
Quite often, equipment manufacturers recommend that
compatibility experiments be constructed by the user prior to
use. This practice has the added benefit of providing specific
information regarding the specific composition and
concentration of the chemicals involved. One problem with
this approach is the uncertainty associated with the duration
of the experiment. For example, compatibility testing is
typically conducted for a short duration. Since the selection of
proper materials is partially dependent on long-term
performance, data from the short-term tests do not
necessarily represent long-term performance.
Manufacturers of polymer resins, metals, and metal alloys
provide chemical resistance test data for a variety of
chemicals. These data have been incorporated into the
Chemical Compatibility Table. Since there is no
comprehensive compatibility guide available for subsurface
contaminants with specific ground-water sampling and well
construction products, it is necessary to determine what
materials (e.g., wetted parts) will be exposed to which
contaminant.
The following materials (and their acronyms) were included in
the compilation of the Chemical Compatibility Table:
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), acetal / Delrin®,
chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), fluorinated ethylene
propylene(FEP), nylon 6 and 66, high density polypropylene
(HOPE), polytetrafluoroethylene / Teflon® (PTFE), polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), polyvinylidiene fluoride / Kynar® (PVDF),
ethylenepropylenediene (EPDM), perfluoroelastomer(Kel-F®),
neoprene, Nitrile Buna-N, polyurethane, silicone, Tygon®,
-------
Viton-A®, ceramic, silica, 304 and 316 stainless steel, carbon
steel, aluminum, brass, copper, and nickel-alloy steel
(Hastelloy-C®). Rigid PVC is listed in two columns, medium-
impact Type I, and high-impact Type II [Harper, 1975].
In the table, well construction and sampling materials listed
are referenced by these materials and not the many available
configurations (e.g., schedule 40 vs. schedule 80 PVC pipe).
Bailers, well casing, and drain materials generally are
constructed from PVC Types I and II, CPVC, nylon, HOPE,
PTFE, FEP, 304 and 316 stainless steel, carbon steel,
Hastelloy-C®, or aluminum. Fittings and tubing are made of
brass, copper, stainless steel, aluminum, nylon, Tygon®,
PTFE, or silicone. Pump diaphragms, gaskets, and o-rings
are made of PTFE, EPDM, Kel-F®, Neoprene, Nitrile Buna-N,
polyurethane, silicone, or Viton-A®. Other wetted pump parts
are made of various metals and plastics. Silica was included
to represent sand packing material. Ceramics represent
lysimeter material. There was very little compatibility
information published on fiberglass reinforced epoxy (FRE);
therefore, FRE was not included in the Chemical Compatibility
Table.
Compilation of Contaminants
The Chemical Compatibility Table contains 207 organic
compounds which are primarily NAPLs or contaminants
associated with EPA's list of 129 priority pollutants [Viessman
and Hammer, 1985]. Metals from the EPA's priority pollutant
list were not included in the Chemical Compatibility Table.
The compatibility table does not differentiate between isomers
of a single compound (e.g., 2-nitrophenol and 4-
nitrophenol) or variations of trade name chemicals (e.g., the 7
different Aroclors). In addition to the EPA's priority pollutant
list, the table includes several common mixtures (e.g.,
gasoline, white liquor) and other organic compounds that may
be problematic if present in pure phase. Although the data
presented were compiled primarily for NAPLs, there are
numerous exceptions. For example, there are several entries
for compounds which are miscible with water (e.g., acetone,
ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol). Some entries are reported as
percent (%) mixtures of organic compounds which represent
the aqueous phase concentration in water (i.e., Aldrin,
Chlorodane, DDT). Additionally, there are several inorganic
chemicals (e.g., carbonic acid, H2O2).
There are 47 environmentally important chemicals listed at
the end of the Chemical Compatibility Table for which no data
were found. Thirteen (13) of these compounds are polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are commonly found in
creosote and coal tar type wastes [McGinnis et al., 1988; Ripp
etal., 1993]. Creosote and coal tar are mixtures of hundreds
of compounds which these PAHs represent only a fraction. At
room temperature (and below), these compounds are solids
in pure form. As such, no compatibility data for these
compounds were available.
References and data tables listing the resistance properties of
common well construction and sampling equipment materials
to hundreds of additional chemicals (i.e., calcium hydroxide,
nickel nitrate, butylbromide, etc.) can be found among the
published literature [Cole-Parmer Instrument Co. Catalog,
1995-1996; Schweitzer, 1991; Craig, 1989; De Renzo,
1985; Harper, 1975; Rabald, 1968]. These additional
chemicals, however, have not been included in the Chemical
Compatibility Table because of their limited occurrence as
environmental contaminants.
Several references were used to compile the Chemical
Compatibility Table. The two major references were the
1995-1996 Cole-Parmer Instrument Co. Catalog, Chemical
Resistance Charts, and the Corrosion Resistance Tables
presented in Schweitzer, 1991. Other references were used
for cross-checking data and for less common chemicals
[Craig, 1989; De Renzo, 1985; Harper, 1975; Rabald, 1968].
Chemical Compatibility Table
The Chemical Compatibility Table has been compiled to
assist remediation design personnel with selecting the most
appropriate remediation, well construction, and sampling
materials for specific waste conditions. This table should only
be used as a guide since it is extremely difficult to universally
represent actual conditions in the testing procedure. It may
be necessary to perform additional, site-specific testing under
actual operating conditions to obtain compatibility information
regarding the suitability of a particular material. This is
especially true considering the number of possible
combinations of chemical and physical conditions which occur
at any given hazardous waste site.
At a minimum, the references used in compiling the Chemical
Compatibility Table generally reported findings from 48-hour
immersion tests with 100% or neat solutions, unless
otherwise noted.
Remediation, well construction, and sampling materials have
been divided into four categories: plastics, elastopolymers,
earth-materials, and metals. The compatibility classification
for the corrosion of metals is:
Excellent (E) = less than 2 mils per year
Satisfactory (S) = less than 20 mils per year
Good (G) = less than 50 mils per year
Unsatisfactory (U) = greater than 50 mils per year
(note: 1 mil equals one one-thousandth of an inch)
The corrosion rate data may be used with material thickness
data to estimate the lifetime of the materials. There are
several other variables and parameters which will influence
actual corrosion rates and, therefore, this approach should
only be considered a rough estimate.
Two classification schemes were used to represent
degradation data for the plastics, elastopolymers, and earth-
materials categories:
applicable to
at least 22°C
A = Excellent - No Effect
B = Good - Minor Effect
C = Fair - Moderate Effect
U = Poor - Severe Effect
applicable to
at least 15°C
R = Resistant
U = Unsatisfactory
The A, B, and C classifications are roughly equivalent to the R
"resistant" classification. In order to provide a reliable
compatibility table, data for each chemical were cross-
-------
checked between references whenever possible. The
notation " X = Conflicting Data" refers to the situation when a
chemical and a corresponding material had two or more
references that did not agree on the compatibility
classification, and at least one of the references reported the
compatibility as unsatisfactory. For example, a conflict was
noted when the compatibility of a chemical with a given
material was reported as "U" and "A"," B" or"C"; or if the
compatibility was reported as "U" and "R". The notation " -"
refers to no data available when none of the references had
compatibility data for a chemical and material.
Example
Remediation, well construction, and sampling materials
comprise the columns of the Chemical Compatibility Table,
while the chemicals are listed alphabetically by row. The
compatibility classification may be read from the chemical
(row) and material (column) intersection. For example, if
trichloroethylene (TCE) was the chemical of concern and
compatible well construction and sampling materials needed
to be identified, then TCE could be located by row and
compatible materials could be determined.
Materials in the metals group are compatible with pure-phase
TCE, but many plastics and elastopolymers are not. If a
recovery well was being designed, then 304 or 316 stainless
steel would be a compatible choice. PVC, however, is
incompatible with pure-phase TCE and is not suggested for a
recovery system.
In designing a sampling system, compatibility of materials for
pumps and sampling lines can be evaluated. Specifically, all
components of the system should be evaluated, including well
casing and screen, sampling lines, bailers, pumps and their
component parts, above ground piping, etc. For example,
wetted parts of a pump such as seals and bushings
constructed of Kel-F® and Teflon® are compatible with TCE,
but products containing neoprene and silicone are not
recommended. It should be noted that no compatibility data
were reported for TCE and Tygon® and that conflicting data
were reported for TCE and Viton-A®.
In general, most metal and plastic materials may be adequate
for use in low dissolved concentrations of NAPLs, from a
structural integrity point of view. However, some
elastopolymers may not provide adequate service because
these materials seem to be the most susceptible to
degradation. The Chemical Compatibility Table provides a
comprehensive list of published information for pure-phase
compounds. Data on various concentrations of compounds in
water are not included in the table.
Summary
NAPLs are common contaminants at hazardous waste sites
and are present in the subsurface in continuous and residual
phases. Their soluble constituents dissolve into the
surrounding ground water. High aqueous concentrations of
organic compounds and NAPLs can be detrimental to long-
term subsurface monitoring and recovery systems by
degrading well construction, sampling, and remediation
materials.
This issue paper provides a guide on the compatibility of
NAPLs and other environmentally important contaminants
with materials used in well construction, subsurface sampling,
and other various remediation activities. A Chemical
Compatibility Table is presented which identifies the
compatibility of 207 contaminants with materials such as
metals (stainless steel, nickel steel, aluminum, etc.), plastics
(PVC, PTFE, polypropylene, etc.), earth materials (ceramic,
silica) and elastopolymers (Tygon®, silicone, Viton-A®, etc.).
This information can assist scientists and engineers with the
decision-making process when designing monitoring and
recovery systems for heavily contaminated subsurface
environments.
The Chemical Compatibility Table was compiled from
numerous sources which employed various testing protocols.
The conditions and duration under which the information was
generated are not universal. As such, the compatibility
information should only be used as a guideline. Site-specific
compatibility tests would provide more reliable information.
The field experiences reported in this issue paper serve to
illustrate the compatibility problems of a few of the common
wastes and materials found at hazardous waste sites. These
experiences also emphasize the need to report material
failures to minimize similar occurrences in future remediation
work.
References
Abdul A. S., T. L. Gibson and D. N. Rai, 1990, Laboratory
studies of the flow of some organic solvents and their
aqueous solutions through Bentonite and Kaolin Clays,
Ground Water. Vol. 28, No.4, pp. 524-533.
Agarwal S. H., and R. S. Porter, 1988, J. Appl. Polym. Sci..
Vol. 25, pp. 173.
Aller, L., T. W. Bennett, G. Hackett, R. J. Petty, J. H. Lehr, H.
Sedoris, D. M. Nielsen, and J. E. Denne, 1989, Handbook of
Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-Water
Monitoring Wells. EPA/600/4-89/034.
AI-Malaika, S., 1987, History of polymeric composites.
B. Seymour and R. D. Deanin, Eds., VNU Science Press,
Chapter 13.
R.
Barcelona, M. J., J. A. Helfrich, and E. E. Garske, 1988,
Verification of sampling methods and selection of materials
for ground water contamination studies, Ground-Water
Contamination: Field Methods. ASTM STP 963, A. G. Collins
and A. I. Johnson, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 221-231.
Bradley, S. A., P. Engler, and S. H. Carr, 1973, Microbial
degradation of polymer solids, Appl. Polym. Sym.. Vol. 22, pp.
269.
Cassil, J.K., and T. S. Barton, 1994, Effect of dense
nonaqueous phase liquids on neat cement and bentonite-
cement grout intregrity. Syntex Agribusiness, Inc.,
Environmental Projects Department, Springfield, MO, DRAFT
Report.
-------
Cohen, R.M. and J.W. Mercer, 1993, DNAPL Site Evaluation.
EPA/600/R-93/022.
Cole-Parmer Instrument Company Catalog 1995-1996.
Chemical resistance charts, pp.1463-1471.
Craig, B. D., 1989, Handbook of Corrosion Data. ASM
International, Metals Park, OH.
De Renzo, D. J., 1985, Corrosion Resistant Materials
Handbook. 4th Ed., Noyes Data Corp.
Dole M., 1983, The effects of hostile environments on coating
and plastics, D. P. Garner and G. A. Stahl, Eds., ACS
Symposium Series No. 229. American Chemical Society.
Gillham, R. W., and S. F. O'Hannesin, 1990, Sorption of
aromatic hydrocarbons by material used in construction of
ground water sampling wells, Ground Water and Vadose
Zone Monitoring. ASTM STP 1053, D. M. Nielsen and A. I.
Johnson, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 108-122.
Gillham, R. W., and S. F. O'Hannesin, 1994, Enhanced
degradation of halogenated aliphatics by zero-valent iron,
Ground Water. Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 958-967.
Harper, C. A., 1975, Handbook of Plastics and Elastomers.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, Chapter 4, pp. 32-33.
Hewitt, A. D., 1989, Leaching of metal pollutants from four
well casings used for ground-water monitoring. Special
Report 89-32. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory. Hanover, NH.
Hewitt, A. D., 1992, Potential of common well casing materials
to influence aqueous metal concentrations, Ground Water
Monitoring Review. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 131-135.
Hewitt, A. D., 1993, Dynamic study of common well screen
materials, Ground Water Monitoring Review. Vol. 13, No. 1,
pp. 87-94.
Hubbard, T., S. Wilhelm, and R. Breeden, 1993, Superfund
DNAPL Site Assessment Study. National Results. Draft Final
Report.
Huling, S. G., and J. W. Weaver, 1991, Dense Nonaqueous
Phase Liquids. EPA/540/4-91/002.
Jones, J. N., and G. D. Miller, 1988, Adsorption of selected
organic contaminants onto possible well casing materials,
Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods. ASTM STP
963, A. G. Collins and A. I. Johnson, Eds., American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 185-198.
Llopis, J. L, EPA, 1992, Survey of Laboratory Studies
Relating to the Sorption/Desorption of Contaminants on
Selected Well Casing Material. EPA/540/4-91/005, Revised
August 1992.
McGinnis G. D., H. Borazjani, L. MacFarland, D. Pope, and D.
Strobel, 1988, Characterization and Laboratory Soil
Treatability Studies for Creosote and Pentachlorophenol
Sludges and Contaminated Soil. EPA/600/2-88/055.
Meyer, J., Personal Communication, EPA Region 6 Remedial
Project Manager, Dallas, TX, September, 1993.
Mercer, J. W. and R. M. Cohen, 1990. A Review of Immiscible
Fluids in the Subsurface: Properties, Models,
Characterization, and Remediation, J. of Contam. Hydrol..
Vol. 6, pp. 107-163.
Moehrl, K. E., 1961, Corrosion attack in water wells,
Corrosion. Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 26-27.
Morrison, R. D., 1986, The new monitoring well, Ground
Water Age. April, pp. 19-21.
Murarka, I. P., Personal Communication, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, September 1993.
Newell, C., Personal communication, Ground Water Services,
Houston, TX, August 1993.
Newell, C., S. D. Acree, R. R. Ross, and S. G. Huling, 1995,
Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids. EPA/540/S-95/500.
Parker, L. V., A. D. Hewitt, and T. F. Jenkins, 1990, Influence
of casing materials on trace-level chemicals in well water,
Ground Water Monitoring Review. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 146-
156.
Parker, L. V., and T. A. Ranney, 1994, Softening of rigid
polyvinyl chloride by high concentrations of aqueous solutions
of methylene chloride, Special Report 94-27. USA Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, NH.
Rabald, E., 1968, Corrosion Guide. 2nd Ed., Elsevier
Science, Inc., Publishing Co., New York, NY, 900 pp.
Reynolds, C. W., J. T. Hoff, R. W. Gillham, 1990, Sampling
bias caused by materials used to monitor halocarbons in
ground water, Environmental Science and Technology. Vol.
24, No. 1, pp. 135-142.
Ripp, J., B. Taylor, D. Mauro, and M. Young, 1993, Chemical
and physical characteristics of tar samples from selected
manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites, prepared for Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, TR-102184,
Research Project 2879-12.
Sai J. O., D. C. Anderson, 1992, Barrier Wall Materials for
Containment of Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL),
Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials. Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.
317-330.
Sale, T., Personal Communication, CH2M Hill, Denver, CO,
August 1993.
Schmidt, G.W., 1987, The use of PVC casing and screen in
the presence of gasolines on the ground water table, Ground
Water Monitoring Review. Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 94.
Schweitzer, Philip A., 1991, Corrosion Resistance Tables.
3rd Ed., Parts A and B, Mercel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.
Seymour, R. B., 1989, Influence of long-term environmental
factors on properties, Engineered Materials Handbook. Vol.
-------
2, Engineering Plastics, ASM International, Metals Park, OH,
pp. 423-432.
Sykes, A. L, R. A. McAllister, and J. B. Homolya, 1986,
Sorption of organics by monitoring well construction materials,
Ground Water Monitoring Review. Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 44-47.
Taylor B., Personal Communication, META Environmental,
Inc., Watertown, MA, September 1993.
Taylor, S., and L. Parker, 1990, Surface changes in well
casing pipe exposed to high concentrations of organics in
aqueous solution, Special Report 90-7. USA Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, NH.
Unites, D., Personal Communication, Atlantic Environmental
Services, Inc., Colchester, CT, September 1993.
U.S.EPA 1986, RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance Document, Washington D.C. OSWER-
9950.1 pp. 78-79.
U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1981, A guide for the investigation,
development, and management of ground-water resources,
Ground Water Manual. 371 pp.
Viessman, W. Jr., and M. J. Hammer, 1985, Water Supply
and Pollution Control. 4th ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY,
pp. 232-234.
Villaume, J., Personal Communication, Pennsylvania Power
and Light Company, Allentown, PA, September 1993.
-------
CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY TABLE
For All A/on- Metals For Metals
R = Resistant E < 2 mils Penetration/Year
A = Excellent - No effect G < 20 mils Penetration/Year
B = Good - Minor effect S < 50 mils Penetration/Year
C = Fair - Moderate effect U > 50 mils Penetration/Year
U = Unsatisfactory ( 1 mil = .001 inch )
X = Conflicting Data A = Excellent - No effect*
- = No Data Available B = Good - Minor effect*
C = Fair - Moderate effect*
* No corrision rate reported
Acetaldehyde
Acetamide
Acetate Solvent
Acetic Acid 10%
Acetic Acid, Glacial
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
Acetyl Chloride
Acetylene
Acrylonitrile
Adipic Acid
Aldrin (1 oz/gal)
Allyl Alcohol
Allyl Chloride
Ammonium Acetate
Ammonium Oxalate 10%
Amyl Acetate
Amyl Alcohol
Amyl Chloride
Aniline
Aniline Hydrochloride
Antifreeze
Aroclor1248
Asphalt
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzo Sulfonic Acid 10%
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzole Acid
Benzol
Benzonitrile
Benzyl Chloride
Bromobenzene
Butadiene
Butane
Butyl Alcohol
n-Butyl Amine
Butyl Ether
Butyl Phenol
Butyl Phthalate
Plastics
~~— ' CD" o t* >* >* -— -
"SO C LU £i m !— I— LL
tO •£ > CL OCL >* LL O O Q
CO oQ-LU >^Q OH >>>
<, E
JS S c — c "~
S £ ro ro i £ o
co co O I < CO O
E E G E G U U
G G - - G -
E E G E E S G
E E U E G U G
E E U E E U U
E E G E E G E
G G G - EGG
G G G G G G G
G G G - U U U
E E G G E U U
G G G G E G G
G G G E G - G
E E G - E -
E E G G G G E
G E U - U -
G G - - G U U
G G U E E - U
E E G E E E G
G G G G G G G
G G U E U G G
E E G G G U U
U U U U U U G
A - - A -
G G G E E E E
G G G - E E E
G G U G G G G
G G G G E G G
G G U G U G -
E E G G G G E
G G U E G G G
G G G G E G G
U U - C - -
G G U - U U U
G G G G G G G
G G E G G G G
E E G G E G G
G G G G -
E E - E -
G E - G G -
G G - G U G G
-------
Butylacetate
Butyric Acid
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbonic Acid
Chloroacetic Acid
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobromomethane
Chlordane(1/4lb/gal)
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloronaphthalene
Chlorophenol 5% (aq.)
Citric Acid
Cresol
Cresylic Acid 50%
Crude Oil
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanone
DDT 5%
Detergents (general)
Diacetone Alcohol
Dibutyl Phthalate
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloroethane
Dichloroethylene
Diesel Fuel
Diethanolamine
Diethyl Amine
Diethyl Ether
Diethvl Phthalate
DiethyleneGlycol
Dimethyl Aniline
Dimethyl Ether
Dimethyl Formamide
Dimethyl Phthalate
Dinitrotoluene
Dioctyl Phthalate
Dioxane
Diphenyl
Diphenyl Oxide
Ethane
Ethanolamine
Ethers (general)
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Alcohol
Ethyl Benzene
Ethyl Benzoate
Ethyl Chloride
Ethyl Ether
Plastics
I CD £ o _ = , "£ CD CD >,
O . Q. iT Q. Q. ^
— ' CD 0 C. ,5x ,5x —•
15 O C LU £_ LU 1- 1- LL
to •£ > a. GO. >i LL o o a
CO oD-LU >.Q OH>>>
<;±±
LU^ZZCLOTI— >
B A X U - U U U
B A U U - U U B
UAUUUUBA
B A X X R A - A
BAUUUUAU
U A U U - U A A
B - U U - U - A
U - C B - U - A
X A U U - U - B
UBUUUUBA
U U - -
A A A A - A - A
UAUUUUUX
X - U U U U - A
U - URR- - R
UAUBRUUA
B U U U - U U U
A A B A - A A A
A B U U - U B U
R - U U U - - U
U - U U - U - C
U A U U - - U C
U - U U - - - R
U A B A - U - A
R
B A A C - B C A
U C U U - U - U
A - A A - B C A
B A U U - U U U
U R - -
X A X U - C U X
U U - - - R
U - U U - U - X
R - U U U - - R
U - U U - - - U
U - B U R U - A
U - U A - C U A
U - B A - U A A
B U B B - B - U
C B U X - U C X
BAUUUBUU
ABACUBCA
U - U U - - - R
U U - U U A
R - U R U - - B
U A U X U U - U
Ceramic
Silica
R
R
A R
A -
-
A R
A -
-
-
A R
-
-
A R
R
-
-
-
A -
A -
-
-
-
A R
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
A -
R
A R
A R
-
-
R
R
Metals
U) U) —
(]).
CD CD CD O
!= c 55 >, E
(0 ro /- CD ^ i_
CO CO 0 1 -| „ g_
s « 1 1 1 i 1
co co O I < CO O
G G G G E G G
G G U E G G G
E E G E U G E
G G G E E G G
U U U E U U U
G G G E G G G
B -
G G G - - -
G G G - - - G
E E U G G G G
G - E U -
G G S E - -
E E U E E - E
E G G G G -
G G G G G -
E E G E E G G
G G G G G G G
G G U G G G G
E E G - E -
E G G E G G E
G G G E E E E
G G G G G G G
G - E G -
G G G G G G -
G G - G G -
E E G G E E -
E E E E E - G
G G U - G -
G G G G G G G
E E E G G - G
B B - B A -
G G - G - G G
G U - E -
E E E - E -
G G
G G G - E -
G G G G G G G
G G G G G G G
B A - B B - A
G - -
A A - - - - A
E E G G G -
E E G G G G G
G G G G - G G
G G G E E G G
S G U E G -
E E G G - - G
G G G G G G G
-------
Ethyl Sulfate
Ethylene Bromide
Ethylene Chloride
Ethylene Chlorohydrin
Ethylene Diamine
Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene Oxide
Formaldehyde 1 00%
Formaldehyde 37%
Formic Acid 5%
Fuel oils
Gasoline (high-aromatic)
Gasoline (leaded)
Gasoline (unleaded)
Glycolic Acid
Heptane
exac oroe
Hexane
Hexyl Alcohol
Hydraulic Oil (petro.)
Hydraulic Oil (synthetic)
Hydrazine
Hydrogen Peroxide (dilute)
Hydroquinone
Hydroxyacetic Acid 70%
lodoform
Isobutyl Alcohol
Isooctane
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Alcohol
Isopropyl Ether
Isotane
Jet Fuel JP-4, JP-5
Kerosene
Lacquerthinners
Lacquers
Lactic Acid
Lead Acetate
Linoleic Acid
MaleicAcid
Malic Acid
Melamine
Methane
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Acetone
Methyl Acylate
Methyl Alcohol
Methyl Alcohol 10%
Methyl Amide
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Butyl Ketone
Plastics
f c ^ _ ^
& § 1 1 g. g. |
"— ' CD O C* >*>*>—•
"SO C LU £_ m 1- 1- LL
co -& > o_ oa. >i LL o o a
CO oQ-LU >* O 01— >>>
<;±±
LU^ZZCLCOI->
A - A - - - A
X B X U - U U A
X A U U - U - B
B - X U U C U A
A U X A - A - B
AAAARABR
X C U U U U - U
A A C C - B B U
A A B X U - - R
R - R U - - - R
UABXRUAA
U A A A - U A A
UABARUCA
UABARUCA
A B A A - A A A
UABAUUBA
UABARUUA
C - A A - B A C
U - A A - B A A
A - A U - B A A
A - B B - B - A
R - U R - - - R
U - A X - - - B
A - A A - - - A
A - A U - - C R
A - A B - A A A
U A B A - U A A
B - U U - U - U
A - B B U A A A
UAUBRUAU
U A - -
UAUAUUAA
UAAAUUUA
U - U U - U U U
U - U U - U A U
A A A X - A A A
A A A B - A B U
U - U B - B A B
X - U U - - C A
U - X A - B A A
A - U C - C U A
X - B A - U - A
X A X U - U A U
A - U U - - A U
B - B U - U - U
AAAAUAAU
A A A A - A A A
A A - B - - U U
U - U B - - - A
A - U U - U - U
Ceramic
Silica
.
-
-
-
-
A -
R
-
R
-
-
A -
A -
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
R
-
-
-
A -
-
A -
-
A -
-
-
A -
A -
-
R
-
-
-
-
-
-
A R
A -
-
-
-
Metals
U) U) —
* E
CO CO c O =3 ,_
S 8 £ £ 1 $ |
§ £ CO CO 1 £ 0
co co O I < CO O
U U - - - - B
E E - E - -
G G G - - - G
G G G G G G G
G G G U G U U
G G G
G G G E E G G
G G G E E U -
C A - A A - A
E E U G G E G
G E - E U S E
G G G G G G G
A A - A U -
G G G E G G G
G G G E G G G
G G U G G -
G G G E G G G
G G - G G S G
E E - E E G -
E E G E G G -
A A - A A -
A A - A A A A
A A - A A A A
A A - - - - A
G G U E E U U
G G G G G G -
E E U U G - G
A A - - A A -
E G E G G -
G G G G G G G
EG- - - G G
. u -
G G G E G E -
G G G G G G G
G - - G -
E E
G G U G G G G
G G U G U U G
G G U G G U U
G G U G - G -
E E U G G - U
u
E E G E E E G
G G S E G -
A A - - A A -
A
G G G E G G G
A A - - A U* -
G G G - U -
A A
-------
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Chloroform
Methyl Dichloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isopropyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl Pentanone
Methylene Chloride
Monochloroacetic acid
U*
Monoethanolamine
Motor Oil
Napthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nitromethane
Octane
Octyl Alcohol
Oleic Acid
Oxalic Acid 5%
Palmitic Acid 10%
Pentachlorophenol
Pentane
Petroleum
Phenol 10%
PhthalicAcid
Phthalic An hydride
Picric Acid
Propyl Alcohol
Propylene
Propylene Glycol
Propylene Oxide
Pyridine
Sodium Acetate
Sodium Be nzoate
Sodium Hypochlorite 20%
Stearic Acid
Styrene
Tartaric Acid
TetrachloroaceticAcid
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetraethyl Lead
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Toxaphene-Xvlene 1 0-90%
Trichloroacetic Acid
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichloropropane
Plastics
f c ^ _ ^
» g 1 1 g. g. 1
"— ' CD O C* >*>*>—•
"SO C LU £_ m I" I" LL
co -& > o_ 0°- >< LL o o a
CQ oD-LU >* O 01— >>>
< § 5
§ CQ "CD ® <
^LJ-O-agogs!:
Q_L o-c^o cno
O_CDCD±±O=>;±±
LU^ZZCLCOI->
UAUUUUUA
U - U U - - - R
U - - U - - - A
AAUUUUUU
C - U U - C - U
U - U U - C - U
B A U U - U - U
X A U U U - U B
C B A U - - - C
B - X B - B - X
U A B A - - A R
UAUURUCA
UAUUUUUB
B A U U - U B U
U - R R - - - R
B - B B - B - B
BBXBRUCB
R - R U - - - R
B - U A R U B A
R
U - B A - U A A
U - B A - U - A
BBUUUUCA
A - A U - B - A
A - A U - - B A
A - A X - B - A
A A A A - A A A
U - U U - U B A
A - C A - A - A
R - U U - - - U
X A U U - U U U
A A B B - U - U
A - A B - - B A
R A U U - B C A
X - B B R B B A
U - U U - U - B
B A A A - A B A
U - R R R - - R
U A U U - U - A
U A U U U U - A
U - - U - - - R
U A U U - U - X
UBUXUUUC
B A U R - U C C
U U U - - R
U A U U - U - A
U A U U U U - X
U U - -
A A U - - U A
Ceramic
Silica
_
-
-
A -
-
-
-
R
-
-
A -
A -
R
-
_
-
A -
-
-
-
-
-
A -
-
-
R
A -
-
A -
-
A -
A -
-
U
R
-
A -
-
R
-
-
A -
A -
A -
-
-
A -
-
-
Metals
U) U) —
* E
CO CO j- O =3 ,_
S 8 £ JB 1 $ |
§ £ CO CO 1 £ 0
co co O I < CQ O
E E U G U E G
G G G G G G G
A A - - A - A
G G U - G -
G G G G G G G
G G G E E G G
A A - A U* B
E E G G G G G
G G G - - G G
E E G G G G G
G G G G E G G
G G G - G -
G G - - G - G
G G - G G G
A A - C A - A
E E G G G S G
U G U G G S G
G - - G G G
E - - - -
C C - A B -
G G - - G G G
G G G G E G G
G E S G G G G
E E G E E G -
G G U G E U U
E E G E G G G
B A - - A - A
G G G G G G G
E E
G G G E G G G
G G U G E G G
G G - E
U U U U G G S
G E S E G S G
A A - U* A A B
C C - B B U* A
E E - G G S U
E E E E G - S
E E G G G G G
G G G - G G -
E G E E U -
E E E E E E E
G G S - S -
U U U G U G G
E - - - -
G G G E E G G
G - - G -
A A - A U* - A
-------
Triethanolamine
Triethylamine
Turpentine
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
White liquor (Pulp mill)
White Water (Paper mill)
Xylene
Plastics
| CD 1 | - = 2
i ^jj CD CD >,
"SO C LU £_ ^ I" I" LL
tt> •£ > 0- OCL >i LL O O Cl
CQ oD-LU >* O ol— >>>
<
R - R U U - - R
A A A C - - AX
R R -
UAURUUBA
B - X X - U U A
C - U U - - U A
R - R R - - - R
A - - - - A
UAUUUUUX
Ceramic
Silica
B -
A -
B -
A -
-
-
A -
Metals
(/)(/) —
CD CD CD O
!= != CO >, E
(0 (0 ,- O =3 ,_
-^ -^ = C ni
O> OT ^ JJ 'F Q.
•^r CD t; <2 § ro 9-
O •<— 03 03 ^ il O
CO CO O I < CQ O
G G G G G U E
G G
E E G G G S G
E E G E E G -
B A - A B - B
G G S G G -
A A
G G G E G G G
This table should only be used as a guide since it is difficult to duplicate operating conditions. To fully guarantee the suitability of
a particular material, chemical resistance tests should be conducted under actual operating conditions.
No data was found on the following environmentally important chemicals:
Acenaphthene <1>
Acenapthalene <1>
Acrolein
Anthracene (1>
Benzidine
Benzo(a)athracene (1>
Benzo(b)fluoranthene <1>
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene <1>
Benzo(a)pyrene <1>
Bromophenylphenylether
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethoxymethane
Chloroethylether
Chloroethylvinylether
Chloroisopropylether
Chloromethylether
Chlorophenylphenylether
Chrysene <1>
ODD <2>
DDE'2'
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorophenol
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
Dichloropropane
Dichloropropylene
Dieldrin <2>
Dinitrophenol
Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan
Endrin <2>
Fluoranthene <1>
Fluorene <1>
Heptachlor <2>
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
lndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene <1>
Isophorone
2-Methylnapthalene
Parachlorometa cresol
Phenanthrene (1>
Phenylenepyrene
Pyrene <1>
Trichlorophenol
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
m Component ofcresotoe and coal tar. At room temperature and below, these compounds are solid in pure form.
<2> Pesticides
------- |