United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
            Environmental Sciences Research
            Laboratory
            Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/3-83-001
January 1983
          Research and Development
xvEPA
Photochemical
Reactivity of
Perchloroethylene

-------
                                          EPA-600/3-83-001
                                              January 1983
PHOTOCHEMICAL REACTIVITY OF PERCHLOROETHYLENE
              Basil Dimitriades
              Bruce W. Gay, Jr.
               Robert R. Arnts
               Robert L. Sell a

 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Division
 Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA  27711

-------
                      NOTICE

This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication.  Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
                   '•JS.icy
                       11

-------
                                    FOREWORD

     Man and his environment must be protected from the adverse effects of
photochemical and other pollutants arising from atmospheric reactions of
organic and inorganic emissions.   Efforts to protect the environment require a
focus that recognizes all  aspects of the pollution generating process—emission,
dispersion, transformation, and fate of man-made and natural  pollutants.  The
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory contributes to this multifaceted
focus through programs engaged in
          studies of environmental processes and effects of atmospheric
          pollutants, and
          development of the research methodology needed to conduct such
          studies and to characterize heretofore unidentified or uncharac-
          terized pollutants.
Perch!oroethylene is an important commercial product suspected of contributing
significantly to the problem of photochemical ozone and other oxidants in some
urban atmospheres.  The equivocal nature of the evidence implicating perchloro-
ethylene in such problems  and the socioeconomic importance of this chemical
provided the justification and impetus for this research effort.
                                   Alfred H.  Ellison
                                   Director,  Environmental  Sciences
                                   Research Laboratory
                                   Office of Research and Development
                                     111

-------
                                    ABSTRACT

     Perch!oroethylene (PCE), a solvent used in dry cleaning, has been suspected
of  contributing significantly to photochemical ozone/oxidant (Oo/O ) problems
                                                                O  1\
in urban atmospheres.   Past evidence,  however,  was neither complete nor consis-
tent.  To interpret more conclusively  the past  evidence,  and further understand
PCE's role in the Oo/O  problem, a smog chamber testing program was conducted.
                   •3  X
The program's objectives were:  (a) to explain  the mechanism of the PCE reaction
in smog chamber atmospheres, and (b) to extrapolate the smog chamber findings
regarding PCE reactivity to the real atmosphere.   Results showed that (a) in
smog chambers, PCE reacts and forms O^/Q  following a Cl-instigated photooxida-
tion mechanism rather than the OH-initiated mechanism accepted in current smog
chemistry, and (b) in the real atmosphere neither the Cl-instigated nor the
OH-instigated photooxidations of PCE can generate substantial concentrations
of CL/0 .  In fact, PCE contributes less to the ambient CL/0  problem than
    o  X                                                 *3  X
equal concentrations of ethane.

-------
                                   CONTENTS
Foreword                                                                iii
Abstract                                                                 iv
Figures                                                                  vi
Tables                                                                  yii
Acknowledgments                                                        viii

     1.   Introduction                                                    1
     2.   The Concept of Reactivity                                       5
     3.   Analysis and Interpretation of Existing Evidence on
          Perchloroethylene Reactivity                                    7

          Laboratory Data on Oo/O  Yield and Consumption
          Rate Reactivities                                               7

          Atmospheric Data on Consumption Rate Reactivity                15

          Analysis and Intrepretation of All Existing PCE Evidence       15

     4.   Experimental Procedures and Results of New Perchloro-
          ethylene Reactivity Study                                      23

     5.   Discussion                                                     39

References                                                               47

Appendix   Description of Experimental Apparatus and Procedures          51

     The FTIR Spectrometer and Smog Chamber                              51

     The Bag Chamber Facility                                            53

     Analytical Methods                                                  54
                                                    *•
     References                                                          61

-------
                                    FIGURES

Number                                                                Page
  1       Near-UV spectra of radiation within various smog chambers... 25
  2       Chromatograms from GC-FID and GC-ECD analyses of PCE	 26
  3       Effect of C12 on photooxidation of PCE (FTIR Chamber)	 35
  4       UV absorption spectrum of liquid perch!oroethylene	 41
A-l       Schematic of long path infrared photochemical reaction
          chamber system	 52
A-2       Chromatogram of GC-FID analysis of PCE	 57
A-3       Chromatogram of GC-ECD analysis of PCE	 60
A-4       PCE calibration curve for GC-ECD analysis	 62

-------
                                    TABLES
Number                                                                Page
  1       Volatile Organic Compounds of Negligible Photochemical
          Reactivity That Should Be Exempt From Regulation Under
          State Implementation Plans (4)	  3
  2       Volatile Organic Compounds of "Low" Photochemical
          Reactivity (4)	  3
  3       Experimental  Systems Used and Results from PCE
          Reactivity Studies	  8
  4       Reported Laboratory Studies and Results on PCE
          Reactivity	 16
  5       Comparison of Consumption Rates Observed in Smog Chambers
          with Consumption Rates Computed from kg.. Data for
          Hydrocarbons  and Halocarbons	 19
  6       Rate Constants for PCE Reactions with Reactive Species	 21
  7       Initial Conditions and Results of Smog Chamber Tests	 27
A-l       PCE-FID Analysis Parameters	 56
A-2       Precision of  GC/FID Analysis of PCE Calibration Mixtures	 58
A-3       PCE-ECD Analysis Parameters	 59
                                       vn

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     We are indebted to Dr. P. Hanst for the smog chamber radiation spectra
measurements.  The helpful discussions with Dr.  J. Bufalini, Dr. M. Dodge, and
Mr. K. Berry are also gratefully acknowledged.
                                    vm

-------
                                   SECTION 1
                                 INTRODUCTION

     Since its inception in 1970, the approach adopted by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to reducing photochemical  ozone (0^) and other oxidants
(0 ) has been based on unilateral control of the volatile organic compound
  A
(VOC) precursors.  However, since the individual VOCs differ widely in 0^- or
0 -forming potential, EPA accepted the concept of discriminate control of
 X
organic emissions, and produced from time to time lists of VOCs that could be
exempted from control by virtue of their negligibly low photochemical  reactivity.
More precisely, in developing State Implementation Plan (SIP) control  strategies
to attain the national ambient air quality standard for 03, the EPA policy has
been to identify those VOCs for which conclusive evidence supported exemption
from control, and to assume all other VOCs reactive and, hence, non-exempt.
However, this policy has also been continually open to revision as new evidence
develops that might justify reclassifying the reactivity of specific VOCs.
     Perchloroethylene (PCE), a VOC used as a solvent and emitted in significant
amounts from dry-cleaning operations, was first thought to be unreactive and
was exempted from control.  Thus, it was included among the unreactive VOCs
identified by EPA and listed in Appendix B of EPA's Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans (1).  The Los Angeles  Rule 66 (2)
also exempted PCE from control as being unreactive.  Those early judgments
were based on the 1960s Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District (LAAPCD)
smog chamber study of solvent reactivities (3).  In that study, irradiation  of
PCE and nitrogen oxides (NO ) mixtures in a 1200 cu. ft. glass-aluminum smog
                           A
chamber did not produce more oxidant than irradiation of the background air
alone.  That study, however, was one of the earliest efforts using smog chamber
methodology, and, although responsive to the need at that time, is now considered
one of the least sensitive.  For example, irradiation of background air alone
in that chamber resulted in as much as 0.2 ppm of total oxidant; such  a high
level of background reactivity makes it difficult to measure the reactivities
of little but not insignificantly reactive organics.
     In the years following the LAAPCD studies and the Appendix B and  Rule 66
promulgations, there were several other PCE reactivity studies, which  were

-------
undertaken for several  reasons.   First,  many researchers  recognized that the
LAAPCD data needed verification.   Also,  it was found that under conditions of
long-range pollutant transport,  investigated in the 1970's,  some "unreactive"
organic compounds can produce significant amounts of CL.   Finally,  the discovery
that halocarbons cause stratospheric ozone depletion increased interest in the
atmospheric chemistry of PCE and other halocarbons with respect to  their
lifetimes in the troposphere.  Thus, it  became important to  know the rate at
which PCE (and other halocarbons) react  and are consumed in  the troposphere,
and the reaction products and their impact on tropospheric and stratospheric
air quality.
     After the "Appendix B" guideline, the next PCE regulatory judgment EPA
made was that described in EPA's Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds in 1977 (4).   That policy divided VOCs into three classes
based on three criteria:  photochemical  reactivity, role in  stratospheric 03
depletion, and direct health effects.   The first class, shown in Table 1,
includes those VOCs which by virtue of their negligible reactivity  could be
exempted from regulation under ozone SIPs.  The second class, shown in Table 2,
includes those VOCs which have low photochemical reactivity and must be included
in the ozone SIP inventories but their control has lower priority than that of
the more reactive compounds.  The third  class, encompassing  all VOCs other
than those in Tables 1  and 2, includes those VOCs the control of which has
relatively high priority.  The PCE was judged to have photochemical reactivity
comparable to those of the Table-2 VOCs  but was not included in Table 2 because
of its reported health effects.   Note, however, that even in the absence of
the health effects criterion, the EPA judgment in 1977 would still  have been
that PCE's photochemical reactivity is not sufficiently low to justify total
exemption from control.
     EPA's 1977 judgment on PCE reactivity was based mainly on findings from
a 1974-75 EPA smog chamber study (5), the results of which were also supported
by an independent 1974 Rutgers University smog chamber study  (6).  Three other
reported studies, by SRI (7), Dow Chemical (8,9), and EPA (10), produced results
that agreed with the EPA policy on PCE in some respects, disagreed  in others,
or were not comparable.  More recently,  there have been additional  studies
reported, some directly addressed to PCE's Oo-forming reactivity and some

-------
TABLE 1    VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS OF NEGLIGIBLE PHOTOCHEMICAL REACTIVITY
          THAT SHOULD BE EXEMP FROM REGULATION UNDER STATE IMPLEMENTATION
          PLANS (4)
          Methane
          Ethane                                   -,
          1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform)
          Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)1
          Methylene Chloride1   -,
          Trichlorofluoromethane -,
          Di chlorodif1uoromethane
          Chlorodi f1uoromethane1
          Trifl uoromethane1       -,
          Ch1oropentafluorofoethane,
          Trichlorotrifluoroethane  -,
          Di chl orotetraf 1 uorqpiethane
 According to more recent EPA notices in the Federal Register  (Vol. 44,
 pp. 32042-43, June 4, 1979, and Vol. 45, pp. 48941-42, July 22, 1980),
 these compounds are of continuing concern to EPA over possible environ-
 mental effects and may be subject to future controls.
TABLE 2.  VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS OF "LOW" PHOTOCHEMICAL REACTIVITY  (4)
          Propane
          Acetone
          Methyl Ethyl Ketone
          Methanol
          Isopropanol
          Methyl Benzoate
          Tertiary Alkyl Alcohols
          Methyl Acetate
          Phenyl Acetate
          Ethyl Amines
          Acetylene
          N,N-dmethyl formamide

-------
to various mechanisms of PCE photooxielation.   The new evidence appeared to be,
again, partly in agreement and partly in disagreement with  the 1977 EPA judgment
on PCE reactivity.   However, it became also apparent that most of the conflicting
evidence could be reconciled, and this led  us  *o reexamine  the question of PCE
reactivity in the light of the reconciled evidence.   We concluded that more
experimental  testing was needed to more completely reconcile conflicting
evidence and  to support a more definitive and  reliable judgment regarding the
reactivity of PCE.
     In this  report we describe our latest  experimental study.  We also reanalyze
and reinterpret all evidence now available  on  the atmospheric chemistry of
PCE, and offer a new judgment of PCE's photochemical reactivity with respect
to the ambient oxidant problem.  To facilitate understanding of the rationale
behind the objectives and design of our new study, and the  reanalysis and
interpretation of the experimental evidence, we discuss first the concept of
reactivity, the past data and other relevant literature on  PCE reactivity, and
the current specific issues and information gaps.

-------
                                   SECTION 2
                           THE CONCEPT OF REACTIVITY

     Definitions, significance, and applications of the VOC reactivity concept
in air pollution problems have been discussed in detail elsewhere (11).  The
reactivity aspect of primary interest in this report is the ability of the VOC
to participate in atmospheric reactions and form Oo/O  .  The prevalent method
                                                  O  X
for measuring such reactivity has been the smog chamber method, by which the
test VOC is exposed in a smog chamber to reactant mixture and radiation condi-
tions similar to those in real urban atmospheres, and the yield in 03/0x is
measured directly.
     In the past nearly three decades there have been numerous smog chamber
studies of VOC reactivity, and Oo/O -yield reactivity data are now available
                                *j  y\
for a large number of VOCs (11).  There are problems, however, in using the
existing data base for this particular reactivity index.  One conceptual
problem is that the Oo/O  reactivity is not a single-value molecular property.
                     O  A
To explain, the smog chamber method of measurement does not give a single
result; it gives results that vary depending, for example, on the reactant
concentration conditions used in the chamber.  Thus, the Oo/O  yield reactivi-
                                                          o  X
ties of VOCs are not uniquely defined, absolutely or relative to each other,
and this confuses the application of the reactivity concept in control.
Another problem with the concept of 0^/0  yield is that this measure of
                                     O  X
reactivity cannot be used for VOCs of small but significant reactivity, because
smog chambers manifest levels of background reactivity comparable to those of
such VOCs.
     These problems with the Oo/O  yield reactivity index have had two conse-
                              O  X
quences.  They forced researchers and regulators (a) to turn to simple, two-
class reactivity classification schemes ("reactive", "unreactive") in preference
to individual VOC reactivity ranking schemes, and (b) to consider other less
direct but more usable reactivity indices.  The reactivity indices considered
and used here are the "Oo/O  yield" reactivity and the "VOC consumption rate"
                        O  X
reactivity.  The 03/0X yield reactivity data are more reliable for reactive
VOCs and are used to classify those organics.  The classification of low-
reactivity VOCs, for which the smog chamber measurements of Oo/O  yield are
                                                             •j  X
                                       5

-------
generally unreliable is  based  mainly  on  "VOC  consumption  rate"  reactivity
data, explained below.
     The VOC consumption rate  is  the  rate  at  which  the VOC  reacts when  exposed
to atmospheric conditions,  and can  be measured  during the same  smog  chamber
test used to measure the 03/0x yield  reactivity.   Its significance  lies mainly
in the fact that a VOC  cannot  produce 03/0 unless  it participates—and,
hence, is consumed—in  the  atmospheric reaction.   The VOC consumption rate,
therefore, offers the most  reliable basis  for recognizing the totally unreactive
VOCs.  Thus, VOCs whose  consumption rates  are negligibly  small  are  classified
as unreactive.  By extension,  it  was  also  assumed,  at first, that VOCs  mani-
festing significant consumption rates in smog chambers are  reactive.  This
latter assumption, however, has been  questioned by  some recent  studies  (5),
and, as discussed later, by this  study also.

-------
                                   SECTION 3
               ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF EXISTING EVIDENCE
                        ON PERCHLOROETHYLENE REACTIVITY

     Existing evidence considered here consists mainly of data on the 03/0x
yield and PCE consumption rate reactivities obtained in the laboratory.  Since
crude measures of consumption rate reactivity can also be derived from ambient
concentration and emission rate data, these will also be included in this
analysis.  Each piece of reactivity data is critiqued to the extent allowed by
the reported information, and labeled as of supporting a "negligibly reactive"
or "reactive" classification for PCE.  "Negligibly reactive" is defined here
as equal or less reactive than ethane, the latter organic taken by the authors
to be a "boundary" species separating the reactive VOCs from the unreactive
ones.  Results from attempts to reconcile conflicting data and to derive an
overall reactivity rating for PCE relative to that of ethane are given later
in this chapter.
LABORATORY DATA ON 03/0X YIELD AND CONSUMPTION RATE REACTIVITIES
     Formal and informal reports on 0^/0  yield and consumption rate reactivi-
                                     o  X
ties of PCE, including some specifics on smog chamber system and conditions
used, are listed in Table 3.
     The Schuck and Doyle data (12) were obtained by irradiating 3 ppmy PCE
and 1 ppmv NO  in a 520-ft  chamber.  Resultant stable 0^ concentration was
             A                                          -J
0.05 ppm, greater than the concentration produced by trichloroethylene or
methane.  Observed rate of PCE consumption was comparable to those for C7-CR
paraffins and, hence, higher than that for ethane, assuming the same smog
chemistry to be applicable to PCE and to C-,-CR paraffins.  These data support
negligible 0Q/0 -yield reactivity and appreciable consumption rate reactivity
            O  A
for PCE but are suspect because they show trichloroethylene to be less reactive
than PCE, a result that is inconsistent with all other studies of the two
chloroethylenes.
     The Brumrnelle, et al., data (3) were obtained by irradiating 6.34 ppm of
                                  o
PCE and 1.85 ppm NOX in a 1,200-ft  aluminum-glass chamber.   The data support
negligible Oo/O  yield reactivity and appreciable consumption rate reactivity
            O  A

-------



























oo
LU
1 — i
Q

00

>_
r—
i — i

i— t
1—
CJ

LU


LU
CJ
o_

Q
an
u_
00
_l

00
LU
o:

Q

<•
Q
LU
LO


00


1—
CO
00

	 1

1 —

LU

C£
LU
Q_
X
LU



00

LU
	 1
CO
1 	




































l/l
c:

c
cz

<_)










X E
0 0.
•^ D.
oo
O "
. (J
X C
ra O
E: u


if- C
0 0

(LI -P
+j o .E
ra ra \
i. a) sa
<-

CnLU
< Q-


S- >
1 O O
ra t- ^
i.
 o
0) -~^<4-
o >
§~i
o E a.
a.
+0 Q_ -
E o
ro "'i—

O C ro
ro O Cn
ai -i- s-
a: +-> o












c:
o


ro c
•r- CT
-a -i-
ro t/1
S- (U
•a

"c E
ro (LI

&- V)
ai >,
-Q VI
E

r—
CJ


(L<
(J
>> c
-a (LI
3 s_
+-> ai
OO M-
 C
S- S- 0) a;
ro ra E ' —
i-0-!.!'
O COO -M
O CJ M— QJ
1 0

ra o -a o
3 r- ,—
S- OJ -C
,-,-

t. aj co-*->
i/) O
ii i o ""-*. "O
O -CT ro C
D_ -4-J O rt3
1



LO
O
o








^J"

LO











(—

CO


X
o

»»^
LU
CJ)
Q_








1 -(->
>> W -r- JH
S_ S_ CL X CD
 O -r-
J3 U  i —
-O 1 «r- • ZD »—
cu ^: i— s- i rj
c -^  fo E a; o
i fo i — ra c: -*->
cn 2 j2 JT
V) 1 O C r—
13 O 00 T- (i3
i— CD r^. cu u
u>^" -C >} cr
-a 4-> -(-> ai
OO *3" C ••—
+J CM ra CD t/l >>
M- -0 C r—
1 JZ to -r- OJ (LI
O -t-* U to 4-J -fJ
CM -i- 1_ C E ra
LO 3 ra -i- -f- E
ai
^
0
Q

T3 LO
c: r—


v^ ^— ^
u cn
3 LO
j= cn
CJ i—

c;
o
•i- C
+J 0

r— 4J t-> X
•r— ra -t~ O
•o f. 'S'z.

s- 0 E -a
0)  S* 3 E i-
S- 00 O -C O-+->
ai • s_ cn o. c
> vo cn-r- cu
•a -*c x: uo u
ra co o r-* c
C ro ro V) • O
i— i 3 CQ ro O o
1 1





o


1
V)
ra >>
•a •— tu _a
(LI ro E
•4-J -t-J VI
ra O CJ +J
*d- E +->••- c
• -r- C CL>
§ro E
cn cu • —
> C 0)

s-oa> cucns- CU CU Q-^: E E cn S-
ro t- j^ CJ ro •!- -i- CU
^r>, +J v) ra jz x i— Q-
Ot-i — V)i — UOCE

V) CJ CU T3 r~~ CU CL VI +-*
vi t- +-> ••- cn_i jc Q.

i— E +-> X 1 ra 0)
Cn V) 13 ^T3 J3
ILUVIOS-i— "O4JCS
E > ai >, i •!-•!- o c\jraO-S» o_.r-+Jcn-M
 c
1 VI - J3 ^3- VI ro i — «3I CU
o -cr o_ i/i £ Q..T— ra vi
CO +-* E t- ra "CJ E T3 3 l/l O



ro

4_)
cu

0) 00


cu- — .
E co
E U3
3 cn
s- .—
CO- 	
c
0

4-*

,__
•p—


S-
O)
•g
ra
.c


+-> -
C -C
cu ~-^

S- »3-
CU 1
> ro
•o
ra V)
c ro

1



i— co
•— 0
0 0








0 0

*3- UO











!— r—

OO CO

..
X
o

^v^
LU
(_)
a.



•o
i cn c O)
t^ C (tJ -r- 4J
d> O CO =3 • •*-> >^J= 0)
i/> ^ -*^. «o -M cn c-_
(/) S- Q -t-> «sj- O •>— •»— O
fTJ I3^^J^LL.4J V>»—
i — t/> CSJ O> C C t/1
cn ,— .,- o •— a> rj  VI S
X T3 CM O) C C

t-t/iu.) — cai fOd)

a_ -i- CNJ x o c: E
i r-v CQ * QJ T- o  i — flj • CO OJ LL_
CO 1- 1 £2 .Q 5 1- CJIO
+JOJCCD OJOCLO

i E •— •— CQ a. E *
CO (O **- >»O £ 
-------
















































•
-o
CU
c

^J
c
o
o



CO

LU
_J
CQ

1—






























































CO

c

£:

Q











X E
0 Q.
-v. a
ro
O -
• o
X C
IO O
S CJ

CO
t4- C
O O

CU 4->
4JCJ-CZ

I.g«
•
cncu
eC Q_



i- X
I 0 O
10 M- ^
i.
4-"-— S-
C > 0
aj ^ M-
C> J>

O Q
o E a.

+j a. -
c o
 o








c:
o

10 C
•t- 01
-a -f-
IO CO
s- cu

-Q
C E
IO CU
4->
i. CO
CU >,
-Q CO
E
IO
.c
CJ





0)
u

•a cu
3 1-
+J CU
CO M-
a>
i.






































o








to
1












r^
•^^
CM



X
o

^^
LU
CJ
Q-



,
C 1
3 IO i-
JC CO > CU

•i- «* CO "O 3 E
3 CM CO CU • CT IO
C i- CU -C
S- .C "O O 01 O
CU 4-> C T- -Q CO
ft «t— IQ -4-J E IO
E 3 -r- « 3 • •
IO CO CO .C C U_
.C T3 CLO CJ >>'i- 0
O C E Q. 4-> E O
IO IO CU *' — CTt
E f~~ CO i~* CO *3"
3 •• CL<-> C • +->
C 00 CU E CU O IO
•i- 2 3 10 O 4->
E C5^^-4->C 11 -0
3 -o .a ••- cu
r- C -!->>, d+J

2 n an— o s-
ro -r- 10 -i- o cu
-!-> !- -r— C *-> -M Q.
4- IO CO J* i- ro O
1 i — Q. U CU ••—-*->

CO CU IO ^~ X IO CU IO
CO 1— r— -O CUQfCi— 3
to
' —

^
cn
P-~


• r—
^^


>j
N
U
Q-
0

cxt O
0 ••-
O • +->
O CO 4-> CJ

I E cn "o
O •!-•!- C
O *J t— -i-
co c
CM O 3 C
< — CO IO
ID

•M 3 10 OJ
OS- 3 «3-
C ^3 3 O 1
•i- (O +J _C I—
IO CO
C CO C 1-_
O IO CO O
•r- 3 M- c
+j o 3 -a
IO CU S- O
•1- 0>+-> -r-
T3 C IO i— S-
IO IO .d r~~ CU

1 1



O r—
LO 0
o o



01 0)

C -C ••- C J= -i-
•1— LO •+-> -r- O •*-*
S-CM *CC S-CM 'CC:
3 CMOJ3 3 LOOJ3
"O 4^ *~~ S- "O 4-* CM L-
CO S- CO i.
• -r- C > 1 • •!- C > 1
*3" f- IO O 00 to 4— 10 o ^)-







LO

o
-^ o
LO ^»
co co

o o



X X
o o

^s^ -^^
LU LU
CJ LJ
a_ o_


>^ *
T3 4-»r—
OJ O -r- t Ll_
4-* ^t- (/ICO
(TJ U- O C -r- LT>
•r- *3- OJ E O^
T3 UJ l/> +J
(O CD U_ C CTl -4->
S- -r- CO fO
S- UD OJ
•r- I/) C O "O
* 13 O O)
COCO O -r- II -t->
fO — 1 JT •*-» rtl
JD CQ cn to a s-
c •-- j-; aj
C O •«— ~O Q.
o ^^- -*-1 ra o o
r— Ll_ t/1 Qi 4->
M- Q) V)
QJ LU 3 4-> 03
1— C3 • C 3
UD CO O)
+•* CM Q-r— i_
•r- j — T3 E  J2
1 _C fO r- -r- £
O 4-> C ^ rtl
O ••- -J 13 CT.C
CNJ 5 CQ t/> QJ cj
_
LO
cn
— >i
• cu

IO CX

4J CO
"O •*— >^
S- Ol 3 co
01 CO

E 3 o
IO O) -Q ••—
j: c 4J
U O >> IB
T3 •^>
OJ Ol 3 TD
.C J= 4J IO
1— 4-> CO S-
1




O
o







o

p>-
1
ro
CM










co

r—

LO



X
o

~^
LU
CJ
IX
T3
c cu
S- CO O 4->
C OJ O_'r- IO
O 4J E 4-> II S-
•i- O) 10 10 O)
CO 4-> E <~ -r- QO.
CO CL O TJ -i^ O
IO C. 4-> 4J IO
i — O O .C CKl O CO
Ol CO -C O> 4-> IO
jn Q--I- 2
CU IO O > — - 4->
4-> S- J>i S- C S-
IO CO 4J U OJ Ol Ot
cj 10 cj ia ^3 • — .a
•i- CU r— E 10 E
^— cn CL .Q 10 > 10
•r- c co .cr -r- jz
co -r- cn o 3 cj
o > ce _j cr
S- S- <-> 03 O O)
O OJ 1— 4->
^3 CO Lt_ O >T —
•3- •— 4-> I
4->S-t-LL.IO-'- CU-
•r- O) O C Cfl -1— 0
« — ^D tu C- cr £ to
i E <— ca ai u co

Cn jT" 11,1 to X C • | '
LOUCJCTJOJ'«-OlT5
0


to
CT>



.
^~
(O

1 *
Ol

>^
IO
C£J



















































^—^
-o
01
3
C

4->
C
O
o



























































-------





































CO
3
C
4-J
C
o

	

CO

LU
	 1
CO

1—



















































CO
c
cu

§
o







XE
o a.
~x o.
ro
O •

• o
X C
10 o
2: o
CO
t- c
o o

CO 4->
4-> u -C
IO IO \
S_ CO &S
s.

O1LU
< 0-
s- >
1 O O
10<(-Z
•(-»" — * S-
C > 0
CO ->^C|_
o >


UE a
•U Q. •
c: o

+J CO C
O E IO
IO O 01
a£ +J o












c
o

10 C
•r- Ol
"O -r—
IO CO
i- CO
-o
•o
C E
10 CO
S- CO
CO >,
J3 CO
E
IO

o






CO
u
>1 C
-a co
3 S-
+-> cu

CO






















fO fO fO
-4-J 4_) +J
fO *O  1
CO IS «O IO CJ—
-OI3 > O C i-

IC r— -C • 3 -U -O
.C CM +->X cr ia >, E
U •§- O CO -C (O IO
LU 3 0 +J T3 -C U-
eo C3 en >> o o
CO CO CM -M CO S- < —
(O CM CL -i- CO CO CO
i~~ F~ 4~ co E E *


X ••- C M- +J CO X
CO 3 3 l^ — C CO QJ ^3
s- co o -r- • c: i — co
>,T3 -P CM O -P
Cu 0) S- 3 C 1 - IO
-*-» O U O -M +-> S-
+JIO+J -r-O-Ci-CO
•»-T- O-C-*->+J CJ>O D-
r— "O d) -+-J IO *r— O- O
1 IO *~~ Ol't~ 4-J r— CO
VOS-^CTZJCCCOCO
• &-COCOIOC03S-IO
crv''~ S-'~Q:'~ "^ 3
LO IO

a> -4-«
i— CO
en
• c

IO i —

+•> •!-. 	 •
co a en

O1T3

•r- IO CO
^-. — .01
•i- 00 i—
c
o
u
3 O
C r—
•1- 1
en
10 o

IO O
3
-o
cu o
i- •.-
-C CU
I— a.



CM

r— .
1
LO
•
0
Co
i.

LO •!->
LO r— 1 C
^- Ol CD CO
1 C -4-J INJ
LO -r- CO S-
t- i- -a co c
3 -r- C > 3
•a "4- 10 o i-





CM

o__^

«^- en
•(->
en
.. CU
x-t->
0
z: ai
~^^^— '
LU
Q-





CQ CO CO
S 	 1 CO ra
CU CQ 13 O3
.a o c •(->
E 0 -C 0 S-

r" 1 1 ^ _4_> ^ f-i
O 1 ••- IO CU E
LU +J -r- ! 	 IO

CO C1J IO > <_>
>^CXJ 3
CL. r^» o~ • i '


O •<- C CL CO C 00
i— 3 10 E 10 -i-

CO T3 4-> i— 10
1 — CU -C C >i^j-

+J IO -r- CO -r- • CU
•t— -r~ i — CO O +-1
i— -a -* o c 10
1 IO U f 0) II S-
O S- IO 1 •!-> CU
O S- i— U. C QQ-
«3- -r- J3 00 -r- Ji^ 0
JC
CO
0
•-D
-a
c
ia

CO
OJ-— -
T3 LO
IO 	

i— ^— X
-t-J r~*
i cr.






















o







IO
-u
ItJ
•o

0
z:





f—

CM


X
o

^^
LU
o
a_

cn >>
C 4-> 4->
•r- IO -l-

 1 U_
•f-COCO "CCO
"O '^' ^" QDet '^" '^~ LO
IO CC O E CO
S- CO — 1 >iO C
s- cxu_ oir— o m -u
•r— E i- » ••— ro fO
IO T3 CO CO *-> •
i. i— C C IO O TD
.0 CD C "0 II -4->
£ 01 «si •«-> 10 10 ia
IO 13 C£. i~l L-

O ^ i^^1 4-^Oe^ O—
•r— CO 3 i"~* • O O
x 3 o o in >n->
co «d- 10 •— co
>,i— _i +J n > c 3
Q_ ( — Ll_ -r- -i- CO
10 3 -+J i— s-
ro c •• oct u 10 CO
4-»i-JD
q- CO O CO O a.-i- E
1 4J *J- Q.CM CO 3 , « co o-x:
r^ cou-^j^i- i- co<->


IO ^~*
•M en
10 TJ  .—

-d LU
•1— ^~~. >J

c 01 a. co
^SC-o^1



















^J.
•
0








00
1
in








CM

o



• 4
X
o

»»^
LU
a.



CO J3 «3-
S- CO >, •

.C CO -i-T

in -a 10 CM c -i-
co co H- cu E •

r— *r— IO C C CO O
en i. s_ — u to
O • f -t->
•r— "O CO i — (O O~O

•i- 10 o o -a -t->

O TD -t-1 i — Ql +-> S_
t- O> 3 J3 CO
O co 10 +J OL
J3 3 O • C O

+J S- co D-i— S-
•i- cu cu ca E 10 co
i E +-> CQ i— -i- E
O to c: 3 10
C^ r~ ^>CM 3 I*T* r~
•uo u J3 r^ in ,
s





































t3
CO
3
c
•(->
c
o


























































10


-------
for PCE, but they are suspect because of excessively  high  chamber background
reactivity problems, and because of poor analytical methods.
     The Wilson data (7), informally reported,  were obtained  by irradiating
                                      3
8 ppm of PCE and 1  ppm NO  in a 268-ft  Teflon-coated aluminum-Pyrex chamber.
                         A
Resultant 0,/0  yields were 0.08-0.11 ppm,  suggesting a  borderline level  of
           *j  X
Oo/O  yield reactivity for PCE.  Consumption rates were  4  to  5%/h, which  are
 O  A
only slightly higher than the dilution rate (3%/h)  in the  smog  chamber.   These
rates are lower than those observed for butane  and  toluene (i.e., ~8%/h)  (13) —
organics which, according to current smog chemistry,  are more reactive than
ethane (11).  These reactivities, however,  may  be somewhat low  because the
chamber's radiation in the 3000-4000$ wavelength region—which  is the most
energetic part of the surface sunlight spectrum—was, according to the investi-
gators, some 15% less than the estimated natural radiation in Los Angeles (13).
Overall these data, although questionable,  are  judged to suggest borderline
levels of reactivity.
     The Kopczynski data (14), informally reported, were obtained in a single
smog chamber experiment in which 2 ppmv PCE and 1 ppmv NO   were irradiated in
        3
a 335-ft  aluminum-Tedlar chamber.  After 5.4 hours of irradiation, no 0^ was
observed, a result that supports negligible 0^/0  yield  reactivity for PCE.
                                             O   A
Consumption rate was 5 to 6%/h, which is comparable to that for n-butane
(measured in the same chamber), a VOC known to  be reactive.  These data are
limited in amount and for that reason alone are questionable.
     The Lillian et al. (6) and Appleby (15) data were obtained in a series of
experiments, in which 0.8 ppm PCE was irradiated in 200-liter Teflon bags in
the presence and in the absence of 0.5 ppm NO  and of a  hydrocarbon.  Data
                                             A
from several experiments showed a pattern of slow PCE disappearance in the
first three hours of irradiation when the 0^ concentration was  low, and fast
disappearance later in the experiment, after 03 concentration reached a peak.
The Oo/O  yields varied but were always high (> 0.5 ppm),  supporting high PCE
     O  A
reactivity.  Irradiation of 0.8 ppm PCE alone in air  (containing about 0.004 ppm
of NO  impurity) resulted in only 0.01 ppm of 0,, suggesting  no background
     X                                         O
reactivity problems.  Such high 0~/0  yields and PCE  consumption rates,
                                 O  A
however, strongly disagree with the previous studies.

                                      12

-------
     The early data by Gay et al. (10) were obtained in a single experiment in
which 5 ppm PCE and 1.8 ppm NO  were irradiated (with blacklight fluorescent
                              X
lamps) in the 690-liter FTIR chamber used in the present study.  After 2.3 h,
0.1 ppm of On formed, and there was a PCE loss equal to 2.3%/h.  These data,
assuming to be significant, support a negligible 0^/0  yield reactivity and a
                                                  O  /\
possibly significant consumption rate reactivity, but are suspect because they
are limited in amount.
     The Billing et al. data (8) on On/0  yield reactivity were obtained by
                                     o  X
irradiating 50 ppmv PCE and 12-13 ppmv NO  in a 10-liter Pyrex cylinder; PCE
                                         /\
consumption rates (9) were measured in tests with 10 ppm PCE end 5 ppm NO .
                                                                         X
In all tests, the radiation intensity was, according to the authors, approxi-
mately 2.6 times higher than that of natural sunlight.  The oxidant measurements
made represented the sum of 03 and NO^ as well as of all other oxidants causing
response to the KI method; specific 0^ yield data were not obtained in that
study.  Despite this limitation, it could be deduced from the oxidant measure-
ments that the 0^ yields were low, supporting negligible PCE reactivity.  The
time for 50% PCE disappearance was 14.2 hours when all initial NO  was NO, and
                                                                 A
8.3 hours when all initial NO  was N09.  These consumption rates were roughly
                             X       c.
3 to 3.5 times slower than those for trichloroethylene, but only 2 times
slower than that for toluene, a reactive VOC.  Assuming that PCE and toluene
obey the same smog chemistry, these data again suggest a generally low level
of consumption rate reactivity, but probably not below that of ethane.  They
are judged, therefore, to support a reactive nature for PCE.  Because the
apparatus and conditions used in that study are drastically different from the
other studies and highly unrealistic, those data cannot be quantitatively
compared with the other studies, and do not have absolute validity.
     The Dimitriades and Joshi data (5) were obtained by irradiating 4 ppmv
PCE and 0.2 ppmv N0v in a 400-liter Pyrex-Teflon reactor.  Resultant 0-,
                   X                                                  o
yields were around 0.5 ppm, corrected for 0.03 ppm background reactivity.  The
consumption rate data displayed a pattern similar to the one displayed by the
Lillian et al.  (6), and Appleby (15) data.  That is, PCE disappeared slowly at
                                      13

-------
first, and extremely fast after 03 had  reached a  peak.   These  data clearly
support a reactive nature for PCE with  respect to both  03/0X yield and consump-
tion rate, but are suspect because of apparent inconsistencies with current
smog chemistry.  Thus,  the reactivities of sor.a organics that  have been studied
in that chamber, including methane and  propane, were greater than those estimated
on the basis of current smog chemistry  (16,17).
     The Yanagihara et al . data (18,19) were obtained by irradiating 4 ppmv
                             o
PCE and 2 ppmv NO  in a 70- ft  Pyrex smog chamber.   Resultant  0^ yields were
                 A                                             O
comparable to background 03 reactivity, supporting,  therefore, negligible
reactivity for PCE.
     Newer data by Gay (20) and Kaiserman and Corse  (21) were  obtained using
two smog chambers:  the 690-liter FTIR  chamber used  and described in our
current study, and a 400-ft  aluminum- Teflon chamber (21).   Since those tests
were to check the reproducibility of the Dimitriades and Joshi results, these
researchers used the same reactant concentration conditions as those used by
Dimitriades and Joshi:   4 ppmv PCE and  0.2 ppmv NO .  Resultant 0^/0  yields
                                                  X               O  A
were within 0.2-0.4 ppm for both chambers, supporting high  PCE reactivity.
Observed consumption rates in the two chambers were  5 to 8%/h  and 9.5%/h,
respectively, supporting a low reactivity level but  still higher than that of
ethane.  These newer data, therefore, support high PCE reactivity with respect
to both On/0  yield and consumption rate.
         O  X
     Finally, the Sickles et al.  data (22) were obtained using a battery of
four 1000-ft  Teflon chambers and several 250-liter Teflon bags irradiated by
natural sunlight.  Reactant concentrations were 4 ppmv for PCE and 0.2 ppm and
0.067 ppm for NO. resulting in PCE-to-NOv ratios of 20:1  and 60:1.   Resultant
                X                        A
Oo/O  yields were 0.4-0.5 ppm, supporting high PCE reactivity.  Repeated
 o  X
parallel irradiations of PCE and other organic compounds consistently resulted
in higher 03 yields for PCE relative to propane, for example, a result that
leaves very little doubt about the high level of PCE reactivity manifested
within these chamber atmospheres.  Explicit data on PCE consumption were not
reported by the investigators.  However, they did report that the rate of PCE
loss was significantly higher than the rate of disappearance of the co-reactant
methane, and approximately equal  to 2%/h.  Based on this,  the PCE consumption
rate reactivity was judged to be comparable to (or greater than) that of
ethane.
                                      14

-------
ATMOSPHERIC DATA ON CONSUMPTION RATE REACTIVITY
     The main value of atmospheric data lies in the fact that they reflect
"real world" behavior of pollutants.  Their main shortcoming is that they can
seldom be sufficiently abundant to allow accurate quantitative interpretations.
Such data are used here to derive semi-quantitative measures of PCE consumption
rate reactivity.
     The data used in this analysis are those gathered and discussed by Singh
and coworkers (23-25).  A semi-quantitative estimate of PCE reactivity, based
on 1977 data, can be derived as follows:  The 1977 PCE emissions of 0.57 X 10
metric tons, assumed to be discharged all in the northern hemisphere (25),
should create an ambient concentration of 40 ppt.  Observed northern hemisphere
concentration is 40 ppt (25), indicating an extremely low PCE consumption rate
reactivity.  Assuming the ambient PCE concentration to be constant [a reasonable
assumption (23-25)] it follows that the annually added PCE concentration of
40 ppt is offset by atmospheric consumption the rate of which, obviously, is
100% per year or 0.02% per daylight hour.  For comparison, the ethane removal
                                                                  -12  3
rate, calculated from the ethane + OH rate constant k^ = 0.3 X 10   cm
molecule sec  , and the seasonally averaged tropospheric OH concentration of
3-4 X 105 molecules/cm3 (25), is 0.03 to 0.04%/h.  Thus, the atmospheric data
appear to support an extremely low PCE reactivity, comparable to and perhaps
lower than that of ethane.
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF EXISTING PCE REACTIVITY DATA
     Table 4 summarizes the existing laboratory and aerometric data from the
12 studies cited here.  Six supported high or borderline 0^/0  yield reactivity,
                                                          *5  X
six supported negligible 03/0X yield reactivity, and all of the studies supported
high but widely varying consumption rate reactivities.  The aerometric data
supported negligible reactivity.  Such a high level of inconsistency in experi-
mental reactivity measurements is unusual, but not surprising in the case of
PCE.  The Rutgers University researchers also observed highly irreproducible
results in repeated irradiations of PCE/NO  systems (15).  The same phenomenon
                                          )\
was also observed by Dusoleil et al. in their studies of the kinetics of PCE
photochlorination (26).
                                      15

-------
            TABLE 4.   REPORTED LABORATORY  STUDIES AND  RESULTS  ON  PCE  REACTIVITY
Investigators
 PCE Reactivity Found
03/0XConsumption
yield           rate
              Comments
Shuck and Doyle (12)        Negligible



Brummelle et al.  (3)        Negligible




Wilson (7)                  Borderline



Kopczynski (14)             Negligible


Lillian et al. (6,15)          High


Gay et al. (10)             Negligible


Dilling et al. (8,9)        Negligible



Dimitriades & Joshi (5)        High


Yanagihara et al. (18)      Negligible

Gay (20)                       High

Kaiserman and Corse (21)       High

Sickles et al. (16)            High
                High
                High
             Borderline



                High


                High


                High


                High



             Very High


              No Data

                High

                High

             Borderline
Results are suspect because of
inconsistency with other,
reliable evidence.

Results are suspect because of
excessive chamber background
reactivity and poor analytical
methods.

Uncertainties exist due to
unrealistic radiation condi-
tions.

Uncertainties exist due to
limited number of experiments.

Questions raised by high results
relative to other studies.

Uncertainties exist due to
limited number of experiments.

Reactant concentration and
radiation conditions were
considerably unrealistic.

Some results are inconsistent
with current smog chemistry.
Data quality could not be
checked since explicit con-
sumption rate data were not
reported.
                                          16

-------
     Use of low PCE-to-NO  ratio conditions (i.e.,  around 2:1) in the smog
                         A
chamber measurement at first appeared to be one possible reason for the low
(L/0  yield reactivities found in six of the studies.   But this explanation
 O  A
alone does not settle the issue, since the Rutgers  University study also used
low PCE-to-NO  ratios but observed high 0.,/C)  yield reactivities (6,15).  For
             X                           ij  X
the same reason, the consumption rate reactivity variability also cannot be
explained in terms of varying effects by the PCE-to-NO  ratio factor alone.
                                                      A
     In searching for clues to the causes of these  inconsistencies, the smog
chamber studies' results were compared with reactivities deduced from smog
chemistry considerations.  To explain, currently accepted smog chemistry
(derived from atmospheric chemistry studies of hydrocarbons and aldehydes)
explains VOC reactivity in terms of the VOC's ability to participate in a
chemical process, a key step of which invariably is the initial reaction of
the VOC with OH radicals (11).  Reactions subsequent to the OH attack also
have a role in the overall Oo-forming process, but, obviously, only if the
initial reaction with OH occurs at a significant rate.  Therefore, the value
of the rate constant for the PCE + OH reaction can  provide a useful first
check on the reliability of the existing laboratory data, as explained next.
     The rate constant, knu, of the PCE + OH reaction has been measured in
                                                  12   3         _i     1
several studies and found to be equal to 0.2 X 10    cm  molecule   sec   (27).
Assuming that ambient OH concentration during summer noon time in the Southern
              f\                 n
U.S. is 5 X 10  molecules per cm0 (28) (reported values range within 2-8 X
10 ), the PCE consumption rate in ambient air due to reaction with OH is
calculated to be

            X 100 - kOH[OH] X 100 = 0.2 X 10"12 X 5 X 106 X 100 = 10"4%/sec =

     0.36%/h

Since the light intensities in all smog chamber studies cited here except Oil ling
et al. (8,9) are comparable to natural sunlight intensity, according to theory,
the PCE consumption rates in the chambers should be roughly close to 0.36%/h,
except for Dilling et al.  The actual observed consumption rates, however, are

                                      17

-------
1-1 1/2 orders of magnitude higher,  which means  either that the smog chambers
in the studies cited here did not perform consistent with smog  chemistry
predictions, or that current smog chemistry,  for some reason,  is not applicable
in the PCE case.   To further evaluate these tv.o  alternate explanations,  consump-
tion rates were computed from kg,, data for several  VOCs (hydrocarbons and
halocarbons), and compared with those observed in the smog chambers.  Computation
results and the comparison are shown in Table 5.
     The Table 5 data show generally good agreement between observed and
predicted consumption rate reactivities for hydrocarbons but extremely poor
agreement for halocarbons.  The halocarbon data  disagreement is invariably in
the direction of higher observed than computed reactivities, and seems to be
highest for the polychlorinated ethylenes and lowest for the haloalkane.
Therefore, the inconsistencies of the existing PCE reactivity data base cannot
be attributed directly to smog chamber-related factors alone.   The more logical
conclusion is that current smog chemistry cannot be applied to  polychlorinated
ethylenes, or, more specifically, the reaction with OH is not the key step in
the halocarbon consumption process.   Some species, more potent than OH, must
be responsible for the rapid PCE consumption in  smog chambers.   This raises,
four questions:
     1.   What is the chemical species that causes rapid PCE reaction in smog
          chambers?
     2.   What is the chemistry of the process following that species attack?
          Does it result in CL/0  production?
                             O  /\
     3.   Does this chemistry explain the inconsistencies among the various
          studies data (Table 4)?
     4.   Is this species and associated chemistry operative in the real
          atmosphere?
The first and second questions can be answered with reasonable  certainty by
referring to basic PCE chemistry studies.  Based on studies on  PCE reactions
with such species as 03, OH radicals, and 0 and  Cl  atoms, it has been estab-
lished that the reaction with 03 is  too slow to  account for the rapid PCE
disappearance observed in smog chambers (10,15).   In contrast,  PCE reacts
rapidly with Cl atoms, obeying a chain mechanism (29,30).  The  reactions with
0 atoms and OH radicals have lower rate constants than the reaction with Cl

                                      18

-------
      TABLE 5   COMPARISON OF CONSUMPTION RATES OBSERVED IN SMOG CHAMBERS
                      WITH CONSUMPTION RATES COMPUTED FROM knH DATA
                            FOR HYDROCARBONS AND HALOCARBONS

Smog chamber data
Schuck and Doyle (12)
Iso-octane
Ethyl ene
Propylene
Xylene
Trichloroethylene
PCE
Wilson (7)
Trichloroethylene
PCE
Kopczynski (14)
Butane
PCE
Lillian et al. (6,15)
PCE
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
Gay et al. (10)
Ethyl ene
Trichloroethylene
PCE
Dilling et al. (9)
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
PCE
Dilling et al. (8)
Toluene
Ethyl ene
Cyclohexene
Trichloroethylene
PCE
Dimitriades and Joshi (5)
Ethane
Propane
Butane
PCE
Gay (20)
Butane
PCE
Hydrocarbons
consumption rate, %/h
Observed Computed

6 6.7
9 9.0-18.0*
115 9-47*
64 34






5-6 5.4







-15 9.0-18.0*



14 7.2-10.8*



-7 7.2-10.8*
-15 9.0-18.0*
50-150 122



0.5 0.5
2.0 1.4-3.6
1.4 5.4


3.3 5.4

Halocarbons
consumption rate, %/h
Observed





17
5.4

-13
-5


-5

-70 (max)
-20 (max)
-18
-0


70 (max)
-2.5, -7


-30
-40




14-17*
3.5-6*




13


-4
Computed





4.1
0.4

4.1
0.4


0.4

: 0.4
f 4.1
11.9
0.03-0.05

x
f 4.1
0.4


4.1
0.4




4.1
0.4




0.4


0.4
  Range represents range of kOH-va1ues reported.   Only the reaction with OH was
  considered.
t Observed maximum rate.
* Range represents results for varying N02/N0  ratios in initial  chamber mixture.
                                            19

-------
(Table 6) ,  but they may be releasing  Cl  atoms  that could  accelerate PCE
consumption  through autocatalysis.
     Besides the evidence from the  basic  studies,  some smog chamber data also
suggest that Cl atoms have a major  role in the  rapid PCE reaction observed in
smog chambers.   For example, injection of small  amounts of C12 in irradiated
PCE/NO /air  systems caused a temporary but pronounced acceleration of PCE
      X
consumption  (9).  Also, presence of an effective Cl  atom scavenger was observed
to inhibit the PCE reaction (9,15).   Finally,  the pattern  of PCE and 03
disappearing rapidly in parallel, displayed in  the Lillian-Appleby (6,15),
Dimitriades-Joshi (5), Sickles et al.  (22), and  Joshi-Bufalini (32) studies,
can be explained as caused by Cl atoms chain-reacting with and consuming both
PCE and Cu,  the latter chain reaction, with 03,  being as follows (33):

               03 + Cl  ->  02 + CIO

               CIO + 03 -»  202 + Cl

     All these basic and smog chamber  studies  suggest that the PCE consumption
observed in  smog chambers is caused by a  Cl-instigated chain photooxidation
process, which, evidently, is also  capable of  generating 03.  Key reactions in
this mechanism are the chain initiation steps  resulting in Cl  atoms.  Whether
these steps  are photolyses of PCE and/or  its reaction products, or are reactions
following attack of OH or 0 atoms on PCE, it is  not known, nor can it be
speculated upon based on the studies reported  todate.  Also, the past studies
did not investigate adequately the  effects upon  the generation and fate of the
Cl atoms, of those experimental factors that differed from study to study
(e.g., the radiation and chamber wall-related  factors).  In the absence of
such evidence,  the question whether the Cl-instigated photooxidation mechanism
can explain  past conflicting results cannot be  answered.  Finally, past evidence
is lacking in that it does not permit  extrapolation of the laboratory data on
PCE reactivity to the "real atmosphere".   Direct use of the laboratory data is
not necessarily valid because such  data are taken, by necessity, under conditions
drastically  different than those in ambient air.   To validly extrapolate the
laboratory data to the "real world", it is necessary that the  PCE reactivity
                                      20

-------
       TABLE 6.   RATE CONSTANTS FOR PCE REACTIONS WITH REACTIVE SPECIES
                           Bimolecular reaction rate
  Reaction              Constant, k(cm3molecu1e"'sec~1)          Reference


PCE + Cl  -v [PCEJ-C1                5.3 X 10"13                        31

PCE + 0(3P) + [PCEj-0             0.8 X 10"13                        29

PCE + OH -»• [PCE].OH                 2 X TO"13                        27

PCE + 03 + Product                "Negligible"                       29
                                      21

-------
be defined as a function of the various conditions,  especially,  the reactant
and co-reactant concentrations, radiation,  and  chamber wall-related conditions.
     To summarize the discussion and conclusions thus far,  the evidence
reported todate on PCE reactivity is conflicting in  that it supports both high
reactivity and low reactivity for PCE.   High reactivity is  supported by some
smog chamber data on Cu/O  yield and by practically  all smog chamber data on
                      o  X
consumption rate.  Negligible reactivity is supported by some smog chamber
data on Oo/O  yield, by the atmospheric data on consumption rate,  and by the
         o  X
extremely low value of the kQ,, for PCE.  The major conflict between the high
reactivity smog chamber data and the k^n-related evidence is resolved by the
finding that the k^-related evidence is irrelevant  since in smog  chamber
PCE/NOV photooxidation systems the key  oxidizing species is Cl,  not OH.  The
      X
Cl-instigated photooxidation theory, however, in the lack of supporting
specific data, does not explain the conflicting results of past studies.
Furthermore, and more importantly, the  evidence reported todate, cannot answer
the question whether Cl-instigated photooxidation of PCE occurs in the real
atmosphere significantly.  It is these  latter deficiencies  in the  existing
evidence that led us to conduct a new study, and to  reexamine the  question of
PCE reactivity in the light of our new  experimental  data.
                                     22

-------
                                   SECTION 4
         EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND RESULTS OF NEW PERCHLOROETHYLENE
                               REACTIVITY STUDY

     The analysis of existing evidence on PCE reactivity indicated that this
experimental effort's objectives should be (a) to confirm that in the smog
chamber measurements of PCE reactivity the operative chemistry in PCE degrada-
tion is Cl- rather than OH-instigated photochemistry, (b) to understand such
Cl chemistry well enough to reconcile some seemingly conflicting evidence, and
(c) to extrapolate the laboratory findings on PCE reactivity to the real
atmosphere.
     To achieve the first objective, tests were conducted in which PCE was
reacted with Cl atoms, and tests in which PCE was reacted both in the presence
and the absence of Cl scavengers.  Also, direct photolysis of PCE and of some
of its photooxidation products was investigated to determine the source of the
Cl atoms that instigate the rapid disappearance of PCE observed in some smog
chambers.  To achieve the other objectives, smog chamber irradiation tests
were conducted to determine the effects on PCE consumption of the following
factors:  initial PCE concentration, presence/concentration of organic co-
reactant, radiation spectrum, chamber wall material, and chamber use before
the test.
     The irradiation tests used as smog chambers the absorption cell of a long
path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrophotometer (FTIR) and several bags made
of Teflon.   The FTIR cell and associated IR-measurement instrumentation and
procedures  have been described in detail elsewhere (10).  Briefly, the FTIR
chamber is  a 690-liter borosilicate segmented glass tube surrounded by banks
of fluorescent lamps (consisting of 24 FS 40 sunlamps and 72 BLB 40 blacklight
lamps).  Total radiation intensity inside the FTIR chamber, measured through
irradiation of N09-N9 mixtures, was found to be equivalent to a first order
                                                       1
N02 disappearance rate constant, kp, equal to 0.66 min   (11).  The bag
chambers were 60-liter to 360-liter bags made of 2-mil fluorinated ethylene-
propylene (FEP) Type A Teflon film.  For irradiation, one or two bags were
suspended inside an 0.8 m X 1.4 m x 1.1 m aluminum box fitted with 22 BLB 40
blacklight  lamps and 4 FS 40 sunlamps evenly distributed along two opposite
                                      23

-------
sides.  The radiation intensity inside a bag was equivalent to k^ ~ 0.45 min
More details on the aluminum box chamber and operating procedures can be found
elsewhere (35).  The near-UV spectra of the radiation inside the various smog
chambers used, from the black!ight lamps alone and from all lamps are shown in
Figure 1.  The smog chambers were operated at either 25 ± 2°C (bags) or
30 ± 2°C (FTIR).
     Measurements of PCE and of other reactants or products in the FTIR chamber
were made by infrared spectrophotometry (10).  Measurements in the Teflon bag
chambers were made by gas chromatography (GC) coupled with either flame ioniza-
tion detection (FID) or electron capture detection (ECD).  The GC system
included a 6-ft X 1/8-inch O.D. stainless steel column packed with 10% SF-96
on 60/80 mesh Chromosorb W-AW,  and operated at 100°C.  Carrier gas was helium,
for the GC/FID measurements, or 5%-methane-in-argon, for the GC/ECD measurements,
Typical chromatograms are shown in Figure 2.  Results from repeated measurements
upon several calibration mixtures during a 2-1/2-month period showed a precision
equivalent to a coefficient of variation of 23% (see Appendix).
     The PCE reagent was of research grade quality.   It was freshly redistilled,
discarding the fractions outside the 119°-n9.5°C boiling range.  All other
reagents were purchased in their purest form commercially available and were
used without further purification.
     A more detailed description of the apparatus and experimental procedures
and the statistical evaluation of the analytical methods used can be found in
the Appendix.
     Thirty-seven smog chamber tests were conducted.  Table 7 shows the initial
conditions used and results for the various FTIR and Teflon bag tests in
chronological order.  A reasonable amount of test replication was applied to
ascertain the significance of the observed effects.
     Evidence of the role Cl chemistry plays in PCE smog chamber testing was
provided by tests 4, 5, 6, and 8, in which PCE was irradiated in the FTIR
chamber in the presence and the absence of Cl--  The test procedure was to
irradiate PCE alone for 2-3 h, inject a small amount of Cl^, and continue
irradiation again for 2-3 h.  The injected Cl-, as expected, photolyzed to Cl
atoms.  Results from all four tests consistently showed that the injected Cl^

                                      24

-------
CO
t-
z
D
>.
CC
cc
1-
ffi
cc
£
CO
z
UJ
h-

I
o

8


7

6

5
4

3
2

1

c

	 F
	 1

— . A
L

""^~* J^lkhMAl^ S
f


	
	

' 	
4

TEFLON BAG IN ALUMINUM LIGHT BOX
(UPPER - 22 BLACKLIGHTS. 4 SUNLAMPS)
(LOWER - 22 BLACKLIGHTS ONLY)


PYREX FLASK IN ALUMINUM LIGHT BOX
(UPPER - 22 BLACKLIGHTS . 4 SUNLAMPS)
(LOWER - 22 BLACKLIGHTS ONLY)
                   FTIR CELL, END SEGMENT WITH
                   12 BLACKLIGHTS AND 3 SUNLAMPS

                   ALL CURVES BROUGHT TOGETHER IN
                   LONG WAVELENGTH REGION

                   SUNLIGHT SPECTRUM ON SURFACE,
                   FOR Z = 40°
                 2800    3000     3200     3400    3600     3800      4000

                                WAVELENGTH IN ANGSTROMS

             Figure 1. Near-UV spectra of radiation within various smog chambers.
                                           25

-------
              GC/ECD
   XI024
          0
                  PCE, 50 ppb
                                         GC/FID
               X1
                                            PCE, 2.6 ppm
23              01




   RETENTION TIME, min
Figure 2. Chromatograms from GC-FID and GC-ECD analyses of PCE.
                               26

-------

































CO
1—
CO
I—

r^
LU
OQ

<£

CJ

O
•c-
to

Lu
O
CO
t-

— ^
CO
LU
o:
Q
CO
o
r—
i — i
O
z
o
<_)

	 1
ef

I —
1—4
Z



.
p^.
LU
— 1
03
et
1—















































CO

r—
3
CO
CU
o:

40
CO
01











































to
c
0

•o
c
o

4-1
(/>
CU
































CO

c
cu


Q
o















c -a
0 0
4J si
u 01
ro 0-
Ol
C£ C
0
Jj .1—
<_> 4-1
D- ro
•r-
O ra
cu s_
4-1 *— (
ra
a:
cu
CT
ra
s_
Ol -C

cC ss






X— %
cu s_
i- -r-
3 ro

X -*
•i- C
E: ro


c o
ro S-
4-1 CU
O N
ra
01 C
C£. -r-






c
o
ra

•o
ra
ce

s.
cu
E
ra
.c
0

cu
4-1
ra
Q

t/l O
Ol Z
I—









E
a.
O-

co
CM

o

o
4-1
Q_
3

1 *
f—
,f—

JD

00
O
1











-C

.c: in

CO LO
•r- •!-
LU U_





00 00

CO rji
•—

















CO
o
LU Z
cu E
o_

o
a. in

CO CD




^, ^
Ol O

£ co
ro O-
-C E
O ro
a: "~

r— ,—
LU  CU CO
cu x: •
C C 4-1 O
Ol •!-
r— CO
>^.C •*- 4-1
4-1 o-5 r- o.
CU 0 ~v =3
O OO £-9
S- OO 4-1
01- • r—
r— O «* T-
JC CO 3
U CD JD
•r- 4-1 T3
S- ra C 00
r— S- ra O
1 I











<— *

JC LO

CO CO
£_ 4L

LU U-





o co

^t" r/o






0)
C
Ol

5^
r~
4-1
Ol
0
L.
0

-C CO
u o
LU -r- Z
<_> S-
Q- 1— E

ffi O_
CL QLLO

CO CM O




S- C
cu o
JD
E CO
ro Q-
J= E
U ra
ex: "~

r- ^


CM
CO
- — ^
' —
ro

OO


CO
S-

M-

c


g.
O-

co

0

o
4-1
a.
3

1 *
f—
,f—

-Q •
c—
ro
r*~i ^>
1







CM
r—


jr; en c
c o
-C •* J= -r- -r-
S 4-1
CO CO CO i — O)
•r- •.- '^ O C
Lu LU LU 4- -r-





00 00 O

o •* •*
•— CO



>,

f—
ro
•r- i-
4-1 OJ
•^ 4->
C >4-


CM C
r— Q

4-1
UJ COJ3 ro
O O 0_.r-
a. m o--a
ra
E E O S-
O. Q.O !-


co in -a -c
• • -a i
CT\ O ~—
Lu et

CM
oo

CM
ro

•d-






































CM
^_
CJ

j: en c
c o
JC CM J= -r- T-
2 4-1
CO CO CO > — O)
•r- -r- -i- 0 C
LU Lu LU «4- -r-





r— r— in

CD OO r—
CM



-^

P«.
ro
•r- S-

•r~ 4-1
C <4-


CM C


4J
LU CMJD ra
0 O CL.r-
CL. z a.-o
ro
E E 0 i-
n. 5.O J-
O- Q-i— -t-

CO LO TJ -C
. • TD 1
CO O 
•r- 4- c
4-1 10 0

C C04-1
•r- i — ro
O -r-
LU -a
(_> X) ro
a. a. s_
CL S-
O-r— .C

r*-* T3 en
• T3 .
CM CC OO




i- C
Ol O

E co
ro Q.
-c E
U ro
C€

r- r—
u.

                              c
                              o
                             o
27

-------




















































. 	 t
-o
OJ

c

4_>
c
o
o


r^
CO
1—








































































CO

^
CO
0)


4_>
CO
oj










































to
c:
o
•r—
-O
C
O
0
•*->
to
tu




























































c
o
43
o
IO
tu
C£

LU
(J
Cu
^
O

tu
•4-J
(C
fV

OJ
cr
IO
S-
OJ

*c






OJ

13

X




c
IO

u
IO
tu
C£




























4-»
to
tu
h-















to
4-1
C
tu

g!
o
f 1














T-l
o
s-
OJ
o_

c
o


IO
•o
IO
S-
s-







.c

s«






s-

IO

\s
C

+J

o
u
Ol
M
C
-^~*






0

+J
«3

^3
03

S.
01
jT)
E
IO
.c
o

tu
4J
IO
Q

O
^•
"~ tu
S- S-
OJ IO
4-> OJ
4-J O-
IO Q.
U t- T3
O •
LU OJ
to t_> -o
4J CL. -i-
C S- •
13 <»- O -C
§O i— ~ °^^
-C S^
10 to o ro
4-> 1
OJ C i—
en tu >>M-
s- E 4-> 0
10 tu o;
i— S- U O)
3 IO 4->
>, CO O 10
i— IO S- S-
r~~ OJ O
IO E f— OJ
3 JZ .C
co o: u -•->

c; t— s- 4->
ZD LU 1— 10
1 1










c~

-C to
4-> +J
CO CO
S- 4-
•f— •»-
U. LU





*!• OJ

to to








OJ
o
IO
o

o

.c
u
QJ -i-
U> S-
Q- h-
tu
CL S.^
O- Q- S-
O
oo ro i—
• • t~
OJ O U






s- c
OJ O
E to
10 a.
J= E
U IO
r—
o:

1— r—
u_ «a;
OJ
oo

OJ
OJ
LO

^
t
10
OJ t-
>— "a
<_> T3 10
tu &-
O > L.

^ E OJ '""
s- Q. co -a
O Q- • J3 C
•r— "O O IO
S- OJ tU
Q-O > OJ C
• s- s- o
•o o tu O) T-
OJ CO 3 4->
> 4-> J3 0
S- IO O QJ OJ
OJ C -i-j
to O 4-> OJ C
JD <-J O Cn-r-
O C CO
CO O OJ
•*-> IO CO -C i—
_ en
o o tu o c
s. -^ c ••-
Q-+J OJ to i
u en tu o •
>> tu to 
0 0
jr: cnc-ccnc -c-i--i--ccn jzcnc
CO CO -MS- C CO
-C ^1- JZ •!- *r- CO -r- -r- OJ IO OJ rO •*- rO -r- -r-
3-M 3+J T-Q. 3-0 34->
4J4-J4JOU+JOO 4->T3 4->OO-t->OO
tO tO CO r— OJ tO 1 — 0) tOrOJMftOi — •!— tO I — OJ
S-S-S-I— T-jS-i— -r-j t-S-S-S-r— S-S-r— '"0
•,- •!-•!- O C -r- O C •!- S- IO -r- O O) -r- O C





•K + * -X
ro to r^ LO ro r— ^~ r**

ootnro ^f 0^*1 — «^
r— r— 1— r—




IO i—


•r- S- OJ
C OJ U
1-H 4-> 10
M- C 0
to o s-
•r- 0
OJ4J i—

^ ^^ t_) -i— U
LU -a -r-
<_> J3 10 S-
a. a. t- i—
• a. s- OJ
E re -i- E -a
a. • o cl-i-
Q.Q: LO -c a, s-
1 O
m ^f^ "o LO CD f~~
. 0 T3 • • -C
OJ OJ ct «3" r— O


S- J= J3
O Q,
-C M- -0 10 Q-O)
4-> C r— !- 4->
S-C S->r-ClOOOIO
OJO OJ3O4-JS-M-O-*-
-Q .Q CO O rO "O
ECO EOJto<*-0)iO
IOQ. IO4->Q-4->4-*'OS-
JZE x:ioEOJ-^ia-a!-j=
(J IO U 'r~ IO i — S- -r- IO -1—
r- -a i— 10 T3 ro

>— i.— i— ' s- i— jr s_j=oji-
1— r— 1— t-i— CS-r— O
u_«3: u_»— iiooj •«-•!— ooo1*-
OJ
OO OJ
^> CO
to ~-~
oj r^
LT) to

OO Cf>





.
g
B
Q.


.
o
1

o
4->

Q.


1 *
^«
•i—
13


OJ
c
OJ
en
to
o
JZ
CL,
1










^

JC IO

to co
S- S-
•r— -i—
LL. LL.





0 O

LO LO








1 *
0)
 fC
,— —
o:
»— » (—
f— F—
u- «:

OJ
co

en
to

o
a$
in

0
t

n
o

OJ

to
s_ •
*o
OJ O

4-> SI

[ * Q.
IO

13 S-
OJ IO
S- TJ
IO
OJ OJ
Q.JZ

(O
to en
•a ••-

ro 3
0 -o







OJ

e~ ^ t_>
t>- O
LO o *i— en c
•*-> c o
ro -c a -i-T-
•f~ % 4->
+j +j -o 5  OJ rtj
•i- 4-> TD
C t)_
*-< IO C

OJ
>^^^% i — en


LU 3: J3 "O
o rot_) a, c
Cu O O- IO
E +->
E E Q-O co
5- Q- Q.O
Q- Q- OJ -C
O 1
to en . -o LO
• • o t> .
i — oj i — 
-------
•a
cu
c
o
o
CO
«c























co
4-1

13
CO
CD
CC

4-1
CO
CD






























C/>
C
O
4-1
•5
c
o
o
4-1
CO
CU






















































c
o
'£,
U
re
°^
LU

O-
4-
0

CU
4-1
re
cu
en
re
S-
cu
e£

i_
3
X
£


C
re
4->
CJ
re
cu
or























4-1
CO
cu
i—











CO
4-1
C
CU

E
o
o















13
O
S-
cu
Cu
C
O
>,—

re
-a
re
S-
S-
i— t





_c
%s

?
re
j*
re
4-1

O
S-
cu
N

—





O

4-1
re
-a
re
or
^^
cu
J2
re
5

cu

re
Q


o
Z
CL-
O

-a
o
•r- LU
S- <_>
CU O-
CL

C U
O ••-

£ S
CJ
13 CT
-a c
C •!-
•1— 5

C i—
re i—
0

re
3 c

cu'i
s-
cu o

1— I
1







-^
01

0
4.1
t/)

.,_-
u_






o
I







LU .
o :c
o- •
or
CLO
CO 1
• 0
CM *3-




C
O
4-
L—

4-1
I 	 -«-
1
c=> 01
co re
CO CO

CM
CO

CO
r—

**

CM
4-1
CU

CL

Q
U

-o
c
re .a
CL
>> CL

T3 CNJ
•r— 1
co-
re o
S- 4-1

•a CL
CU =1
S-
re 4-1
cu i—

CL 3
re .0
CO
•r- ro

l













































c
o
CO
Q-
E
1 —
,.—
<














•r—
F"

0 J3
CNJ CL
1 CL

C|- LT>
O •
CM
•a '
o
•r- O
S- 4-1
CU
a. CL
3
C
O 40

4-1 -r-
U 13
=3 JO
T3
C CO
I-H O
1 1







^
O^

0
^_)
CO
s-

Lc.






O
r







•

LU •
o or
CL.
E 0
5. co
CL 1
o
CO *3-




c.
0
i— C
M- 0
cu
1 — CO
CL
4-> E
1
O cni —
co re • —
CO CO  «*




c
0
i — C
CL- 0
cu
1— CO
CL
4-> E
•7 ^ •"
O en i —
co re ' —
co aa 
•—
^J
(/)
S-

Ll-




^*

0








LU •
CJ DZ
0. •
or
CLO

-0
CM «3-




C
O
 O
J=
en co
^i-
^. re
CJ r—
re c
-° ^

55


















•

a.
ex

P^
CO

o


a.



f—

13
i^

CO
o
1







-C


CM
4_1
CO
S-.

u_




LT)

CM








LU •

a. •
or
CLO
CO
en i
. 0
CM <3-
c
O

trt C|_
C 4J O
O J=:
t — en co
H— «f— Q.
CU r- £
1 — -* re
CJ i—
4J re c
r- =»t J3 to
1
O cni — i —
co re i— •—
co co  o
o -c
i— en co
<4- ---a.
cu •— E
I— ^i re
O i—
4-> re c
i
O Oil— f—
co re •— r—
CO CO -< «C
CM
co
CO
CM
1

CM

£







































JT

O
CM
4-1
CO

>p_
U.




^]-

O








UJ •
cj 3:
CL. •
or
&«
CLO
CO
CO 1
• o
CM 
-------











































.

-o
CD
3
G

•U
C
0

LU
CQ



































































to
p_
13
to
Ol


4-3
to
0)






















































C
O

1 »
O

Ol
CC

LU
O
CL.

<4-
O

Ol
+J
CO
cc:

01
cn
CO
S-
cu
"*

















to

O
4->


C
O
to

_
















0)
i_


X
s


c:
CO
4->
(J
CO
O>






























4->
to

Q-

c
o

*j
CO

-a
«o
S-
r-







.c









S-

co


C
CO


O
s_
cu
N


O-
O
l£j
o


c

1








^


JC

co


4J
to
S_







0
,_J
T









LU
O
Q_

g_
Q.

in
C\J


!—
^.

CD
(O
CQ




C
0

£
(U
h—
+->

r—
I
OJ
=tt=

cn
S
c

O
i— -O
=*te c:


ca O
CQ m
1








c:


j^

c^^
,__
i— OJ
^tte 4-J ^tfe
to
Cn S- cn
ca -i— co






co
O










LU
O
Q-

i.
CL

^;
oj re

ai
OJ ^3
=tt O

Cn i
co O
CQ «3*




C
O

t^I Ol
ai c:

4-> OsJ

:*fc . =tt

o mo cn
ro CQ oj CQ
CM
CO


•^^
ID

CTJ
C\J
*

cn
c—







































, 	
S- to =»=
0) -!->
<*- c cn
to CU CO
C -I-" CQ
ca c
S- o "O
+j o ai

cnoj -M
oj c; =fe CL
OJ •!- E
3 cn 01
+-* o ca
to i — CQ O
!- r- -U
•i- 0  C W l<-
CO tOt+-CO'f-QJ tO4—
i— OIOS-4-1!- 4->O
+J 4-> CL Ol • -C
• C to E S "O cn to

cn cnoci- T3-Mi — £
cocr*caT-QjoiOcco^^ca
•i- CO C: T3 CO C
T; Si — •-— ooj~c)( — cai — is

to • — n co S- s-
13 i — T3 S- CU Cn I- cn-r- i — • —
I3U.JZ-I— 4->CQM-CQ i-«3;
to
s_
u_






^~
,_J










LU
(_3
a.

43
CL
a.

"^
o'

..
CO
^tfc

cn





c
O

<*~
 C

C CD
•i- f— C
>> o
to CLT-
S- O +J
3 S- U
o a.  ro
^fe 4J =tfe J-> O C =»fc
to to i — CO
cn S- cn S- i— 4-> cn
co -i- ca -i- O 3 ca
CO Ll_ CQ U_ t»- 43 CQ






CO LO
^ 0
t t

CO
•o =it
c c
o ca cn
••- co c:
4J 
LU T3 i— 4-> CO
o > >r-
a. L. Q. aj ~o
S- O C (O
43 -r- S- CO S-
a. CL-U s_
CL 4= 3 .1-
1 <-> 43
VO O E 1 Ol
• • oj a. c 3
o 3: CL c
• Cn t_) -r-
ct: c ur> E •*->
•r- oj CL c:
LO »e X • CL o
=
o ca <— c o ca
r— S. t— S_ -r- O •!-
<4- S- CO O T3
0) •»- t- <_> T3 CO
r— J= 3T C S-
cn-M c ca s-
+j ca •»- o ~o -c—
T) *^" LO .O 2 T3 CO
=tt= r- ^fc tO <£ =»= OJ
1 .— CO- 3
cno cn co o E cn c
COCOCO31'-CO •CD''-
CQOJCQQ-l-"!— 4ZCQ+J
















































JZ

r—
OJ

4J
to
S-







LO
^J

















t
LU n:

o- ct:
r*i ^^
0.0
O-tO
1
LT> O
LO «^-




c
0

l*-
Ol
1—
1 *
•i- ir>

i




















































































c
o

to
a.
E
CO


O en-—
CO CO i—
OJ CQ 
-------

































f-~ S
-Q
OJ

c

4-)
c:
o
o


r--*
LU
—I
CQ

1—



















































c/1
Z3
Ol


4-J
l/l











































C
Condi tio
l/l
Ol
1 —

























C/1
c
E
c=
O
O










c -o
O 0
O QJ
ra 0-
0)
ce c
o
O 4->
o_ ca
• r-
tt- -o
O co
s_
ai s-
4J i— c
ro
QL

Ol
o-
CO

CU -C

eCI^









y~^
 dj
O NJ
CO
QJ C

C
o
'^3
CO

-a
€

^_
cu
e
ra
_c
o


S
(Q




t/i O

t—

























-C
,3-
OO

_4_)
VI
t_
Ll_






r—
CO CO r—
CM CQ CC


CM
00


1
co
10

ro
CM






















c


-C
10

^-
4_> ^f=
t/1
&_ Ol
•i- ro
LU ea






r-~

o






=*!

Ol
CO
ca

c
-l~

' 
13
LU 1
o c 3:
Cu
E cr:
E5-
O-^1.
0- O
O *JO
IO O 1
. 00
CM •— <3"



«* in


Ol Ol
CQ CQ Ol
CO
4J 4-> J3
•C- •!-
1 1 ro
O 0 3
oo co -a
CM CM — '

CM
CO
o

1
Ol
IO

^-
CM






















(^
•r-

-C
to

LO
4-J !:4:
Ul
S- 01
Lu CQ






ro

O





un
=*:

Ol
CO
ca

c
*^^_^

0)
c
ro
4->
*n
LU 1 •
<_) C 3:
O_
E S-
a. 0.08
a. o
8 to
i
. 0 0
CM i — *±






C O
O
•r- C/1
4-> a.
ro E
•i- ro
CO
S- •—


































C C
'I— 'r-

-C -C
r-. 1^

<^- in
4-* ^4}= 4J ^1=
c/1 t/l
s- 01 s- 01
•r- co -r- eg
Lu CQ Lu CO






^ ^3"

CM O




«* in


Ol Ol
ro ra
CQ ca

c c

'' ^a?r *a?
c c
 j »
n 3
1*1 r^
1 1
C C
LU LU
<-> E <~> E 3:
O- D-CU B- •
a. CLCC
S.O E.O »s
O-O O-O CD
o o 10
CM "CO •* 1
• o • o o
CM r— CM i— *t



•a- LO

c
Ol Ol CO
ro ca O
QQ CQ OVr- VI
ro 4J 0.
-M 4-> X3 CO E
., 	 ,- .,- ro
1 1 CO CO
O O 3 S-i—
co co -a s- .—
CM CM' 	 -i-  :tt^
Ul U1
S- 01 S- 01
•»— ca •«- eg
LU ca LU ca






«i- in

0 O




vo r^


01 Ol
ro co
03 CQ

C C



f *^*^t r*'^w^
'
QJ ru
C C
ro co
LU 3 LU 3 •
<_> t~t I 1 O "1"
Cu 1 Q- I
c CD;
a. E o. s s^
O- CL ex S.o
IO to 1
• 0 • 0 O
CM i— CM r- *fr



10 r~


Ol Ol CO
co ca o
CQ ca ai-r— tn
ca 4-> o.
4J 4-> J3 CO E
•r- -r- -r- CO
1 1 CO CO
OO =J S- •—
00 CO TD t- r—
CM CM 	 c- c£
CM
OO

^~
1
to

i-

IO
CM






















C
•^

-C
CM
CM

•!-> %

S- 01
•r- eg
Lu CO






to

o

















a>
c
LU 4-> •
(J 3 3:
O_ J3 •
1 CC
§. = **
o. e o
a. to
\£> O. 1
o
CM r— *t



j^
:tfe
C
Ol O
ra
ca c/i
Q-
4-> E
•i- co
1
O r—
00 r-
CM «C
CM
OO
CO

1

•—
IO

r^.
CM

























^1
co


4_>
C/1
S-
Lu






^J-

O




^
=«=

Ol
CO
ca

c




^^^~ _

cu
c
ra
LU *-> .
C_J 13 3:
i or
O- S O
Q-tO
to o- i
o
CM <— -3-



p^
^t^
C
01 o
ca t/i
0.
4-> E
•r- CO
1
O •—
CO r—
CM <£
CM
OO
CM
CM
1

CM
>X>

CO
CM
C
.c
IO
9

o
•o
o

s-
a>
CL
C
o •
o 5fc
T3 Ol
C CO
i— i CQ
1



C

«i^
x:
-C
*~. ^_
r— O CM r—

4-* ^te 4-> ^fr;
C/1 C/1
I. Ol S- Ol
••— CO T- ro
Lu CQ Lu CQ








O f
" —
t








O •—


Ol Ol
ro ro
ca ca

c c

LU LU •
003:
a. a. .
ec
&§.„
O. O-O
to
IO to 1
• • o
CM CM «3-



O c—
1— r— OJ

•r- .*: co
Ol Ol c/1 c/1 o
ro rO C (O Ol-r— IO
oa CQ T— i — ca 4J o.
1- .a ca E
4-> *-> T3 i- CO
r- r— U OJ CO ro
1 1 CO i- 3 S- i—
o o r— >,-a s- r—
to to O-O_ ^-"r- eC
CM
oo

CM
1
ro
CM
to

en
CM






































•a
OJ
13
C

c
O
o











































31

-------












































.
f—^
•Q
01
3
C

4_>
C
O
o
UJ
	 I
CQ
r—































































to
4->
3

01


4J
VI
OJ






















































C
O
j3
o
ro
(11
ce

UJ
o
O-
(,_
0

O)
ro
01

r_

c
o
O
4->
t/1
GJ













QJ
S-

4_)
X



C
ro

U
ro
OJ

























to
o>
h-









t/1

C
OJ


Q
C_)













T-,
o
il
111
CL.

c
o

4->
ro
-o
ro

!_







JZ



S-
• r-
ro


C
ro

O
S-
O)
N

C
- _ .





C
o

^j
ra

-o
c?

^_
ai
J3
E
o

ai

3


o
z:


































c

c
c~ 'r—

cn -c

o o in r—
4J Sfc 4-> Sfc
t/1 t/1
S- en i- cn
U_ CQ U- CQ






10

O O

i— O

^t. ^fc

cn cn

CQ CQ

C C
*" l~
LU UJ •
0 0 3r
O- O- •
C£
E E
Q- Q.^3
Q- Q-O

CO CO 1
• • O
CM CM ^J-




O r—
r— ,— Ol

•r- -* CO
cn cn to to o
ra ro C ra cn-r— to
CQ CQ ••— i — ra 4-> Q-
M- J3 ra E
4-14-1-0 ••— ra
-.- •,- QJ X i— -O r—
• — i — tj OJ ra ra
1 1 ro i- 3 S- i—
0 0 r— >,-CI t-r—
OJ
co

OJ

IO

0

(U
s-
OJ
s
to
cn
ro •
CO r—
o
• If— •
to ~a
0) E 0

-* C !-
t/1 •»- QJ
E Cl.
>^ 3
"O ( — C
3 ro O
O •!-
U O U
3
r-j 0) c

S- <0
ro i— O
O- Q.ZT
1 1







c c
•r— '^

JC JZ

*3- OJ ^f CO
+J =tt 4-> =«=
t/i to
S- cn S- cn
•r- ra ••- ro
LL_ CQ U- CO






O 0

CO CO

OJ CO
»— ^~
^tfc :3fc

cn cn
ra ro
CO CQ

c c

LU LU •
o <_) 3:
O_ Q. •
OL
&&«
CL CLO
UD
LO in i
• • 0
CM oj ^r




OJ CO
r__ f—
r^ ^^
C
cn cn o
ro ra cn-r— . — •
CQ CQ ra •*-> to
J3 ra S-
4-> 4-> -r- O
•^ -^- r- T3 0
i — i — ra ra "O
1 1 3 S- +->
O O -0 !- 3
OJ
CO

CO
OJ

UD

^_
m









i •
to "O
0) O

NX i_
to aj
a.
>j
-o c
3 O
O •!-
O CJ
3
r- C
•!-> -r-
S-
ro O
O- ^
1 1





C C


JZ J=

in in

«* OJ <• CO
+j Sb +J %
to to
s- cn s- cn
•i- ro T- ro
U- CO Lu CO






r^. ro

^± OJ

OJ CO
r— t—~
:^fc :;te

cn cn
ro ro
CO CO

C C

LU UJ •
C_} (_J ~T~
CL. O- •
a:

CL Q-O
UD
co «r i
• • o
OJ OJ ^J-



OJ CO
p_ ^.
^te ^tfc

cn cn c
ro ro o
ro -M to
•*->•+-> J3 ra S-
•i- T- T- O
i— r— r— "D O
1 1 ro ra T3
O O 3 S_ 4->
o o -a i- 3
OJ
CO

cn
OJ

10

OJ
CO


















t/1
OJ
2
t/1
s-
ra
01

C_)
1







c
«r—

JZ

in
^_>
to
S-
u_






cn

OJ

OJ
T~—
^te

cn
ro
CQ

C

LU
O
D_

§_
CL

^^
.
OJ



OJ

^tfc.

cn
ra
CQ

4->
|^
i
0
0
OJ
co

o
CO

IO

CO
CO



































c
•1—

JZ









































oj in co
St -u
to
ai s-
CQ III






in

CO

CO
r—
^te

cn
ra
CO

c

UJ •
<_> m
Q- .

Hs«
0.0
U3
CO 1
• O
OJ «!•



OO
^«
:fe

cn
rO
co cn
rO

! 	 f_
1 ro
O 3
0 -0









=tt

cn
S





































c.
0
4J VI
ro S-
•i- O
•0 0
(tj T3
S- -U
S- 3
-r— O












C
*p~
^


I

<*-
o

•a
o

s-
01
0.

o •
•r- in
U =tfc
3
•o cn

i — i CQ
I






C
•r- C
 -i-
•r- (U X -r- i— -0
r- O 01 r— ro 10
1 ro S- 1 3 S-
0 i— >>O T) £-

OJ
co

i


^^
CO

















































































C"
O
t/1
CL
E
r—

5









                            •a
                            (U
                            3
                            C
                            O
32

-------
                c
                O)
            rO O-
            OJ
                             00
                      CM ^j-1— Ln
 1/1     i/>
 S- cn S-  01
•r- fO ••—  ro
                           n     n
                           CM  co CM cn
                                                 l-cns-cn
                                                                   i— CO r— (Tl
                                                                    t- cn s-  cn
T3
 CD
 C
 o
o
            OJ
            cn
            S-
            (11
O    O

O    *J-
CM
LO


O
in

o
CO

o
                o
            10  i.
              '  CU
            O  N
            fO
            OJ
          I C£ •
        T3
         C
         O
 cn cn
 fO ro
CO CO

 c c


LU UJ
 0. 0.0
       U3
r-^  oo  i
  •   • O
                                                 cn cn
                                                 ro  fO
                                                 CO CQ
                                                 CL  a.
                                                 a.  a.
                                                                           cn
                                                                           fO
                                                                          m
                                            LU c_3 LU o

                                            D- o a. o
                  CLJ3 Q-J3
                  CL Q- CL  CL
                     O.     CL
                 O     O
                                                                                             ai
                                                                                            •a
                      01  cn t/i (/i

                      CQ CQ -i- i—
                 CO     cn cn o
                 O        fO  ro
              O^'i—  t/>     CO CO VI
              ro 4->  CX           Q.
4-J  4-> *O        T-  fO     -i- -i—
•r-  •!- 0)  X  f— T3 r-     i— r— r
i—  i— U  CU  rO  fO         II
 I    I  ro  S—  13  i- r—     CD C3 '
O  O r—  >>-O  £- .—     COCO.-:
                        C
                 Oi cn o
                 fO  fO
                 CQ CQ (/I
                        a.

                 •i— ••- fO
                                                                 OO^-
                                                                 0000^-
                                                                                             CU
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             fO
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             i-
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             ai
                                                                                             s-
                                                                                             fO
            
-------
accelerated the PCE reaction by factors of 1.6 to 6.0.   This effect is graphi-
cally illustrated in Figure 3.
     Additional evidence on the role of Cl chemistry was provided by the FTIR
tests 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11  and Teflon bag tests 12,  13,  14,  and 23-30, in
which PCE was irradiated in the presence and the absence of  another organic
compound capable of scavenging  Cl  atoms.  The scavenger  organic  compounds used
were trichloroethylene (FTIR tests) and n-butane (Teflon bag tests).  Results
from the FTIR tests showed that trichloroethylene, present at a  concentration
equal to that of PCE, inhibited the PCE reaction by approximately a factor of
2.  The Teflon bag test results showed that n-butane, at concentrations as low
as four times that of PCE, reduced the PCE reaction rate from about 100%/h to
about 4%/h.
     To determine whether direct PCE photolysis is the source of Cl atoms in
smog-chamber-irradiated PCE/air systems, Teflon bag tests 18, 20, 23, 24, and
25 were conducted, in which PCE was irradiated alone or  in the presence of
high n-butane concentrations (1000-10,000 ppm).  The rationale for these tests
was that in the presence of high concentrations of a radical scavenger (butane)
the only cause of PCE disappearance would be direct photolysis.   Results
suggested that PCE may indeed be photolyzing, albeit at  an extremely low rate.
Specifically, in tests 23, 24,  and 25, (in which PCE was irradiated in the
presence of butane) PCE disappeared at 0.4, 0.7, 0.3, 2.4, and 0.4%/h, whereas
in tests 18 and 20 (in which the PCE mixtures were allowed to stand in the
dark) the PCE disappearance rates were 0.4 and 0.2%/h.   At the 70% probability
level, the dark and irradiated  rates (and their confidence intervals) are
calculated to be 0.3 (±0.3)%/h  and 0.84 (±l.l)%/h, respectively.  This is
interpreted to mean that, if PCE photolyzes, its photolysis  rate cannot exceed
approximately 1.9%/h.
     The appearance of an induction period in tests 12,  13,  29,  and 34, in
which the PCE reacted rapidly,  suggested that a PCE reaction product may be a
source of Cl atoms and thus exert an autocatalysis-type  effect on the PCE
reaction.  To explore this possibility, we conducted FTIR tests  7 and 10, in
which PCE was irradiated before and after injecting trichloroacetyl chloride
(TCAC).  TCAC was selected because of evidence that it is a  PCE photooxidation
product (10), and because it was considered the most likely  reaction product
                                      34

-------
                                               INJECT 50 ppbCI2
0
   345



IRRADIATION TIME, hours
6
8
       Figure 3. Effect of C\2 on photooxidation of PCE (FTIR Chamber).
                              35

-------
that could be photolyzed by solar radiation.   Although the reaction system in
the FTIR system receives a smaller amount of short wavelength radiation (2800-
3300A) than in the bag chambers (see Figure 1),  the FTIR chamber walls still
transmit enough such radiation for the purposes  of these tests.   Similar tests
were also conducted using Teflon bags (tests 36  and 37).  Results showed no
perceptible effect of TCAC on the PCE reaction.   Also, consistent with this
findino was the result of test 9, in which TCAC  disappeared rather slowly
(10.3%/h) when irradiated in the FTIR chamber.  These tests showed that
photolysis of TCAC could not be a significant source of Cl atoms in smog
chamber photooxidation of PCF.
     In an effort to reconcile some conflicting  data on PCE reactivity, studies
were included of some experimental factors that  were known or suspected to
have significant effects on the PCE reaction and to differ Tn the various
investigations.  Most important among these factors were judged to be:
radiation, chamber wall, and initial reactant concentration.
     Radiation intensity did vary somewhat with  investigation but this variation
did not seem to correlate with the variation of  the PCE reactivity measurement
results.  Therefore, this factor was judged to have little relevance to this
study's objectives.  Radiation spectrum also varied with investigation,
especially within the 2800-3300A wavelength region, and there was no reason to
discard this factor as irrelevant.  Therefore, several tests were conducted in
which the radiation spectrum was varied either by changing the lamp composition
or by using glass to filter out selected wavelengths.  Specifically, the
amount of 2800-3300^ radiation was disproportionately reduced either by shutting
off the sunlamps or by placing the reactor bag inside a Pyrex flask.  The
effects of these modifications on the wavelength spectrum are shown in Figure 1.
Teflon bag tests 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 29, 30, 34, and 35 specifically
studied this factor.  Results showed the PCE reaction to be extremely sensitive
to radiation within the 2800-3300$ wavelength range.  With all lamps on and
without the glass screen, PCE reacted at rates from 110%/h (four tests) to
20%/h (one test).  But with the sunlamps off or  when the bag was placed inside
the Pyrex flask the PCE reaction rate was from 0.4 to 11.0%/h.  While a part
of this effect is undoubtedly due to the total light intensity loss caused by
the glass screen or by shutting off the sunlamps, this loss is obviously far

                                      36

-------
too small (see Figure 1) to account for the drastic reduction in the PCE
reaction rate.  Based on these results, and on the differences in radiation
intensity and radiation spectrum between the FTIR chamber and the Teflon bag
(see respective kQ values and Figure 1), we concluded that the lower PCE rates
observed in the FTIR chamber are mainly due to lower 2800-3300A* radiation
intensity.
     The smog chamber wall could have two distinct effects on the PCE reaction:
one related to the radiation transmitted by the window material, and one
related to the scavenging of radicals (especially of Cl atoms) by the inside
wall surface.  As discussed above, the radiation transmission was found in
this study to be a strong factor, suggesting that using sunlamps in smog
chambers and Teflon film as window material should cause relatively higher PCE
reactivity measurement results.  There is an abundance of evidence published
on the radical scavenging role of walls.  In fact, evidence has been reported
for the specific case of Cl atom scavenging by Teflon surfaces.  Specifically,
NASA investigators reported that the strong inhibitive effect of Cl atoms on
CL formation from (L photolysis was considerably reduced when the Teflon
surface of their reactor was exposed to prolonged CFC1-, photolysis reaction (36)
The investigators attributed this effect to a reduction in the Cl-scavenging
ability of the Teflon walls, caused by excessive deposition of CFCl^ reaction
products.  Tests 15, 16, 17, and 19 in this study also suggested such an
effect.  Specifically, when Teflon bag #1 was used four times in succession to
irradiate 2.5-2.6 ppm PCE (with the blacklight lamps only) for several hours,
the PCE loss rate appeared to increase with bag usage, from 0.4 to 11.0%/h.
Considering that bag #1 had been used (and perhaps already been conditioned)
before these four tests, and that some of the rate value variation is due to
error, these results may or may not reflect a significant surface effect.
     Of the initial reactant concentration factors in photochemical reactivity
studies, those relevant here are the organic reactant concentration, the NO
                                                                           /\
concentration, and the interaction of these two factors or the organic-to-NO
                                                                            s\
ratio.  In the case of PCE, the data from this study indicated that the NO
                                                                          A
does not appreciably influence the PCE reaction rate.  Thus, the reaction
rates in the absence of N0x (tests 6 and 8) are well within the range of
values obtained in the presence of NO  (tests 1,4, and 5).  Teflon bag tests
                                     X
                                      37

-------
12, 13, 21, 22, 29, 30,  34,  and 35,  provide evidence on the effect of PCE
concentration.  Irradiation  of 2.5-3.0 ppm PCE resulted in PCE rates of 20 to
110%/h» whereas for initial  PCE concentrations of 0.6-55 ppb,  the rates were
0.5 to 1.5%/h.  These results show that the initial  PCE concentration is a
strong factor, and that variation of this factor should be reflected in the
various PCE studies' results.
     The final objective in  this experimental  effort was to obtain evidence
that would permit extrapolation of the laboratory data on PCE  reactivity to
the "real  atmosphere".   As already discussed,  such evidence is on the effects
on PCE reactivity of radiation intensity and spectrum, co-reactant organic
compounds, and PCE concentration.  Data on the co-reactant, PCE concentration,
and some radiation factors were described above.  There were also additional
data on the radiation factor obtained in this  study, from parallel tests in
which PCE-air mixtures were  irradiated with the laboratory radiation system
and with natural sunlight.  Results  from the natural sunlight  irradiation
tests (tests 31, 32 and 33)  showed the PCE rates to be 2 to 5%/h.  These rates
are considerably lower than  those observed in  the artificial sunlight tests
(tests 12, 13, 29, 30, and 35), and  comparable to those observed when the
2800-3300^ component was reduced (i.e., tests  15, 16, 17, 29,  30, 34, and 35).
This means that use of Teflon film smog chambers and of radiation with a
strong near-UV component would tend  to cause unrealistically high PCE reactivity
results.
                                      38

-------
                                   SECTION 5

                                  DISCUSSION


     The evidence obtained in this and the previous studies on the effects
upon PCE reactivity of the initial reactant concentrations, C12, and organic
co-reactants, is consistent with a Cl- instigated chain photooxidation mechanism
analogous to the OH-initiated mechanism accepted in current smog chemistry:


     CC12 = CC12 + Cl •* CC13CC12


     cci3cci2 + o2 -* cci3cci2o2


     CC1QCC1900 + NO -> CC1,CC190 + NQ9
        J                             hv
                                      -      + 0 n
                                                U
     cci3cci2o       -> cci3c(o)ci + ci

                     -*• COC10 + CCU
                                   °
                                              + cio
In the absence of NO, main reaction products should be CC1.,CC1(0) and COC19.
                                                          o               c.
In the presence of moderate concentrations of NO, 0^ also should form through

photolysis of N02, as well as PAN-type products arising from the CCUCO radical

through reactions similar to those in smog chemistry for hydrocarbons/aldehydes.
Finally, as with all VOC/NO  systems, excess NO should suppress production of
                           X
03, PAN and other oxidants.

     Conceivable sources of Cl atoms in the irradiated PCE/NO  system are
                                                             /\
several, for example:


     OH + CC12 = CC12  + -v  Cl (or + C12 5V 2C1 )       or


     0(3P) + CC12 = CC12  -> ->  Cl (or C12 iv 2C1)      or
                                      39

-------
     cci2 = cci2 +  ci  + cci2 = cci

Additionally, photolysis of the CC1.,CC1(0) product could produce Cl  atoms,
which would tend to ccaise an "autocatalysis"-i'ype acceleration of PCE consump-
tion.
     The rate constants for the PCE reactions with 0( P) and OH are, respec-
tively, 0.8 X 10"13 cm3 molecule"1  sec"1 (29) and 2 X 10"13 cm3 molecule"1
sec"  (27), whereas the concentrations of 0( P) and OH in photochemical
                               _Q           _y
VOC/NO  systems are roughly  10"  ppm and 10"  ppm, respectively (37).  These
                                          3
data show that the reaction of PCE with 0( P) may be relatively less important.
Furthermore, Appleby found that PCE disappeared rapidly when irradiated in a
Teflon bag in mixture with pure N9 (15).  This finding, if indeed valid, would
                       3
suggest that neither 0( P) nor OH are necessarily the main instigators of the
Cl-releasing process.  It is conceivable, however, that some atmospheric 02
permeated the Teflon bag, in which case OH could not be ruled out as an insti-
gator.  We concluded from tests 7,  10, 36, and 37 of the current study that
photolysis of CC13CC1(0) also should be ruled out as a source of Cl  atoms.
These findings and the results of tests 18, 20, 23, 24, and 25 of this study
tend to support direct photolysis of PCE as the most likely—although weak—
source of Cl atoms in smog chamber irradiated PCE/air or PCE/NO /air systems.
                                                               X
Consistent with this deduction is the absorption spectrum in Figure  4, showing
that liquid PCE--and conceivably gaseous PCE also—absorbs at wavelengths near
3000$ (38).  Other sources, e.g., reaction with OH, are not likely but cannot
be completely ruled out either.
     The next question of interest is whether Cl-instigated PCE photooxidation
explains the wide diversity of PCE reactivity results in the various studies.
     With respect to the consumption rate reactivity, the present study and
two others  (5,6) resulted in the highest values, ranging from 20 to  110%/h,
whereas all the other studies except Dilling et al. (9) resulted in  values of
2.3 to 9.5%/h.  Factors our current study identified as having strong effects
on the PCE consumption rate are the radiation intensity within the 2800-3300$
wavelength region, the presence of organic co-reactants, and the PCE concen-
tration.  Since widely diverse data were obtained for comparable PCE concen-
trations, and there were no organic co-reactants except the background
                                      40

-------
2.0
uj 1-5
O
z
^f
ABSORB/
_>
b
0.5
0
27
' \
-

\
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
00 3000 3500
                  WAVELENGTH, angstroms



Figure 4. UV absorption spectrum of liquid perchloroethylene.

-------
contaminants (see Table 3),  the radiation factor could conceivably explain the
diversity.  PCE investigators have not reported complete quantitative data on
this radiation factor but the little qualitative information available is
usually consistent with this explanation.  Thus, of the chambers reporting
low consumption rate data, the ones of Brummelle et al.  (3), Wilson (7),
Kopczynski (16), Gay et al.  (10), Yanagihara et al. (18), and the FTIR chamber
of the present study used as window material either glass or Tedlar film both
of which are less transparent to 2800-3300$ radiation than Teflon (39), the
window material used in our smog chamber and the Lillian et al.  (6) studies.
Sickles et al. (22), who also reported low consumption rate results, used
Teflon chambers but they also used natural sunlight radiation whicn, relative
to the radiation used in the present study, was found to cause lower consump-
tion rates (tests 31, 32, and 33 versus tests 12, 13, 15-17, 29, 30, 34, and
35).  The Dimitriades/Joshi  chamber (5), associated with high consumption rate
data, was made of glass but because of its relatively small volume and cylin-
drical shape, the 2800-3300$ radiation generated by the chamber's six sunlamps
was more intense than in all the larger chambers except the FTIR chamber of
this study.
     Differences in 2800-3300$ radiation apparently do not explain the differ-
ence in consumption rate results observed between the Dimitriades and Joshi
chamber and  (5) the FTIR chamber of this study.  Thus, considering these two
chambers' diameters, the numbers of sunlamps used,  and the fact that the
chambers are made of the same material, the 2800-3300$ radiation intensity
should be higher in the FTIR chamber.  Yet the PCE consumption rates observed
for comparable initial PCE concentrations were higher for the Dimitriades and
Joshi chamber by a factor of approximately 2.  The disagreement in this case
may be related to chamber wall effects.  Thus, the pattern of PCE disappearance
in the Dimitriades and Joshi chamber (rapid acceleration of the reaction
following an induction period) is consistent with little or no scavenging of
Cl atoms by  the chamber walls.  In contrast, the uniform PCE disappearance
observed in  the FTIR chamber and the tendency for the effect of injected Cl?
to diminish with time (see Figure 3) are consistent with strong Cl scavenging
by the chamber walls.  Therefore, a difference in the walls' Cl-scavenging
ability (evidently due to different usage histories) most likely caused the
disagreement in PCE consumption rate results between the two chambers.
                                      42

-------
     Finally, no attempts were made to reconcile the reactivity data obtained
by Schuck and Doyle (12) and by Billing et al,  (9) with those of the other
studies. The effects of the Schuck and Doyle chamber's unorthodox design
(lamps were inside the chamber) and of the unrealistic radiation and reactant
concentration conditions used by Dill ing et al.  are not well enough understood
to permit meaningful comparisons with the other studies.
     Hith respect to the (L/0  yield reactivity, the proposed Cl-photooxidation
                          o  X
mechanism dictates that such reactivity should  be influenced by the same
factors that influence the consumption rate reactivity and, additionally, by
the PCE-to-NO  ratio factor.  This means that of the reported studies, those
             X
that resulted in the highest consumption rate reactivity data, and those that
used optimum PCE-to-NO  ratio conditions in the smog chamber tests, should
                      X
also have resulted in the highest CU/0  yield reactivity data.  This is
                                   O  X
indeed the case, as the data in Tables 3 and 7  show.  Thus, the highest Oo/0v
                                                                         j  X
yield reactivity data were obtained by Lillian  et al.  (6), Dinritriades and
Joshi (5), Sickles et al. (22), Gay (20), and the present study.  Of these,
Lillian et al., Dimitriades and Joshi, and the  present study also gave high
consumption rate reactivity results.  Gay, Sickles et al. and some tests of
this study used a PCE-to-NO  ratio of 20, which is much more conducive to
                           X
Q.,/0  formation (22) than the ratios of 2-B or  >100 used in the other studies.
 O  X
     To summarize the discussion and conclusions thus far, the evidence obtained
in this study is consistent with the deduction  derived from past studies that
in smog chamber testing of PCE, current smog chemistry, with the OH attack as
its key reaction step, is not operative; instead, a Cl-instigated chain photo-
oxidation chemistry is operative.  Furthermore,  in the light of this new
evidence, the Cl-instigated photooxidation mechanism seems to provide reasonable
explanations of the reactivity differences observed in the various smog chambers.
The most significant feature, however, of this  mechanism is that, relative to
the OH-initiated mechanism of current smog chemistry,  it results in substantially
higher levels of PCE reactivity.  This raises then the final and most important
question, which is whether the Cl-instigated photooxidation chemistry observed
in smog chambers can also produce 03 in the real atmosphere.
     Analysis of atmospheric data indicated a negligibly reactive nature for
PCE which suggests that the Cl chemistry is not effective in the real atmosphere.
                                      43

-------
But such data are usually too limited to support reliable conclusions.  One
must rely, therefore, on existing laboratory evidence and theoretical deduc-
tions.  The relevant laboratory evidence is the smog chamber data on the
effects of various factors on PCE consumption in irradiated PCE/NO  systems.
                                                                  A
These factors, their effects, and their implications regarding the question in
hand are discussed below.
     First, the PCE concentration factor was found in our present study to
have a strong co-directional effect on PCE consumption rate.  Thus, the PCE
consumption rates for initial PCE concentrations of 2.5-3.0 ppm were 20 to
110%/h (tests 12, 13, 34, and 35), whereas for initial PCE concentrations of
0.6-55 ppb, the rates were 0.5 to 1.5%/h (tests 21, 22 and 36).  Tnat is,
reducing initial PCE concentration by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude reduced the
normalized PCE consumption rate by about 2 orders of magnitude.  Extrapolation
of these results to the real atmosphere, where the PCE concentration is only a
few ppt, can be made only very roughly.  Since the normalized PCE consumption
rate is a function of PCE concentration, it follows that the order of the PCE
consumption reaction with respect to the PCE reactant must be greater than 1.
Lacking detailed mechanism and complete kinetic data, the assumption is made
that the kinetic rate equation is R = k[PCE]n (where n > 1) and the normalized
rate (R1, %/h) equation is

     R1 = rW  X 100 = kCPCE]"'1.
Using these authors' data (tests 12, 13, 21, 22, 29, 30, and 34-36), k and n
are estimated to be 31.6 and 1.77, respectively.  From these results it follows
that for the ambient hemispheric PCE concentration of 40 ppt (25), the PCE
consumption rate should be 0.01%/h.  In urban atmospheres, where the PCE
concentration can reach 1-7 ppb (23), the PCE consumption rate can be as high
as 1.75%/h.  For comparison, the atmospheric reaction rate of ethane, based on
its reaction with OH (kQH = 0.3 X 10~12cm3 molecules sec"1, [OH] = 3-5 X 105
molecules/cm ) is 0.03 to 0.04%/h.  Similar results are also derived from the
Dilling et al. data (9).  Dilling et al. reported that reduction of the
initial PCE concentration in their smog chamber from 100 ppm to 10 ppm caused
the normalized PCE consumption rate to be reduced by a factor of 2.9, down to

                                      44

-------
a half-life of 11.2 h.   Again using again the rate equation R = k[PCE]
(where n > 1), and the  Dilling et al.  data, k and n are calculated to be 33.1
and 1.47, respectively, values that lead to a PCE consumption rate in the real
atmosphere from 0 004%/h (hemispheric average) to 0.7%/h (urban maximum).  The
highest rates are higher than those of the ethane reaction with OH in the real
atmosphere or of the PCE reaction with OH (Table 5).  Therefore, based on the
effect of the PCE concentration factor alone, the PCE consumption rate reactivity,
and by inference the 0^/0  yield reactivity also, could be significant in the
                      •J  A
real atmosphere.
     Co-reactant VOCs capable of competing with PCE for Cl atoms were found in
our present study and by others (9,15,40) to inhibit the PCE reaction in smog
chambers extremely strongly (see, for example, results from tests 12-14, and
23-30 of our study).  This finding is consistent with available kinetic data
                                                             -13  3         -1
showing the rate constant for the Cl  + PCE reaction (5.3 X 10   cm  molecule
sec" ), to be 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than those for the reactions of
Cl with non-methane hydrocarbons (31).  Another role of the co-reactants, also
resulting in inhibition of the PCE reaction, could be to scavenge the radicals
(e.g. OH) that instigate the Cl-releasing process.  Applying these results to
the real atmosphere, where PCE is invariably accompanied by hydrocarbons at
concentrations several  hundred times its own, the PCE reaction with Cl should
proceed at a rate 4 to  5 orders of magnitude lower than the rates of the non-
methane hydrocarbon reactions with Cl.  Since the ambient hydrocarbons are
known to have lifetimes of hours or longer (41), and their disappearance is
due mainly to their reaction with OH rather than with Cl, the PCE reaction
with Cl in the real atmosphere seems too slow to have any significance.
Therefore, based on the effect of the co-reactant factor, the PCE reactivity
in the real atmosphere  should be negligible.
     In conclusion, although the laboratory evidence currently available is
not absolutely consistent and complete, it does permit collective interpretation
of the diverse smog chamber data available and extrapolation of such data and
findings to the real atmosphere.  Furthermore, notwithstanding its limitations,
the evidence clearly points to the conclusion that Cl-instigated photooxidation
of PCE cannot occur in  the real atmosphere at a high enough rate for substantial
Q.,/0  production.  The  main bases of this conclusion is that in ordinary urban
 O  X
                                     45

-------
atmospheres, Cl  atoms are effectively scavenged by the unavoidably present
hydrocarbon pollutants.   In rural  atmospheres,  it is,  additionally, the
extremely low concentrations at which PCE typically occurs.   Thus, contrary to
the smog chamber data, and to the  viewpoint held thus  far within EPA, PCE is
now judged to contribute less to the ambient photochemical CU/0  problem than
                                                            *5  A
equal concentrations of ethane.
                                      46

-------
                                  REFERENCES
 1.   Fed.  Regist.  (1971  August 14)  36:15486.

 2.   County of Los Angeles.   1966.   Air Pollution Control  District Rules and
     Regulations.

 3.   Brummelle, M. F., J.  E.  Dickinson, and W.  J. Hamming.  1966.   Effective-
     ness  of Organic Solvents in Photochemical  Smog Formation.   Los Angeles
     County:  Air Pollution  Control  District.

 4.   Fed.  Regist.  (1977 July 8) 42:34314-34316.

 5.   Dimitriades,  B., and S.  B. Joshi.   1977.   Application of reactivity
     criteria in oxidant-related control in the USA.  In:   International
     Conference on Photochemical Air Pollution  and Its Control  Proceedings.
     Vol.  II.  (B. Dimitriades, ed.) pp. 705-711.  EPA-600/3-77-001b, Research
     Triangle Park, NC:   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 6.   Lillian, D.,  H. B.  Singh, A.  Appleby, L.  Loban, R. Arnts,  R.  Cumpert,
     R. Hague, J.  Toomey,  J.  Kazazis, M. Antell, D. Hansen, and B. Scott.
     1975.  Atmospheric fates of halogenated compounds.  Environ.  Sci.
     Technol. 9:1042-1098.

 7.   Wilson, K. W.  (1971  August)  Informal Stanford Research Institute  report
     on SRI Project 1418.

 8.   Microfilm edition of reference (9).

 9.   Dill ing, W.  L., C.  J. Bredeweg, and N. B.  Tefertiller.  1976.  Organic
     photochemistry:  Simulated atmospheric photodecomposition  rates of
     methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,  trichloroethylene, tetra-
     chloroethylene, and other compounds.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  10:351-356.

10.   Gay,  B. W., Jr., P. L.  Hanst,  J. J. Bufalini, and R.  C. Noonan.  1976.
     Atmospheric oxidation of chlorinated ethylenes.  Environ.  Sci. Technol.
     10:58-67.

11.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.  1978.  Air Quality  Criteria for
     Ozone and Other Photochemical  Oxidants.   EPA-600/8-78-004, Research
     Triangle Park, NC:   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

12.   Schuck, E. A., and G. J. Doyle.  1959.  Photooxidation of  Hydrocarbons in
     Mixtures Containing Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Dioxide.  Air Pollution
     Foundation Report No. 29.  San Marino, CA:   Air Pollution  Foundation.

13.   Wilson, K. W. and G.  J.  Doyle.   1970.  Investigation  of Photochemical
     Reactivities  of Organic Solvents.   SRI Report on SRI  Project PSU-3029.
     Irvine, CA:   Stanford Research Institute.

14.   Kopczynski,  S.  (1971 August  4) Private communication on smog chamber
     data  for perchloroethylene.

                                      47

-------
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
23.
24.
25.
Appleby, A.  1976.  Atmospheric Freons and Halogenated Compounds.
EPA-600/3-76-108.  Research Triangle Park, NC:   U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency.

Calvert, J. G.  1977.  International Conference  on Oxidants, 1976--
Analysis of Evidence and Viewpoints, Part II.   The Issue of Reactivity.
EPA-600/3-77-114, Research Triangle Park, NC:   U.S. Environmental
Protection Aqencv.
Joshi, S. B., M. C. Dodge, and J. J. Bufalini.  1982.
selected organic compounds and contamination effects.
16:1301-1310.
                          Reactivities of
                          Atmos. Environ.
Yanagihara, S., I. Shimada, E. Shinoyama, F. Chi ska, K. Saito, and
T. Ishii.  1977.  Photochemical reactivities of hydrocarbons.  In:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Clean Air Congress, Japanese
Union of Air Pollution Prevention Associations, pp. 472-477.
Japan Environmental Agency.
Photochemical Air Pollution.
Quality Bureau.
1975.   The Second US-Japan Conference on
 Tokyo:  Japan Environmental  Agency, Air
22 ?
Gay, B. W., Jr.  1977.  Tetrachloroethylene-N0x Irradiation, Monthly
Report for March 1977.  Research Triangle Park, NC:  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory, Gas
Kinetics Branch.

Kaiserman, M. J., and E. W. Corse.  1981.  Aerosols and carbon balance in
the Pinene-NOv photochemical system.  In:  Atmospheric Biogenic Hydrocar-
bons, Vol. 2 (J. Bufalini and R. R. Arnts, editors) Ann Arbor, MI:  Ann
Arbor Science.

Sickles, J. E. II, R. S. Wright, C. R. Sutcliffe, A. L. Blackard, and
D. P. Dayton.  1980.  Smog chamber studies of the reactivity of volatile
organic compounds.  Paper #80-50.1 presented in 73rd Annual Meeting of
the APCA, Montreal, Canada, June 22-27.

Singh, H. B., L. J. Salas, R. Stiles, and H. Shigeishi.  1981.  Measure-
ments of Hazardous Organic Chemicals in the Ambient Atmosphere.  SRI
Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SRI Project 7774.  Menlo
Park, CA:  SRI International.

Singh, H. B., L. J. Salas, and R. Stiles.  1981.  Trace Chemicals in the
Clean Atmosphere.  EPA-600/3-81-055, Research Triangle Park, NC:  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Singh, H. B., L. J. Salas, H. Shigeishi, A. J. Smith, E. Scribner, and
L. A. Cavanagh.  1979.  Atmospheric Distributions, Sources and Sinks of
Selected Halocarbons, Hydrocarbons, SFs, and ^0.  EPA-600/3-79-107,
Research Triangle Park, NC:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                                      48

-------
26,  Dusoleil, S., P.  Goldfinger,  A.  M.  Melieu-Van der Auwera,  G.  Martens, and
     D. Van der Auwera.   1961.   Elementary Rate Constants in Atomic Chlorination
     Reactions.  Part 1-Experiments in Intermittent Light.   Trans. Faraday
     Soc.  57:2197.

27.  Atkinson, R., K.  R.  Darnall,  A.  C.  Lloyd, A.  M.  Winer, and J. N.  Pitts,
     Jr.  1979.  Kinetics and mechanisms of the reactions of the hydroxyl
     radicals with organic compounds  in  the gas phase.  Adv. in Photochem.
     11:375.

28.  Mill, T., VI.  R.  Mabey, D.  C.  Bomberger, T. W. Chou, D. G.  Hendry, and
     J. H. Smith.   1980.   Laboratory  Protocols for Evaluating the Fate of
     Organic Chemicals in Air and  Water.  SRI Report to EPA.  SRI  Project
     PYU-4396.  Menlo Park, CA:  SRI  International.

29.  Heicklen, J.  P.,  E.  Sanhueza, I. C. Hisatune, R. K. M. J?.yanty, R.
     Simonaitis, L. A. Hull, C. W. Blume, and E. Mathias.  1975.  Oxidation
     of Halocarbons.   EPA-650/3-75-008.    Research Triangle Park,  NC:   U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.

30.  Sanhueza, E., I.  C.  Hisatsune, and  J. Heicklen.   1976.  Oxidation of
     Haloethylenes.  Chem. Rev. 76:801.

31.  Davis, D. D., W.  Brann, and A. M. Bass.  1970.  Reactions  of Cl:   Absolute
     Rate Constants for Reaction with H2, CH4, C2H6, CHeCl2, C2C14, and C-CsH^-
     International J.  Chem. Kinetics, 2:101.

32.  Joshi, S. B., and J. J. Bufalini.  1978.  Halocarbon interferences in
     chemiluminescent measurements of NOX.  Environ.  Sci. Technol. 12:597-599.

33.  Cicerone, R.  J.,  R.  S. Stolarski, and S. Walters.  1974.  Stratospheric
     ozone destruction by man-made chlorofluoromethanes.  Science 185:1165-
     1166.

34.  Tuesday, C. S.  1961.  The atmospheric photooxidation of nitric oxide and
     trans-butene-2.   In:  Chemical Reactions in Upper and Lower Atmosphere.
     (C. Tuesday,  ed.) pp. 15-49,  New York:  Interscience Press.

35.  Arnts, R. R., and B. W. Gay,  Jr.  1979.  Photochemistry of Some Naturally
     Emitted Hydrocarbons.  EPA-600/3-79-081, Research Triangle Park,  NC:
     U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.

36.  Bittker, D. A.,  and  E. L.  Wong.   1977.  Effect of Trichlorofluoromethane
     and Molecular Chlorine on Ozone  Formation by Simulated Solar Radiation.
     NASA Technical Paper 1093.  Cleveland, OH:  NASA, Lewis Research  Center.

37.  Demerjian, K. L., J. A. Kerr, and J. G. Calvert.  1974.  The mechanism of
     photochemical smog formation. Adv. Environ.  Sci. Technol. 4:1-262.

38.  Texas A&M University.  1969.   Ultraviolet Spectral Data.  Thermodynamic
     Research Center Data Project. College Station,  TX:  Texas A&M University.


                                      49

-------
39.  Dimitriades, B.   1967.   Methodology in air pollution studies  using irradia-
     tion chambers.   Journal  of Air Poll.  Contr.  Assoc.  17:460-466.

40.  Gay, B.  W.   1982.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Environmental
     Sciences Research  Laboratory,  Research Triangle  Park,  NC   27711.   Private
     communication.

41.  Altshuller, A.  P.   1981.   Lifetimes of Organic Molecules  in the Tropo-
     sphere and  Lower Stratosphere.   Advances  in  Environ.  Sci.  Techno!. 10:181.
     (J.  Pitts and R. Metcalf,  editors)  Mew York:  Wiley & Sons, Inc.
                                     50

-------
                                   APPENDIX
             DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

     The experimental apparatus used in this study included (a) a long path
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR), the absorption cell  of which
was used as a smog chamber, (b) an aluminum box inside which plastic film bags
could be irradiated by artificial sunlight, (c) an air purification  system,
and (d) analytical equipment.   The experimental apparatus and procedures are
described below, except where such information has been reported elsewhere.
THE FTIR SPECTROMETER AND SMOG CHAMBER
     Construction design and optics-related information on the FTIR  spectro-
meter and smog chamber have been given elsewhere (1).  Figure A-l shows a
schematic of the system.  The infrared absorption coefficients of reactants
and products were determined in most cases for conditions similar to those of
the irradiation experiments.  Thus, known small amounts of gaseous samples
were injected in the absorption cell, diluted to the concentration level
desired with zero grade air, and spectra were taken at 23°C and 1 atmosphere
(760 torr) using 0.5 or 1 wave number spectral resolution and 360 meters
optical path length.  PCE was measured from its infrared absorption  bands at
                                 >th
                                  -1
780, 805, and 918 cm"1,  trichloroethylene at 848 and 940 cm"1,  and trichloro-
acetyl chloride at 745 and 1250 cm
     The requisite concentrations of the reactant vapors were obtained for
irradiation by diluting torr amounts of the chemical  compound in a glass
manifold and glass gas handling system.   The dilution system consisted of a
multiport manifold and a 12.4-1 dilution flask.   Two  MKS Baratron pressure
gauges were used to measure accurately pressure  in the 0-10 and 0-1000 torr
ranges.  Once the appropriate reactant concentration  was established in the
dilution flask, the flask contents were transferred to the partially evacuated
long path infrared cell via the glass manifold to injection ports located in
the five spacers separating the cylindrical sections  of the cell.

     Linde zero grade compressed tank air containing  less than 0.1 ppmC total
organic impurities was used as a diluent gas in  the FTIR chamber experiments.
Filling the 690-liter chamber with tank air resulted  in a low water vapor
                                      51

-------
                                  ULTRAVIOLET
                                    LAMPS
INFRARED
 SOURCE
                                                                   INTERFEROMETER
    VACUUM
     PUMP
                    PATH OF INFRARED RAp]ATION	


                             MANIFOLD | [_
                              GAS-HANDLING SYSTEM
                                                                --0
                                                                  DETECTOR
Figure A-1. Schematic of long path infrared photochemical reaction chamber system.
                                      52

-------
content (approximately 100 ppm H^O).  To increase the water vapor content for
those experiments requiring higher relative humidity the tank air was bubbled
through 30 ml of distilled water, using a course frit bubbler.
     The PCE used in these experiments was research grade Eastman tetrachloro-
ethylene freshly purified by redistillation from which only the middle fraction,
in the 119-119.5°C range, was used.  The trichloroethylene used was ACS-
certified research grade and was used without further purification.  The
trichloroacetyl chloride was Kodak research grade and was also used without
further purification.  Gases such as nitrogen dioxide (NO^), nitric oxide
(MO), and chlorine (Cl,,) were of high purity research grade, obtained in
lecture bottles and used without any further purification.
THE BAG CHAMBER FACILITY
     Irradiation of PCE/air blends in Teflon bags was carried out in an air-
conditioned aluminum box 0.78 m wide, 1.35 m long, and 1.12 m high.  Two banks
of 40-watt ultraviolet fluorescent lamps, evenly distributed along two lengths
inside the chamber, provided the necessary irradiation.   In these experiments
22 General Electric F40 BLB filtered blacklamps with energy maxima at 3660$
and four Westinghouse GS40 sunlamps with energy maxima at 3160$ were used to
simulate lower atmospheric solar radiation between 2900 and 3800$.  The light
intensity was measured by irradiating M09 in N9 (2).  Resultant first order
                                                     -1
rate constant, kd, for N02 disappearance was 0.45 min  , representing total
N02 disappearance due to photolysis and secondary reaction of 0 atoms with
NOp.  Since the photolysis rate constant, k,, is 0.64 k, (3), k, for this
irradiation system is 0.29 min~ .  The air-conditioned irradiation box main-
tained a temperature of 25°C (± 2°C) around the bags during irradiation.  In
this study one or two bags were suspended in the chamber.  Air samples for
analytical instruments were withdrawn via FEP Teflon tubing.  When two bags
were irradiated simultaneously, sampling was alternated between the bags using
a microprocessor-controlled (Chrontrol, Lindburgh Enterprises) three-way
Teflon solenoid valve (Model DV3 122A1, The Fluorocarbon Company).
     The bags were made of DuPont Type A (heat seal able) 2-mil FEP Teflon film
heat-sealed with a thermal impulse heat sealer (Vertrod Corporation, Brooklyn,
NY).  FEP Teflon was chosen for its chemical inertness,  flexibility, and

                                      53

-------
transparency to near-UV radiation.   Before use the bags were flushed with
clean air several  times and evacuated,  filled with clean atr and placed in the
irradiation box for twenty-four hours,  and finally evacuated.
     A laboratory purification system supplied clean air for preparing reaction
mixtures.  This system consisted of a Thomas Teflon-lined diaphragm pump
(Model 917CA18TFE), which draws air from the laboratory roof and pressurizes
it into a 1.8 liter stainless steel sphere that serves as a ballast.  From
there the air is forced through a bowl  moisture trap and pressure gauge, and
through a catalytic combustor consisting of a 13/16" i.d. X 14" stainless
steel pipe packed with rhodium-on-aluninuni pellet catalyst (Engelhard) held at
600°C in a Lindbergh tube furnace.   After combustion to remove hydrocarbons
the air stream is cooled by passing through 12 ft. of 1/4" o.d. stainless
steel tubing submerged in water at 20°C, and further purified by passing
through three Wilkerson (Model X03-02-600) filters.   These three filters are
filled with silica gel (for moisture control), Purafil (Borg Warner) odor-
oxidant (for NO and NCL removal), and activated charcoal (for hydrocarbon
removal), respectively.  The chemically filtered air finally passes through a
particle filter to remove particles larger than 0.2 micron (Matheson Model
6184P4).  A Brooks needle valve and Rotameter (Model 1355CB1C1AAA) control and
monitor the flow.   All system tubing connections are either Teflon or stainless
steel.
     Contaminants in the air supplied by this system are:  NO  < 2 ppb,
                                                             /\
DO < 0.5 ppb, CO - 0.1 ppm, CH» 0.7 ppm, and total nonmethane vapor organics
 50 ppbC (mostly ethane and propane).  Water vapor within the bags is generally
near ambient levels due to rapid permeation of ambient moisture through the
Teflon film.
ANALYTICAL METHODS
     As previously discussed, the FTIR spectrometer made almost all necessary
measurements of the FTIR smog chamber program.  Analytical needs of the Teflon
bag program were limited to measuring PCE and butane and are discussed here.
     Gas chromatography with flame ionization detection  (GC-FID) was the PCE
analysis method for all irradiation tests in which initial PCE concentration
was 2-3 ppm; the same method was also used for the butane measurements.  For

-------
the irradiation tests in which the initial PCE concentration was below 100 ppb,
gas chromatography with electron capture detection was preferred.
     The gas chromatograph was positioned on a bench one meter from the irra-
diation chamber.  Sample was drawn from Lhe irradiation bags through the GC
gas sampling valve using the laboratory's vacuum line or a pump.  The sample
flow was turned off seven seconds before each GC injection to allow the sampling
loop pressure to come to atmospheric pressure, thereby eliminating a source of
measurement variability.  An electronic timer was programmed to turn on and
off the sample flow, injection valve, and peak area integrator at the desired
time intervals.  When dual bag irradiations were conducted, a Teflon 3-way
solenoid valve was used to control the sampling.  The GC analysis parameters
are listed in Table A-l and Figure A-2 shows a typical chromatogram.
     For quality assurance, tests were conducted to determine the linearity of
detector response and the precision and reproducibility of the method.  To
test the response-linearity of the GC-FID method, samples were prepared using
a 1000-ml syringe to dilute a sample of PCE four times.  Resultant PCE concen-
trations in the samples ranged from 12 to 0.3 ppm.  Results gave a linear
                                    2
regression correlation coefficient r  = 0.998, which was interpreted to mean
that the FID response to PCE was linear.
     The initial reactant mixtures prepared for irradiation were also used as
calibration standards.  These mixtures were prepared by syringe injection of
known amounts of liquid PCE into Teflon bags filled with known volumes of air.
Data from repeated GC/FID measurements upon several such mixtures are listed
in Table A-2.  These data were statistically treated by an Analysis-Of-
Variance method to determine standard deviations (S) associated (a) with
sampling and GC/FID measurements upon a single calibration mixture (S ),
(b) with preparation of calibration mixtures (S ) and (c) with day-to-day
variation in instrument response (S-).  Resultant standard deviations,
expressed in terms of Coefficients of Variation (CV = S X 100/mean) are
included in Table A-2.
     The GC-ECD method was the same as the GC-FID method, except that a
tritium-scandium electron capture detector was used in lieu of FID, and 5%-
methane-in-argon was used as carrier instead of He.  The GC-ECD analysis
parameters are listed in Table A-3.  Figure A-3 shows a typical chromatogram.
                                     55

-------
                TABLE A-l.   PCE-FID ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
Gas Chromatograph
Integrator
Gas Sampling Valve
Detector
Column
Temperatures

     Column
     Detector
     Sample Valve

Carrier Gas
Flow Rates

     Carrier
     Detector Air
     Detector Hydrogen
     Sample

Sample Size
Detector Voltage
Chart Speed
Total Cycle Time
Perkin Elmer Model 900
Hewlett-Packard Model 3390A
Seiscor (Tulsa, Oklahoma)
Flame lonization
6-ft X 1/8-inch o.d. ss packed with
10% SF-96 on 60/80 mesh Chromosorb
W-AW
100°C
250°C
Room Temperature, 24°C

Helium
25 ml/min
536 ml/min
39 ml/min
160 ml/min

2 and 4 ml loops used
1 volt, 0.1 volt
0.9 cm/min
5 min
                                  56

-------
                             PCE, 2.6 ppm
               0123




              RETENTION TIME, min




Figure A-2. Chromatogram of GC-FID analysis of PCE.
                          57

-------
          TABLE A-2.   PRECISION  OF  GC/FID ANALYSIS OF PCE CALIBRATION MIXTURES
                          GC/FID  Data  for  4-cc  Samples  (Arbitrary Units)
Date
              Calibration Mixture
                  (2.592 ppm  PCE)
                                         #1
                                          Calibration Mixture #2
                                              (2.592 ppm  PCE)
4/20
4/21
4/26
4/27
5/11
5/12
6/8
6/9
           3103    3121     3113
           3208    3251     3221     3189
           3085    3266     3310
           3005    3030     3022
           3009    3083     3095
           3204    3231     3213
           2921    2968     2955     2966
           2904    2906
                                       2991
                                       3189
                                       2862
                                       2968
                                         2991
                                         3198
                                         2934
                                         2940
                                           2903
                                           3192     3167
                                           2857     2874
                          GC/FID Data  for  2-cc  Samples  (Arbitrary Units)
6/16
6/17
6/21
6/24
6/29
6/30
7/6
7/7
7/8
7/9
1299
1342
1274
1301
1036
1232
1168
1151
1227
1274
1302
1326
1286
1313
1039
1244
1192
1146
1243
1292
1314
1343
1292

1073
1237
1203
1314
1333
1299

1062
1241
1302
1343
1353

1042
1224
1332
1311   1306
1317
1305

1277
1220
1264
1258
1251
1237
1298
1323
1297

1266
1206
1267
1207
1232
1229
1312
1336
1285
                           1239
                           1241
                           1192
                                 1293  1281   1296
      1241
      1240
1198
1267
                                   Analysis  of Variance

                                   CV  a/           CVr^/
                                                       CVi
Data for 4-cc, Mix #1
Data for 4-cc, Mix #1,  #2
Data for 2-cc, Mix #1,  #2
                             3%
                                           11%
                                                  6%
                                                 12%
                                                 23%
-  Coefficient of variation associated with  sampling  and  GC/FID measurements  upon  a
   single calibration mixture.
-/ Coefficient of variation associated with  preparation of  calibration mixture.
c/
-  Coefficient of variation associated with  day-to-day variation  in  calibration
   mixture preparation and instrument response.
                                            58

-------
                TABLE A-3.  PCE-ECD ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
Gas Chromatograph
Integrator
Gas Sampling Valve
Detector

Column
Carrier Gas
Temperatures

     Column
     Detector
     Sample Valve

Flow Rates

     Carrier
     Sample

Sample Size
Detector Voltage
Chart Speed
Total Cycle Time
Perkin Elmer Model 900
Hewlett-Packard Model 3390A
Seiscor 6-port
Electron Capture, Analog Technology
Corporation, Model 140
6-ft X 1/8-inch o.d. ss packed with
10% SF-96 on 60/80 mesh Chromosorb
W-AW

5% methane in argon
100°C
160°C
Room Temperature, 24°C
25 ml/min
160 ml/min

0.63 ml
1 mv
0.9 cm/min
5 min
                                  59

-------
        XI024  —I
                        PCE. 50ppb
                0123
Figure A-3. Chromatogram of GC-ECD analysis of PCE.
                     60

-------
     For calibration of the GC-ECD system, standard PCE mixtures were prepared
using a 163-ml  exponential dilution flask.  First,  4 pi of PCE was injected
into a 1000-ml  heated glass bulb.   Then 0.25 ml  of  the glass bulb contents was
injected into the dilution flask.   The oi'tlet of the flask was connected to
the GC gas sampling valve, and tank air was used as the diluent gas.  A sample
from the exponential dilution flask was analyzed every five minutes.  The
response-versus-concentration curve (Figure A-4) was not linear, but it did
                                                                      2
fit a power curve function with a  regression correlation coefficient R  of
0.994.  The precision of the method was determined  from 14 repetitive analyses
of a 267-ppb PCE/air sample.  The  relative standard deviation was 2.3% and the
95% confidence interval was ±4.8%.  The method's reproducibil4ty was estimated
from the calibration input variables (syringe error, volume error, and flow
rate error) to be ±18% (95% confidence interval).

REFERENCES
1.   Gay, B. W., Jr., P. L. Hanst, J.  J. Bufalini and R. C. Noonan.  1976.
     Atmospheric oxidation of chlorinated ethylenes.  Environ. Sci. Technol.
     10:58-67.
2.   Tuesday, C. S.  1961.  The atmospheric photooxidation of nitric oxide and
     trans-butene-2.  In:   Chemical Reactions in Upper and Lower Atmosphere
     (C. Tuesday, ed.) pp. 15-49.   New York:  Interscience Press.
3.   Stedman, D. H. and H. Niki.  1973.  Photolysis of N02 in air as measure-
     ment method for light intensity.   Environ.  Sci. Technol. 7:37.
                                     61

-------
    5001—
 C/J
0
120
             20    40    60    80    100



               PCE CONCENTRATION, ppb



Figure A-4. PCE calibration curve for GC-ECD analysis.
                     52

-------
-------















































•
-o
cu
3
C

+->
C
0
o



ro

LU
CO

h-
































































in

c
i
Q
O









X E
o o.
— , o.
CO
o -

• o
x c:
to O
s: u
in
o o

cu +J
•u o x:
10 ro --.
1- CU S2
i-

01 LU
> o
CC Q_




i- X
1 O O
ro if- ^
s_

C > 0
CU \f-
u >

o a

4-> O- •
c o
-> o









c
o

+3
ro C
•r- cr
•a T-
ra in
S- cu

-d
C E
ro CU

1- in
cu >>
xi in
E
) C
-a cu
3 S-
•4-1 CU
CO If-

!-



































O







IO

Oi














CM

O

«d-

..
X
o


LU
O




-C >, 1
4-> XI C i— Lu C
•r- =1 >> 1 0 O
cu x: "" -r- T- o +J
S- +J cno in E •— ro
CU ro •!— CM C 1 -r—

E ~^ ^ ' ' ^-* • Ol t3
(O IO O C CD t-
X: S- ro CU T- •(-> !~
u i- ' — m ii 10 ••-
•r- XI ^3 C
E o o o-o en

c: in ca en +J •»-> -r-
•i-S 1 C (O O ro t-
E 0 CO -r- -r- +-> S- 3
13 ~O 1 — •*-» T3 CU T3
P— c ID i/l ro •*-* Q.
ro-r-cn cuo: c OH-
5 U- 3E CU
ro r— s- en
+JCLUCO -rocuc:
If— O C3 r— i/l > _Q *r— -• — %
i ^ a.-.- E ^ ^->

O OJ ' — C rrj CTJC i- OJ
**H"~'°^aJO~+J
cu
tn
i-
0
o

T3
c
ro '"^
CM
C CM


t--~
in oo
•r- CTl
5^
C
CO CO -r-
s- o o
•i- s- s- -a
(O E -r- E •«- CU
S. rO D- ro +J
-o a. a. r-
cu +-> -t-1 3
•r- r-v c 01 c m
If- O CU CM  -O +J T3 +-> O O
rO Qj ro CU ro • •
•r- *J •!- 4-> -r- O 0
•u r- -a i— -o i

&. in s- in i- •*-> o
1- CU S_ 0) S- -r- •
1— 1 !- I-H S- l-t S O
1



uf)

C3

"3-
•
O

O
I S-
4-1 >r_ ^_ QJ
=1 If- >> CU M

C +J ro C
S Ol C CU IO
o T- ro s- x:
—i in o cn-u











CNJ

o
^^
*^*

..
X
o
ZI

LU
C_3
O-
. O
in i-
cn-f-> ro •
t/t IO *"" (U IO
S- x» en in c
 i- XI -f->
^~ 'r- 3 E ^~
4- r— -f-> CD O
CU 1 ro > ^T
1— 0 C 0
If) z •
co CM >> I .*:
4-* XI t- t-
14- r— CU 10
i ra ~o xi a.
0 S- CU E
o cu +-> cu cu
O > ro 4J .—
i— cu -r- a. en
in *o cu c
S- ro I/) ra
3 T3 S- •'-
O C I- C !_
L, ....._
co
en

^_x

•

ra

•4->
cu

in
cu
!^ ' — -
U CM
•r- CM
11