United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas NV89114
Research and Development
EPA-600/S4-84-069 Jan. 1985
Project Summary
Mobility of Toxic Compounds
from Hazardous Wastes
C.W. Francis, M.P. Maskarinec, and J.C. Goyert
The objective of the research in
progress is to develop and validate a
laboratory extraction method for solid
wastes which simulates the leaching of
inorganic and organic constituents
from a mixture of municipal and
industrial wastes in a landfill containing
a 95:5 ratio of these wastes. The
specific intent of the work presented
here was to produce a scientific ration-
ale and a data base that can provide the
basis for selecting such an extraction
method.
Two field lysimeters, each containing
approximately 1500 Kg of assorted
municipal wastes, were used to gener-
ate a municipal waste leachate (MWL)
that in turn was used to leach four
industrial wastes under anoxic con-
ditions simulating co-disposal. One of
the industrial wastes was predominant-
ly organic in character, consisting of
heavy ends and column bottoms from
the production of tri- and perchloro-
ethylene. Two wastes contained both
inorganic and organic hazardous con-
stituents; one was a paint production
sludge, and the other was a mixture of
American Petroleum Institute (API)
separator sludge and petroleum-refining
incinerator ash. The fourth waste was
an electroplating wastewater treatment
sludge.
The leachates that resulted when the
four industrial wastes were leached
with MWL were monitored for concen-
trations of inorganic and organic
constituents over 79 days (until a ratio
of MWL to industrial waste of approxi-
mately 20:1 was reached, similar to the
liquid/solid ratio currently being used
in the extraction procedure [EP] to
determine toxicity under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]).
Air-tight Tedlar bags were used to
collect leachate to avoid loss of volatile
organic compounds and to maintain an
anoxic environment. Leachate data
from the field lysimeter test facility
were used to determine concentrations
of 25 target constituents (those 16 in-
organic elements and 9 organic com-
pounds that were observed in the
leachates of the industrial wastes at
concentrations higher than those ob-
served in the MWL). This data base was
used as a model to develop a laboratory
extraction method that could reproduce
the target concentrations over a variety
of scenarios. For example, five sets of
target concentrations were established
using various criteria (e.g., maximum
observed concentrations in leachates
[MCLs] from the lysimeter and concen-
trations integrated over selected leach-
ing intervals).
To determine which method best re-
produced the five sets of target concen-
trations, 32 different laboratory extrac-
tion methods were tested in duplicate.
These included upflow-column and
rotary-batch procedures using four
media: (1) a 0.1 Msodium acetate pH 5
buffer (concentration of acetate equiva-
lent to the maximum allowed in the
present EP), (2) carbonic acid (CO2-
saturated, de-ionized distilled water),
(3) de-ionized distilled water, and (4)
MWL from the field lysimeter test
facility. All four media were tested in
both procedures at liquid/solid ratios of
2.5, 5, 10, and 20:1. Two ancillary
procedures were included: (1) the EP
and (2) a bisequential extraction proce-
dure developed to extract high concen-
trations of acid-soluble metals from
predominantly alkaline wastes. Con-
centrations of the 25 target chemicals
-------
in the laboratory extracts of the respec-
tive wastes were determined and com-
pared to the five sets of target concen-
trations determined from the lysimeter
leachates. The relative differences be-
tween the laboratory concentrations
and the target values were ranked and
then statistically analyzed across all
chemical/waste combinations to deter-
mine, for each set of target concentra-
tions, the best simulation of target in-
organic chemicals, target organic com-
pounds, and both target inorganic and
organic chemicals.
When maximum observed concentra-
tions in leachates (see above) were used
as target values, the extraction methods
that most accurately reproduced those
values for the 16 inorganic and 9
organic constituents monitored used
MWL as an extracting medium. The
lower liquid/solid ratios (e.g., 10:1 and
less) prevailed in the top-ranked extrac-
tions, and there appeared to be no
preference with respect to rotary-batch
or upflow-column procedures. The
poorest extraction methods involved
both upflow-column and rotary-batch
extractions using de-ionized distilled
water at a liquid/solid ratio of 20:1.
When target concentrations were
determined by integrating over leaching
intervals up to 20:1 liquid/solid ratios,
the carbonic acid extracting medium
generally ranked high. As expected,
laboratory extraction procedures using
higher liquid/solid ratios (10:1 and
20:1) prevailed in the top-ranked
extractions, and again, there appeared
to be no preference with respect to
rotary-batch or upflow-column proce-
dures.
From this and previous research, it
appears that no single extraction meth-
od will be optimal, inclusive of all
wastes, waste constituents, or landfill
scenarios. This research has, however,
demonstrated the relative effectiveness
of a number of extraction methods for a
variety of wastes and chemical constit-
uents and has indicated that certain
extraction methods may be able to
indicate potential problem wastes with
reasonable accuracy. The final selection
of any one method or combination of
methods will depend on what leachate
target concentrations are to be repro-
duced. The data presented in the report
suggest that the use of carbonic acid as
an extracting medium in a rotary-batch
procedure would fulfill many of the pre-
viously mentioned criteria. Compatibil-
ity of carbonic acid extractions with
numerous biotesting protocols would
also aid in evaluating the toxicity of
solid waste leachates.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, to
announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
To evaluate the potential threat to
ground water posed by improper disposal
of an industrial waste in a sanitary landfill
containing municipal wastes, a labora-
tory extraction procedure that produced
concentrations simulating levels of organ-
ic and inorganic constituents in the leach-
ate of that waste is needed. Currently,
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the mobility of
selected toxic components is determined
by an extraction procedure (EP) mobility
test (USEPA 1980).
The EP is a 24-hr batch-type laboratory
extraction procedure that uses acetic acid
to acidify the liquid/waste suspension
(20:1 ratio) to a pH of 5. It is used as a
regulatory test to classify a waste relative
to a landfill scenario. The intent of the EP
is to simulate the leaching action of the
dominant carboxylic acid (acetic acid)
found in municipal waste leachate
(MWL). The EP has a number of limita-
tions, the most important being that it has
not been tested for its ability to simulate a
real-world disposal environment. In
addition, the leaching of organic com-
pounds is not currently modeled by the
EP. Other factors that may limit the
ability of the EP to accurately character-
ize potential health and environmental
hazards of a waste include the deficiency
in expressing kinetic relationships of
components extracted and the relevance
to the leaching inanoxicenvironments. In
terms of applying biological testing to EP
extracts, the EP is limited because the
acetic acid used m the procedure has
been shown to interfere with aquatic
toxicity and phytotoxicity testing proto-
cols (Epler et al. 1980 and Millemann et
al. 1981).
The objective of the research was to
develop an experimental data base to
assist in the selection of a laboratory
extraction method that produces concen-
trations simulating the levels of inorganic
and organic constituents in leachates
that result from co-disposing municipal
and industrial wastes in a landfill. The
intended characteristics of the method
include:
1. Ability to simulate leaching in a
landfill containing municipal and
industrial wastes in proportions of u
about 95 and 5% by weight, respec- m
lively.
2. Compatibility with biological toxicity
tests (e.g., mutagenic, aquatic, and
phytotoxic).
3. Low cost in terms of time, equipment,
and personnel.
The strategy used to develop the labora-
tory extraction method was as follows:
1. Two large-scale field lysimeters,
each containing approximately 1500
Kg of assorted municipal wastes,
were used to generate a MWL.
2. This MWL was then used to leach
four industrial wastes under anoxic
conditions simulating co-disposal.
3. The concentrations of inorganic and
organic constituents observed in the
industrial waste leachates (in excess
of the control MWL) were plotted
relative to their liquid/solid ratios
(i.e., the volume of leachate divided
by the weight of the waste).
4. A variety of laboratory extraction
methods (combinations of extraction
procedures, media, and liquid/solid
ratios) were used to produce extracts.
5. The preferred laboratory extraction
method was determined by compar-
ing the concentrations of the inor-
ganic and organic constituents in
laboratory extracts to five sets of
target concentrations established to
simulate various leaching scenarios.
Experimental Design
The four selected wastes were (1) a
mixture of API separator sludge and
petroleum-refining incinerator ash, (2)
dichloroethylene still bottoms from the
production of tri- and perchloroethylene,
(3) a paint sludge, and (4)an electroplating
wastewater treatment sludge Air-dried
sawdust was added to the dichloroethy-
lene still bottoms and paint sludge in
amounts large enough to effectively sorb
the liquid component of the wastes.
These wastes were placed in glass
columns (38.7 cm i.d. by 30.5 cm in
height) and leached with MWL under
anoxic conditions Leachates from the
four industrial wastes were monitored for
concentrations of inorganic and organic
constituents over 79 days (until a ratio of
MWL to industrial waste of approximately
20:1 was reached, similar to the liquid/
solid ratio currently being used m the EP).
Air-tight Tedlar bags were used to collect
leachate to avoid loss of volatile organic
compounds and to maintain an anoxic
environment.
-------
Results and Conclusions
A target constituent was defined as any
inorganic element or organic compound
that exhibited a distinct concentration
maximum over the 79-day leaching
period and whose total mass leached
from the industrial waste was greater
than that leached in the control MWL. A
total of 25 target constituents (16
inorganic elements and 9 organic com-
pounds) were identified in the leachates
of the industrial wastes, as follows:
API/Incinerator Ash
The inorganic elements Ca, Cr, K,
Mo, Na, and Sr, and the organic
compound naphthalene.
Dichloroethylene Still Bottoms
No inorganic elements, but four
organic compounds: dichloroethane,
trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
and hexachlorobutadiene.
Paint Sludge
The inorganic elements Ba and Zn,
and the organic compounds ethoxy-
ethanol, ethoxyethyl acetate, toluene,
and xylenes.
Electroplating Waste
The inorganic elements B, Ba, K, Mn,
Na, Ni, Sr and Zn, but no organic
compounds.
Five sets of target concentrations were
established using three basic criteria. The
first criterion involved identifying a
maximum leachate concentration (MLC)
over the leaching period. The second
criterion identified an average maximum
concentration (AMC) over a specific
leaching interval bracketed around the
MLC. The third and final criterion was an
integrated average concentration (IAC)
taken from the first day of leaching.
The intent of the research was to
establish target concentrations using all
three criteria and then to rank the various
laboratory extraction methods as to
which method produced concentrations
that most closely reproduced the particu-
lar target concentration. Five sets of
target concentrations for the 25 inorganic
and organic constituents were established
based on the guidelines developed by
Kimmell and Friedman (draft manuscript
entitled "Models, Assumptions and
Rationale Behind the Development of
EP—III," presented at the Fourth Sympo-
sium for Hazardous and Industrial Solid
Waste Testing, May 2-4, 1984, Arlington,
Virginia). The five sets were as follows:
1. MLC—maximum leachate concen-
tration measured in lysimeter leach-
ates over the 79-day leaching period,
2. AMC8—average maximum concen-
tration in an 8:1 liquid/solid leaching
interval that bracketed the MLC
measured in lysimeter leachate,
3. AMC20—average maximum con-
centration in a 20:1 liquid/solid
leaching interval that bracketed the
MLC measured in lysimeter leachate,
4. AMC40—average maximum con-
centration in a 40:1 liquid/solid
leaching interval that bracketed the
MLC measured in lysimeter leachate,
and
5. IAC8—integrated average concen-
tration leached over the first 8:1
liquid/solid interval.
The 8:1 liquid/solid ratio was selected
because preliminary data relating to the
quantity of leachate that moved through
a municipal waste landfill indicated that
an 8:1 liquid/solid ratio represented a
period of leaching equivalent to 1 to 3
years, depending on the assumptions
regarding meteorologic and geologic
conditions and landfill design. The 20:1
liquid/solid ratio was used because it
represented a significantly longer leach-
ing period and was consistent with the
same liquid/solid ratio in current use
(RCRA-EP). The 40:1 ratio was included
primarily to illustrate possible long-term
leaching characteristics of the various
target constituents.
Target values for MLC were defined as
the average maximum concentration
measured in lysimeter leachates over the
79-day period in the four replicated
industrial waste leachates. Control
concentrations for each replicate were
subtracted at the MLC liquid/solid ratio.
Target concentrations for AMC8, AMC20,
AMC40, and IAC8 were determined as
follows. The accumulative leaching
curves for each of the 25 target constit-
uents were fitted using the best fit curve
from a selection of four basic single
variable models. Fitting the accumulative
leaching curves to one of these four
models provided equations from which
quantities of the leached constituents
could be calculated over discrete liquid/
solid ratios AMC target concentrations
were calculated for liquid/solid ratios
of 8, 20, and 40:1, bracketing (or contain-
ing) the MLC for that replicate. For exam-
ple, to calculate the AMC8 target concen-
trations, the quantity of a target constit-
uent leached was determined over a
liquid/solid ratio of 4 on each side of the
MLC liquid/solid ratio. After subtracting
the quantity leached in the appropriate
control over the same liquid/solid ratio,
this quantity (in milligrams) was then con-
verted to an average concentration over
that liquid/solid ratio by dividing by the
volume of leachate (in liters) collected
over that liquid/solid ratio. If the MLC
liquid/solid ratio was less than 4'1, then
the quantity leached over the initial
liquid/solid ratio of 8.1 was used. The
same methodology was used to calculate
AMC20 and AMC40 using liquid/solid
ratios of 20 and 40:1, respectively. To cal-
culate IAC8, the total quantity of the tar-
get constituent leached over the initial
eight liquid/solid ratios was determined,
followed by subtracting the quantity
leached in the control leachate at the
same liquid/solid ratio and dividing the
difference by the volume of leachaXe col-
lected. Target concentrations for the 25
inorganic and organic constituents in
terms of MLC, AMC8, AMC20, AMC40,
and IAC8 are listed in Table 1.
Thirty-two laboratory extraction meth-
ods were ranked on their ability to best
simulate the above five sets of target
concentrations. The extraction methods,
conducted in duplicate, consisted of an
upflow-column and a rotary-batch proce-
dure using four media—(1) a 0 1 M
sodium acetate pH 5 buffer, (2) carbonic
acid (COa-saturated, de-ionized distilled
water), (3) de-ionized distilled water, and
(4) MWL from the field lysimeter test
facility (ORNL/MWL)-at four liquid/solid
ratios-2.5, 5, 10, and 20:1. Two ancillary
extractions were included' the EP and a
bi-sequential extraction procedure devel-
oped to extract high concentrations of
acid-soluble metals in predominantly
alkaline wastes. Extractions using the
two ancillary methods, however, were
not replicated. Concentrations of the 25
target chemicals in the laboratory extrac-
tions of the respective wastes were
determined and compared to the five sets
of target concentrations.
The difference between the laboratory
concentrations and their respective
target concentrations was defined as
follows'
Difference = [abs(TC - LQ/TC] x 100,
where
TC is the target concentration,
LC is the laboratory concentration,
abs( ) is the absolute value, and
the difference is expressed as a percent-
age.
An average difference between the target
concentration and the laboratory concen-
tration was determined for each of the 32
treatments and each of the 25 target
constituents. An overall average differ-
ence was then determined for each of the
categories—(1) inorganic, (2) organic, and
(3) inorganic and organic target constitu-
ents—for each of the five sets of target
concentrations—MLC, AMC8, AMC20,
AMC40, and IAC8 These average differ-
ences were ranked from the lowest to the
highest. For the 32 replicated extraction
methods (all but the EP and bi-sequential
extraction methods were duplicated), sig-
-------
Table 1. Target Concentrations (in mg/L)
Waste
Chem/ca/
MLC
AMC8
Target set
AMC20
AMC40
IAC8
API/incinerator ash
Calcium
Chromium
Molybdenum
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
1188
63
2.2
562
1904
30
787
22
0.60
164
617
2.1
771
11
030
76
258
15
774
6
0.09
40
105
13
792
21
066
164
617
2 1
Dichloroethylene
still bottoms
Dichloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Trichtoroethane
Trichloroethylene
49
2651
83
97
26
90
53
26
26
45
43
21
25
31
38
26
30
90
53
22
Paint sludge
Barium
Zinc
Ethoxyethanol
Ethoxyethyl acetate
Toluene
Xylenes
2.3
220
4729
1892
39
614
0.35
77
1055
405
17
269
0.14
35
430
165
9.9
174
0.07
20
219
84
6.9
136
0.35
72
1055
405
17
269
Electroplating
waste
Barium
Boron
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Zinc
0.47
148
7.4
147
125
7058
1.1
149
0.28
51
13
107
30
1209
0.32
85
0.28
22
0.79
93
39
472
034
85
030
11
1.5
98
41
209
036
79
025
51
0
80
29
1209
0.31
49
nificant differences between extractions
could be determined in an analysis of
variance testing procedure (SAS) software
package; SAS Institute 1982).
The highest ranked extraction methods
for estimating MLC target concentrations
were those that used ORNL/MWL as an
extraction medium. There appeared to be
no preference relative to the type of ex-
traction procedure (upflow-column or
rotary-batch) with ORNL/MWL; however,
liquid/solid ratios at 10:1 and less ranked
consistently better than those at 20:1.
Sodium acetate and carbonic acid extrac-
tion media used in the rotary-batch
extraction procedure at liquid/solid ratios
of 2.5 to 10:1 were the only synthetic
media that ranked in the top ten methods.
Sodium acetate at liquid/solid ratios of 5
and 10:1 ranked slightly better than
carbonic acid at 2.5 and 5:1 liquid/solid
ratios. Statistically, there were no signif-
icant differences between these sodium
acetate and carbonic acid extractions,
suggesting the choice of any of the four
extraction methods would be satisfac-
tory.
Carbonic acid was used as the extrac-
ting medium in the five top-ranked
methods for estimating AMC8 target
concentrations (Table 2). Because of the
operational constraints of the upflow-
column procedure (e.g., inherently slow
flow rates with wastes of low hydrologic
conductivities) and the relatively small
differences in ranking between the two
procedures, the rotary-batch extraction
procedure would be selected over the
upflow-column procedure. Choice of
liquid/solid ratio appeared to be of lesser
importance; the first five ranked methods
(those using carbonic acid) included 5,
10, and 20:1 liquid/solid ratios.
To approximate AMC target concentra-
tions at higher liquid/solid ratios (20 and
40.1 as compared to 8:1), the extraction
methods generally utilized 20.1 liquid/
solid ratios and less aggressive extracting
media (i.e., de-ionized distilled water or
carbonic acid rather than sodium acetate
or ORNL/MWL [see Tables 2 and 3]). The
best-ranked extraction method for both
AMC20 and AMC40 (inorganic and
organic target constituents) was carbonic
acid in an upflow-column at a 20'1
liquid/solid ratio. Over all AMC target
sets (AMC8, AMC20, and AMC40),
carbonic acid in a rotary-batch extraction
procedure at a liquid/solid ratio of 20:1
ranked, respectively, 1, 4, and 5 for
extracting inorganic and organic target
constituents from the four industrial
wastes under the test conditions.
De-ionized distilled water dominated
as the extraction medium by ranking in
the top five extraction methods simula-
ting IAC8 target concentrations of both
inorganics and organics. The major
differences in the target concentrations
for IAC8 and AMC8 were the lower IAC8
values for Ni and Zn in the electroplating
waste (Table 1). In retrospect, the high
rankings for de-ionized distilled water
were not surprising, because the pH of
the leachates from the two alkaline
wastes (API/incinerator ash and electro-
plating waste) was relatively high during
the first 8:1 liquid/solid leaching interval
(pH values ranged from 9.5 to 8.1 and 8.4
to 6.4, respectively). Under these condi-
tions, the interactions of the MWL with
the wastes were predominantly the same
as those of distilled water (i.e., both
leached out the water-soluble constituents
but left the acid-soluble metals such as Ni
and Zn until the leachate pH became
lower later in the leaching)
References
Epler, J.L., F.W. Larimer, T.K. Rao, E.M.
Burnett, W.H. Griest, M.R. Guerin, M.P.
Maskarinec, D.A. Brown, N T. Edwards,
C W. Gehrs, R.E. Millemann, B.R
Parkhurst, B.M. Ross-Todd, D.S. Shriner,
and H W. Wilson, Jr. 1980. Toxicity of
Leachates. EPA-600/2-80-057. U.S
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 134 pp.
Millemann, R.E., B.R. Parkhurst, and
NT. Edwards. 1981 Toxicity to Daphia
magna and Terrestrial Plants of Solid
Waste Leachates from Coal Conversion
Processes. In Proc., Twentieth Hanford
Life Sciences Symposium in Coal
Conversion and Environment. Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington, pp. 237-247.
SAS Institute, Inc. 1982 SAS User's
Guide Statistics, 1982 Edition. SAS
Institute, Inc., Gary, N.C., 594 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1980 Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste. In Environ-
mental Protection Agency Hazardous
Waste Management System 40 CFR
261.24.
-------
Table 2.
Ranking of 34 Laboratory Extraction Methods to Simulate AMC8 Inorganic and
Organic Target Concentrations from the Field Lysimeter Test Facility
Difference (%)
.Coefficient of
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Media
Carbonic acid
Carbonic acid
Carbonic acid
Carbonic acid
Carbonic acid
Distilled water
Sodium acetate
Distilled water
Sodium acetate
ORNL/MWL
Distilled water
Distilled water
Distilled water
Sodium acetate
Sodium acetate
Sodium acetate
ORNL/MWL
Acetic acid (EP)
Carbonic acid
ORNL/MWL
ORNL/MWL
Distilled water
Carbonic acid
Sodium acetate
Distilled water
ORNL/MWL
Carbonic acid
ORNL/MWL
ORNL/MWL
Distilled water
Sodium acetate
ORNL/MWL
Bi-sequential
Sodium acetate
Type
Batch
Column
Column
Column
Batch
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Batch
Column
Batch
Batch
Batch
Column
Batch
Batch
Column
Batch
Column
Batch
Batch
Column
Column
Column
Batch
Batch
Column
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
LS ratio*
20.0
10.0
5.0
20. 0
10.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
5.0
10.0
20.0
100
5.0
20.0
20.0
2.5
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
5.0
2.5
25
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
Average
54.8
56.0
59.9
62.3
64.4
67.1
69.0
71.5
71.8
73.0
75.1
75.8
76.4
78.7
79.4
86.0
88.7
90.3
90.4
90.8
92.3
92.9
95.9
106.7
117.4
1283
156.3
162.4
198.8
200.4
200.9
222.4
314.0
330.0
Minimum
0.7
9.7
9.1
12.6
21.7
13.7
22.8
23.8
28.6
7.2
19.2
6.8
21.9
17.9
1.4
18.2
4.6
7.6
9.1
24.6
10.6
7.4
3.9
20.6
7.5
11.6
21.6
14.2
14.9
2.1
6.8
12.0
2.9
10.4
Maximum
101.9
112.6
214.1
99.0
298.2
119.2
151.0
99.7
189.2
168.6
113.3
182.0
241.3
468.9
397.8
203.0
604.3
406.9
375.4
321.4
311.3
412.0
511.5
283.1
338.5
556.1
639.6
498.5
810.2
1546.9
2235.6
1096. 1
3625.5
3758. 1
variation (%)
53.2
52.2
74.8
39.4
87.6
45.2
44.3
31.6
52.3
60.4
30.9
58. 1
67.0
111.5
106.2
54.3
132.6
84.0
83.2
84.3
82.0
96.9
110.7
63.0
73.4
111.6
97.8
81.8
110.2
155.0
225.7
109.6
229.5
227.1
*LS ratio - liquid/solid ratio.
-------
Table3.
Ranking of 34 Laboratory Extraction Methods to Simulate AMC20 Inorganic and
Organic Target Concentrations from the Field Lysimeter Test Facility
Difference (%)
Coefficient of
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Media
Carbonic acid
Distilled water
Sodium acetate
Carbonic acid
Carbonic acid
Distilled water
Distilled water
Sodium acetate
ORNL/MWL
Distilled water
Acetic acid (EP)
Carbonic acid
ORNL/MWL
Carbonic acid
Sodium acetate
Sodium acetate
Distilled water
Sodium acetate
ORNL/MWL
ORNL/MWL
Distilled water
Sodium acetate
Carbonic acid
Carbonic acid
Distilled water
ORNL/MWL
Carbonic acid
ORNL/MWL
Distilled water
ORNL/MWL
Sodium acetate
ORNL/MWL
Bi-sequential
Sodium acetate
Type
Column
Column
Column
Batch
Column
Column
Batch
Column
Column
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Column
Batch
Column
Column
Batch
Column
Batch
Batch
Column
Column
Batch
Column
Column
Batch
Batch
Batch
Column
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
LS ratio*
20.0
200
20.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
WO
20.0
50
200
50
5.0
10.0
10.0
100
5.0
2.5
2.5
50
2.5
5.0
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
A verage
58.8
66 1
69.5
71.2
730
81.2
82 1
92.0
98.7
112.6
114.8
1156
116.2
116.9
132.3
1348
1409
157.5
164.2
1704
190.0
191.8
191.8
2142
248.8
271.7
3423
3450
420.2
420.9
4366
473.6
483.3
6923
Minimum
10.7
12.7
122
19
9.5
92
2 7
20.9
110
09
1.1
8.8
97
71
4.8
245
84
5.9
4.5
286
6.6
31 9
7.2
104
65
11.8
200
244
44.2
13.0
14.5
5.8
4.3
8.2
Maximum
213.1
133.8
150.3
411 3
331.4
190.6
440.1
290.9
473.8
764 1
405.5
908.1
762.8
5374
13402
509.4
4330
11602
941.3
785.2
11962
764 1
864.7
1448.2
918.9
1561.0
1772.3
1366.7
30643
2204.4
4501 8
2269.3
2714 1
7542.3
variation (%)
72.0
54 1
55.4
125.0
947
61 0
98.8
77.3
966
133.5
892
1599
151.0
102.7
197.5
87.7
81.1
1483
123.4
108.0
1264
997
1087
1435
106.1
135.5
1242
111.2
158.4
133.0
2178
124.3
147.4
2233
*LS ratio = liquid/solid ratio
C. W. Francis, M. P. Maskarinec, and J. C. Goyert are with Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831.
Llewellyn R. Williams is the EPA Project Officer (see below)
The complete report, entitled "Mobility of Toxic Compounds from Hazardous
Wastes," (Order No. PB 85-117 034; Cost: $23.5O, subject to change) will be
available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas. NV 89114
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFEICE: 1985/559-111/10783
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use S300
------- |