xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA-600/2-79-071
Laboratory Jury1979
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Comparison of
Three Waste
Leaching Tests
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-071
July 1979
COMPARISON OF THREE WASTE LEACHING TESTS
by
Robert K. Ham
Marc A. Anderson
Rainer Stegmann
Robert Stanforth
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Grant No. R-804773-01
Project Officers
Michael Gruenfeld
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Donald Sanning
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
and the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
The selection or design of any leachate test will ultimately
be decided by a number of practical, rather than theoretical consid-
erations. The classification of whether or not a waste is hazardous,
via a leaching test, must assume less than ideal disposal conditions,
in order that, its potential for causing environmental harm can be
minimized. It is recognized that a single test will not be optimal for
all disposal conditions. Nevertheless, from a regulatory point of
view, developing different tests for each different waste and disposal
option is clearly impractical and probably unworkable.
11
-------
FOREWORD
This research effort is a combined response to an environmental need by
two Office of Research and Development Laboratories. The Edison, New Jersey
office of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory assisted the Munic-
ipal Environmental Research Laboratory in this effort.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati develops
cost effective techniques to prevent, control, or abate multimedia (air,
water, solid wastes, etc.) pollutional impacts associated with the extrac-
tion, transportation, processing, benefication, conversion, and use of min-
eral resources and with industrial processing and manufacturing. The Munic-
ipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and improved technology
and systems for preventing, treating, and-managing waste water and solid and
hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community sources,
for preserving and treating public drinking water supplies, and for minimiz-
ing the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.
The related pollutional impacts on our environment and the interplay between
its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
This report deals with the investigation of three leaching tests as re-
liable predictors of the potential environmental effects of the disposal of
thirteen industrial wastes. The advantages and disadvantages of each test
based on the leaching characteristics of the thirteen wastes and the useful-
ness of each procedure as a standard test are analyzed and compared. The
report will provide data for decision makers of both government and industry
alike contemplating residue leachate control from industrial sludge impound-
ment/municipal landfill co-disposal operations.
David G. Stephen
Director
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
A comparison of three leaching tests was performed with four-
teen industrial wastes to evaluate the potential of each test for
use as a standard leaching test. The study was done in conjunction
with a background study on the development of a standard leaching
test.
The advantages and disadvantages of each test, based on the
leaching characteristics of the fourteen wastes and the usefulness
of each procedure as a standard test, are analyzed and compared.
Finally, some comments on the need for careful interpretation of
test results are provided.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Grant No.
R-804773-01 by the University of Wisconsin under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers
the period July 1, 1976 to February 1, 1978, and work was com-
pleted July, 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures y-ji
Tables , . xvl.
Abbreviations and Symbols xviii
Acknowledgements -xtx
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary and Conclusions 2
3. Test Procedures and Analytical Methods 8
Leaching tests used 8
Wastes used . . ..... 8
Waste sample preparation . 8
Selection of measurement parameters ........ 18
— Inorganic 18
—Organic 18
Analytical methods . 19
Reproducibility 21
Release calculations 23
4. Test Comparison . 24
Leachate composition 24
Solid-liquid ratio 32
Multiple elutions 34
Agitation technique and surface
area of contact 35
Elution time and temperature 38
Maximum concentration and
maximum release 38
Solid-liquid separation 38
Organic analysis 39
5. Detailed Results . 41
Adhesive waste #1 44
Ink and paint waste 52
—Discussion 67
Coal tar sludge from steel manufacturer 69
—Discussion 81
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Health and beauty care waste 83
—Discussion 96
Food grade waste 97
Adhesive waste #6 107
—Discussion 114
Petrochemical industry water-oil sludge 115
Grain processing lipids and fats waste 125
Food industry clay waste 134
Marble wash 144
Copper oxide-sodium sulfate sludge 153
—Discussion 163
SLT 163
test comparison 166
Electroplating sludge 167
—Discussion 176
Wastewater treatment sludge 177
—Discussion 189
Papermill sludge-EPA - 190
References ., 196
Appendix ~ Mass Spectra of Compounds Identified
in Waste Hexane Extracts 197
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number page
1 Cu and Mg concentration and release curves for
CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, test comparison 31
2 Variation in Na and K concentration and release
for Ink and Paint Waste with solid-liquid
ratio (gm waste/100 ml leachate) using
a distilled water leachate 33
3 Napthalene and Quincline concentration and re-
lease curves for Coal Tar Waste, test
comparison 35
4 Na concentration and release from a CiiO-Na^S'O.
Sludge in test leachates 37
5 pH and specific conductance curves for
Adhesive Waste #1, SLT ......... 45
6 Na and K concentration and release curves
for Adhesive Waste #1, SLT , . 47
7 Mg and Zn concentration and release curves
for Adhesive Waste #1, SLT 48
8 COD concentration and release curves for
Adhesive Waste #1, SLT . . 49
9 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Adhesive Waste #1,
test comparison 50
10 K and Zn concentration and release curves for
Adhesive Waste #1, test comparison 51
11 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Ink and Paint
Waste, SLT 54
12 K and Mg concentration and release curves for Ink
and Paint Waste, SLT 55
13 Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for
Ink and Paint Waste, SLT 56
14 COD concentration and release curves for Ink and
Paint Waste, SLT 57
15 Cyclohexanone and Napthalene concentration and
release curves for Ink and Paint Waste, SLT .... 58
vi i
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
16 pH, specific conductance and Na concentration
and release curves for Ink and Paint
Waste, test comparison 59
17 K and Mg concentration and release curves for
Ink and Paint Waste, test comparison 60
18 Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for
Ink and Paint Waste, test comparison 61
19 Cyclohexanone and Napthalene concentration and
release curves for Ink and Paint Waste,
test comparison 62
20 Total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram of
Ink and Paint Waste, hexane extract 63
21 Representative total ion reconstructed gas
chromatogram of SLT H?0 leachate of Ink
and Paint Waste . . 64
22 Representative total ion reconstructed gas
chromatogram of IUCS test HgO leachate
of Ink and Paint Waste 65
23 Representative total ion reconstructed gas
chromatogram of Minn, test I-^O leachate
from Ink and Paint Waste 66
24 pH and specific conductance curves for Coal Tar
Waste, SLT 71
25 Na and K concentration and release curves for
Coal Tar Waste, SLT 72
26 Mg and COD concentration and release curves for
Coal Tar Waste, SLT 73
27 Napthalene and Phenol concentration and release
curves for Coal Tar Waste, SLT 74
28 Creosols and Quinoline concentration and release
curves for Coal Tar Waste, SLT 75
29 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Coal Tar Waste,
test comparison 76
vm
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
Page
30 K and Mg concentration and release curves
for Coal Tar Waste, test comparison 77
31 Phenol and Creosol concentration and
release curves for Coal Tar Waste,
test comparison 78
32 Total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram
of distillate of SLT ^0 leachate from
Coal Tar Waste . . . . . 79
33 Total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram of
distillate of IUCS test H20 leachate
from Coal Tar Waste 80
34 pH and specific conductance curves for Health
and Beauty Care Waste, SLT 85
35 Na and K concentration and release curves for
Health and Beauty Care Waste, SLT 86
36 Mg and Zn concentration and release curves
for Health and Beauty Care Waste, SLT 87
37 Cu and Cd concentration and release curves
for Health and Beauty Care Waste, SLT ....... 88
38 Fe and Pb concentration and release curves
for Health and Beauty Care Waste, SLT 89
39 COD concentration and release curves for
Health and Beauty Care Waste, SLT 90
40 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Health and Beauty
Care Waste, test comparison 91
41 K and Mg concentration and release curves for
Health and Beauty Care Waste, test com-
parison 92
42 Zn and Fe concentration and release curves for
Health and Beauty Care Waste, test comparison ... 93
43 Cu and Pb concentration and release curves for
Health and Beauty Care Waste, test comparison ... 94
IX
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
Page
44 Total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram
of Health and Beauty Care Waste,
hexane extract 95
45 pH and specific conductance curves for
Food Grade Waste, SLT 99
46 Na and K concentration and release curves
for Food Grade Waste, SLT 100
47 Mg and Zn concentration and release curves
for Food Grade Waste, SLT . . . . 101
48 COD concentration and release curves for
Food Grade Waste, SLT . . . 102
49 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Food Grade Waste,
test comparison • 1°3
50 K and Mg concentration and release curves for
Food Grade Waste, test comparison 104
51 Zn concentration and release curves for Food
Grade Waste, test comparison 105
52 Total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram of
Food Grade Waste, hexane extract 106
53 pH and specific conductance curves for Adhesive
Waste #6, SLT 1Q9
54 Na and K concentration and release curves for
Adhesive Waste #6, SLT 11°
55 COD concentration and release curves for
Adhesive Waste #6, SLT . . . 'I1
56 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Adhesive Waste #6,
test comparison H2
57 K and Zn concentration and release curves for
Adhesive Waste #6, test comparison 1'3
58 pH and specific conductance curves for Petro-
chemical Sludge, SLT . . . . ' 117
59 Na and K concentration and release curves for
Petrochemical Sludge, SLT 118
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
60 Mg and Zn concentration and release curves for
Petrochemical Sludge, SLT 119
61 Pb and COD concentration and release curves for
Petrochemical Sludge, SLT . . 120
62 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Petrochemical Sludge,
test comparison 121
63 K and Mg concentration and release curves for
Petrochemical Sludge, test comparison 122
64 Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for
Petrochemical Sludge, test comparison . . . . . . 123
65 Total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram of
Petrochemical Sludge, hexane extract , 124
66 pH and specific conductance curves for Grain
Processing Lipids and Fats, SLT 127
67 Na and K concentration and release curves for
Grain Processing Lipids and Fats, SLT 128
68 Mg and Zn concentration and release curves for
Grain Processing Lipids and Fats,'SLT . . . . . . 129
69 COD concentration and release curves for Grain
Processing Lipids and Fats, SLT 130
70 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and
release curves for Grain Processing Lipids
and Fats, test comparison 131
71 K and Mg concentration and release curves for
Grain Processing Lipids and Fats, test
comparison ..... ......... 132
72 Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for
Grain Processing Lipids and Fats, test
comparison 133
73 pH and specific conductance curves for Food Wastes,
Clay, SLT .........:........... 136
74 Na, K, and Mg concentration and release curves for
Food Wastes, Clay, SLT . . . .... . ... ...... 137
xi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for
Food Wastes, Clay, SLT
COD concentration and release curves for Food
Wastes, Clay, SLT
pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
release curves for Food Wastes, Clay, test
comparison
K and Mg concentration and release curves for
Food Wastes, Clay, SLT
Zn, Pb and COD concentration and release curves
for Food Wastes, Clay, test comparison
Total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram for
Food Wastes, Clay, hexane extract
pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Marble Wash, SLT ....
K, Mg, and Pb concentration and release curves
for Marble Wash, SLT
COD and concentration and release curves for
Marble Wash, SLT
pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration
and release curves for Marble Wash, test
comparison
K and Mg concentration and release curves for
Marble Wash, test comparison
Pb and COD concentration and release curves for
Marble Wash, test comparison
Total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram for
Marble Wash, hexane extract
pH and redox curves for CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, SLT ...
Na concentration curves for CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, SLT .
Na release curves for CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, SLT ....
K concentration and release curves for
CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, SLT
xii
Page
138
139
140
141
142
143
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
155
156
157
158
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number paqe
92 Mg concentration and release curves for
CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, SLT 159
93 Cu concentration and release curves for
CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, SLT 160
94 pH curves for CuO-Na?S(h Sludge, test
comparison . . 7 161
95 Zn and K concentration and release curves for
CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, test comparison 162
96 pH vs Cu concentration solubility diagram
for Cu and CuO system 164
97 pH and specific conductance curves for
Electroplating Sludge, SLT 169
98 Na and K concentration and release curves
for Electroplating Sludge, SLT 170
99 Mg and Zn concentration and release curves
for Electroplating Sludge, SLT 171
100 Pb and Cd concentration and release curves
for Electroplating Sludge, SLT 172
101 pH and Na concentration and release curves
for Electroplating Sludge, test comparison . .. , . 173
102 K and Mg concentration and release curves
for Electroplating Sludge, test comparison .... 174
103 Zn and Cd concentration and release curves
for Electroplating Sludge, test comparison .... 175
104 pH curve for Wastewater Treatment Sludge, SLT 179
105 Na concentration and release curves for
Wastewater Treatment Sludge, SLT 180
106 K concentration and release curves for
Wastewater Treatment Sludge, SLT ... 181
107 Zn concentration and release curves for
Wastewater Treatment Sludge, SLT 182
108 Mg concentration and release curves for
Wastewater Treatment Sludge, SLT 183
xi i i
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
Page
109 Cu concentration and release curves for
Wastewater Treatment Sludge, SLT 184
110 COD concentration and release curves for
Wastewater Treatment Sludge, SLT 185
111 pH and Na concentration and release curves
for Wastewater Treatment Sludge,
test comparison 186
112 K and Mg concentration and release curves
for Wastewater Treatment Sludge,
test comparison 187
113 Cu and Zn concentration and release curves
for Wastewater Treatment Sludge,
test comparison 188
114 pH curve for Papermill Sludge, EPA, SLT 192
115 K and Mg concentration and release curves
for Papermill Sludge, EPA, SLT 193
116 Zn and Fe concentration and release curves
for Paper-mill Sludge, EPA, SLT 194
117 Cu concentration and release curves for
Papermill Sludge, EPA, SLT . . . 195
A-l Mass spectrum of xylene identified in Ink
and Paint Waste"hexane extract Iy/
A-2 Mass spectrum of cumene identified in Ink
and Paint Waste hexane extract l98
A-3 Mass spectrum of m-ethyltoluene identified
in Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract 199
A-4 Mass spectrum of cyclohexanone identified
in Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract 200
A-5 Mass spectrum of 2-nor-butoxyethanol identified
in Ink & Paint Waste hexane extract 201
A-6 Mass spectrum of 3,3,6-trimethyl bicyclo (3.1.0)
Hexan-2-one or.3,5,5-trimethyl-2-
cyclohexanone identified in Ink and Paint
Waste hexane extract 202
xiv
-------
Number
A-7 Mass
A-8 Mass
A-9 Mass
A-10 Mass
A-ll Mass
A-12 Mass
A-13 Mass
A-14 Mass
A-15 Mass
A-16 Mass
A-17 Mass
FIGURES (continued)
Page
spectrum of dimethyl glutarate identified
in Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract ...... 203
spectrum of napthalene identified in Ink
and Paint Waste hexane extract ......... 204
spectrum of methyl napthalene identified
in Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract 205
spectrum of octadecane identified in Food
Grade Waste hexane extract ............ , 206
spectrum of hexadecane identified in Food
Grade Waste hexane extract ......;.... 207
spectrum of tetradecane identified in Food
Grade Waste hexane extract 208
spectrum of napthalene identified in Petro-
chemical Waste hexane extract ..... 209
spectrum of hexadecane identified in Petro-
chemical Waste.hexane extract 210
spectrum of dodecane identified in Food
Industry Clay Waste hexane extract . . 211
spectrum of tridecane identified in Food
Industry Clay Waste hexane extract 212
spectrum of tetradecane indentified in
Food Industry Clay Waste hexane extract . . . . .
213
xv
-------
TABLES
Some Features of an Ideal Standard Leaching Test
Number
1
2 Abilities and Limitations of Each Test in
Comparison to an Ideal Test .............. 4
3 SLT Test Procedure .................... 9
4 Description of the IUCS Modified 48-Hour
Shake Test ..................... 13
5 Description of the Minnesota Test ............ 14
6 A Summary of the Leaching Tests Used in
the Test Comparison ................. '5
7 Description of the Real Leachate Test .......... 16
8 Wastes Used in the Test Comparison ............ 17
9 Analytical Methods for Routine or Inorganic
Analyses ....... • .............. 20
10 Standard Deviation Calculations for Multiple
Replicates of Paint Waste Leached with
Synthetic Leachate Using SLT Procedures ....... 22
11 A Summary of Test Comparison Results for
Selected Parameters from Selected Wastes ...... 25
12 The Number of Times Each Test Leaching
Solution Gave the Highest Concentra-
tion of an Inorganic Parameter from a
Waste for the Different Test Leachates ....... 27
13 The Number of Times Each Test Leaching Solution
Gave the Highest Release of an Inorganic
Parameter from a Waste for the Different
Test Leachates ................... 28
14 The Number of Times Acid or H20 Leaching Solutions
Gave Highest Concentrations or Release of an
Inorganic Parameter from a Waste .......... 29
15 Test Factors Affecting Parameter Concentrations
in Leachates .................... 30
16 Format for the Description of Wastes and Summary
of Leaching Test Results .............. 42
xvi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
17 Summary of Symbols Used in Presenting SLT and
Test Comparison Data 43
18 Adhesive Haste #1: Description and Summary of
Results 44
19 Ink and Paint Waste (IPW): Description and Sum-
mary of Results 52
20 Coal Tar Sludge: Description and Summary of
Results 69
21 Health and Beauty Care Waste (HBC):
Description and Summary of Results 83
22 Food Grade Waste: Description and Summary of
Results 97
23 Adhesive Waste #6: Description and Summary
of Results 107
24 Petrochemical Industry Water-Oil Sludge:
Description and Summary of Results 115
25 Grain Processing Lipids and Fats Waste:
Description and Summary of Results 125
26 Food Industry Clay Waste: Description
and Summary of Results 134
27 Marble Wash: Description and Summary of
Results 144
28 Copper Oxide-Sodium Sulfate Sludge
(CuO-Na2S04 Waste): Description
and Summary of Results 153
29 Electroplating Sludge (EPS): Description
and Summary of Results 167
30 Wastewater Treatment Sludge (WTS): Description
and Summary of Results 177
31 Papermill Sludge (PMS-EPA): Description
and Summary of Results 190
xvn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
TESTS
SLT—Leaching test developed by Ham et al. (1)
IUCS Test—I.U. Conversion Systems, Inc. Modified 48-hour shake leaching
. .
Minn. Test—Leaching test developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Proc C-Procedure Cl t procedures in the SLT
Proc R—Procedure RJ ^
RLT—Leaching test using municipal landfill leachate
S/L—Solid/Liquid ratio or separation
LEACHATES
SL—synthetic municipal landfill leachate used in SLT
Acet—Acetate buffer used in Minn. Test
HO—distilled, deionized water leachate
WASTE SUPPLIERS
ECHO—Environmental Clearinghouse Organization, Inc.
Chem-Trol— Chem-Trol Pollution Services, Inc.
CHEMICAL ABBREVIATIONS
Na—Sodium
K—Potassium
Mg—Magnesium
Zn—Zinc
Cu—Copper
Cd—Cadmium
Pb—Lead
Cr—Chromium
Fe—Iron
COD—Chemical Oxygen Demand
Q—Quinoline
6S-MS—Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry
TIR6C—Total Ion Reconstructed Gas Chromatogram
LIST OF WASTES—SEE TABLE 8
xvm
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Lawrence Burkhard and Jean Behrens-Tepper of the University of
Wisconsin Water Chemistry Laboratories performed the gas chromatog-
raphy-mass spectrometry analysis and compound identification.
This work was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division, under Grant
Number R-804773-01. Mr. Michael Gruenfeld of the EPA Edison, New
Jersey, laboratories was the Project Officer. The authors wish to
acknowledge the help of Messrs. A. Corson and D. Viviani of the EPA,
and especially, the help and support of Messrs. Gruenfeld and D.
Sanning of EPA who worked closely with project personnel throughout
the project.
xix
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Developing awareness of the potential of landfilled industrial
wastes to pollute groundwater has led to an interest in a standard-
ized test to discern the relative leaching potential of a waste. A
background study on such a test done by the authors for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency'(EPA) is detailed in Ham, et a1_ (1).
During this background study a leaching test was developed, called
the SLT. In order to evaluate the SLT, and other leaching tests
which might be used as the standard test, a comparison of three
leaching tests were made by running the tests on a wide variety of
industrial wastes and comparing the relative ease, practicality and
amount of information obtained in each of the tests. The tests used
were the SLT, a 48-hour shake test developed by IU Conversion Systems,
and a 24-hour acid leach test developed by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. The results of the test comparison are given in this
report. Note that this test comparison serves as a practical evalua-
tion of the workability of the SLT on a variety of wastes.
The development of the SLT and the SLT evaluation and test com-
parison are presented in separate reports in order to keep the length
of each report reasonable.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Three leaching tests, as specified by EPA, were used on 14 dif-
ferent industrial wastes, supplied by EPA, which were specifically
chosen to be of widely differing characteristics. Some wastes were
predominantly liquid, others were solid; some wastes were primarily
inorganic, others organic; some wastes were complex with several dis-
tinct solids and/or liquid layers; and some were sticky or like glue
and so were extremely difficult to handle. The SLT was the only test
able to handle all wastes using only procedures specified by the test
protocol. Note that no obviously dangerous (explosive, carcinogenic,
etc.) wastes were tested, because such wastes would have provided lit-
tle or no information beyond that provided using the 14 wastes..
The SLT test was the most aggressive of the three tests yielding
the highest concentrations of inorganic parameters (mg/A) 79% of the
time, and the highest release of inorganic parameters (mg/kg waste)
55% of the time (Tables 12 and 13). It is the only test able to give
information about both potential concentration and release of param-
eters leached from an industrial waste. Because the SLT is an aggres-
sive test, providing information about what could happen in a worst
case (but realistic) situation, its results need to be interpreted with
care. For example, the concentration of leachate arising from large
amounts of waste through which small amounts of water (leaching medium)
are moving will probably approach the maximum concentration indicated
by the SLT, but this may never happen with a particular landfill.
The importance of using different leaching media was indicated
by the results. Acidic leaching media (pH 4.5) gave the highest con-
centrations of inorganic parameters 89% of the time, and the highest
release 96% of the time (Table 14). Without the use of several leach-
ates, test results could be very misleading and have no relation to
the actual landfill for a particular waste.
Certain features of an ideal standard leaching test following the
concepts discussed in section 4 are given in Table 1. An
ideal leaching test is defined herein as a standardized procedure which
works on all wastes and is able to predict quickly and with accuracy the
potential water quality degradation within a landfill represented by the
landfill disposal of a particular waste. It does not evaluate any
changes in leachate quality arising from passage through soils or dilu-
tion. The major abilities and limitations of each test used in this
study with regard to these features are given in Table 2. Column tests
are not included in the concept of an ideal leaching test because of
the difficulty of using a column test on a wide variety of wastes.
-------
A number of different tests could be designed which meet the cri-
teria of Table 1 and, yet, have considerable differences between them.
Thus, once a standard leaching test has been designed, interpretation
of the test results becomes a crucial factor in determining the
applicability of the test. A standard leaching test provides a
reproducible set of numbers that are a function of the interaction
of a waste with a specific leaching solution,under a specific set
of conditions. It is up to the decision maker to evaluate those num-
bers and make a prediction regarding the behavior of the waste
TABLE 1. SOME FEATURES OF AN IDEAL STANDARD LEACHING TEST*
1. Use of leaching media corresponding to liquids likely to be in con-
tact with the waste in the landfill (such as use of both an acid
synthetic municipal landfill leachate and distilled water leaching
solutions for modeling, leaching in actively decomposing and stabi-
lized municipal landfills, respectively).
2. Incorporates procedures to indicate both concentration and release
of parameters likely to be leached from a waste.
3. Use of multiple elutions so secondary effects can be observed.
4. Use of an effective agitation procedure which does not unnat-
urally or unnecessarily abrade waste particles.
5. Use of a solid/liquid ratio high enough to minimize analytical
and sampling errors, yet low enough to allow rapid determination
of critical concentration and release information for most param-
eters.
6. Use of convenient, yet justifiable, elution times and numbers of
elutions.
It is assumed that any useable test would incorporate sampling pro-
cedures and sufficient replicates to gain statistical reliability.
-------
TABLE 2. ABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF EACH TEST IN
COMPARISON TO AN IDEAL TEST*
SIT.
Positive aspects:
1. Use of two separate procedures to allow prediction of both con-
centration and release of parameters from waste.
2 Flexibility of leaching media selection such as the use of both
acid synthetic municipal landfill leachate and distilled water
as leaching solutions to model co-disposal with municipal solid
waste.
3. Use of an effective, yet gentle, agitation technique.
4. Use of multiple elutions.
5 Use of an intermediate solid/liquid ratio which lessens the
change of analytical errors of the Minn, test while generally
allowing more rapid evaluation of release characteristics
than does the IUCS test.
6. Incorporates procedures which allowed its direct use on all the
wastes tested in this study.
Limitations:
1 Use of an oxygen sensitive leachate, required for proper model-
ing of leachate generated in actively decomposing municipal
solid waste landfills.
2 The laboratory procedures and the amount of information obtained,
especially if both concentration and release results are desired,
require more laboratory effort and interpretive care.
IUCS TEST
Positive aspects:
1. Use of a generally effective agitation technique.
2. Use of multiple elutions.
3. Use of a high solid/liquid ratio gives relatively high concen-
trations of many parameters.
4. Use of a relatively straightforward laboratory procedure.
(continued)
i.e., Table 1.
-------
TABLE 2. (continued)
Limitations:
1. Use of only a distilled water leachate.
2. Lack of a procedure to evaluate the maximum concentration of a
parameter in leachate.
3. Use of an elution time and number such that work needs to be
continued over weekends.
4. Required adaptations on a waste by waste basis to allow some
wastes to be tested.
5. The fewer numerical results require more careful interpreta-
tion and extrapolation of data than the SLT to apply the re-
sults to actual landfill situations.
MINNESOTA TEST
Positive aspects: .
1. Use of both acid and distilled water leachates.
2. Simple and rapid to perform.
Limitations:
1. Acetate buffer models only one aspect of municipal solid waste
leachate affecting its leaching aggressiveness.
2. Low solid/liquid ratio emphasizes subsampling, weighing, and
analytical errors.
3. Use of only one elution gives much less information than either
of the other two tests. No information is provided regarding
the approach testable results, the rate at which such stability
is reached, or possible secondary effects.
4. Agitation technique allows significant concentration gradients
in the bulk solution, raising the time needed to approach equi-
librium and reducing the reproducibility of the results.
5. Required adaptations on a waste by waste basis to allow some
wastes to be tested.
6. Neither concentration nor release information can be obtained
with confidence because it is not known how close the results
are after one elution to maximum values attainable or to prac-
tical values reached in actual landfills. Application of test
results to actual landfills is difficult to justify.
-------
in a landfill. Unfortunately, the multiplicity of factors affecting
the leaching characteristics of a waste, both in the test and in the
landfill, and the variability of landfill conditions, dictate that
interpretation be done with care and with consideration of the waste
and landfill characteristics. Test results should not be interpreted
rigidly, e.g., developing criteria stating that a certain concentra-
tion of a given parameter in the test leachate automatically and
without further consideration indicates that the waste is hazardous
in the landfill. Rather, consideration should be given to such fac-
tors as the amount of waste to be disposed, the annual net infiltra-
tion of water in the area of the landfill, the factors affecting the
leaching of the waste (as far as can be determined from the test
results), possible waste—leachate interactions, and the fate of the
landfill leachate after it leaves the waste and passes through addi-
tional wastes or soil.
As an example of the need for careful interpretation, consider the
distilled water leachates from the CuO - Na2SC>4 sludge. These leachates
contained low concentrations of copper (<1 mg/1), yet very high concentra-
tions of Na (-10,000 mg/1 in the SLT Elution 1 leachates). With regard to
Na, the leachate is probably not very hazardous, at least no more hazardous
than sea water which has approximately the same Na concentration. Yet, in
a landfill or in the soil underneath, the high ionic strength could solu-
bilize potentially hazardous trace metals through ion exchange mechanisms.
Thus, the leachate itself may not be hazardous, but it may solubilize;
hazardous materials in landfill environments. Likewise, several wastes
(ink and paint waste, health and beauty care waste, food grade waste,
and adhesive waste #6) released large amounts of unidentified organic
compounds, as evidenced by the very high COD values in the distilled
water leachates. The potential hazard of these wastes may not come
from the organic compounds released by the waste, if these are not
hazardous, but from the ability of the released organics to solubilize
otherwise insoluble hazardous compounds, such as chlorinated organic
pesticides or heavy metals. On the other hand, a waste may release small
amounts of hazardous materials which will most likely be removed from the
leachate by passage through the soil under the landfill. The waste might
appear to be hazardous due to the release of this material, yet in the
landfill it would actually be relatively innocuous. Several wastes which
released trace metals in low concentrations might fall into this category.
It should be noted that leaching modeled by the test in one or two days
may simulate years of leaching in the field. During this time, bacteria
may convert hazardous compounds into innocuous ones, or vice versa, or
they may completely alter the leaching characteristics of a waste through
their action on the waste matrix.
When interpreting test results, it is important to consider the
physical condition of the landfilled waste. For example, a waste which
is landfilled in large stable chunks or with a stable impervious coating
could behave far differently in a landfill than in a test in which it
were ground. The test results need to be interpreted in light of the
conditions around the waste and the condition of the waste itself in
the landfill.
-------
An evaluation of the hazardous nature of a waste must include an
evaluation of the landfill environment. A waste's hazardous nature
is a situation specific characteristic. A waste may be hazardous to
an organism under one set of environmental conditions yet completely
innocuous under a different set of conditions. Furthermore, its
hazard may be organism specific; i.e., it may be hazardous to one
organism and not to another under the same set of conditions. Thus,
a determination of the hazardous nature of a waste must include an
evaluation of its hazardousness to specific organisms under specific
conditions.
The limitations of a standard leaching test and the care needed
in interpreting the results do not mean that a standard test is not
worth developing and using. A standard test should provide a rapid
evaluation of the parameters that are likely to be leached from a
waste, and an indication of their maximum concentrations in the leach-
ate and the total amount to be released per unit weight of waste. That
the test is not perfect in predicting the long term leaching pattern of
a waste or the precise concentration of a particular parameter in a par-
ticular landfill means that the test results need to be interpreted with
care to avoid unnecessary expanditures for control of waste that are
not actually hazardous in a particular landfill, or to avoid unexpected
environmental degradation from improper land disposal of a waste.
In summary., of the three tests compared in this study, the SLT
gave the most information in the shortest amount of time. The IUCS
test could be improved if several modifications were incorporated,
such as use of an acidic synthetic municipal landfill leachate when
co-disposal of the waste being tested with municipal solid waste is
possible, and if a procedure for measuring maximum concentration were
added. The Minn, test would require several modifications in order to
be a widely applicable standard test.
Whatever standard test is used, interpretation of test results is
the crucial factor in determining the test's ultimate value in predict-
ing whether a waste is hazardous when placed in a landfill. Virtually
any leaching test which is properly interpreted would be more useful
in making such a prediction than would be a well designed leaching test
which is poorly interpreted.
-------
SECTION 3
TEST PROCEDURES AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
LEACHING TESTS USED
The two tests used in addition to the SLT were selected by EPA as
being among the best tests currently available and as having some vari-
ety in the test conditions. A survey of existing leaching tests by the
Miter Corp. (2) gives a good overview of existing leaching tests.
The tests used in the test comparison were the SLT, an IU Conversion
Systems modified 48-hour shake test (the IUCS test) and a test developed
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (the Minn. test). These tests
are described in Tables 3, 4, and 5, respectively. There are several
IUCS shake tests available, so particular care should be taken to specify
the test conditions when discussing the test. A summary and comparison
of the test conditions is given in Table 6.
In addition to the tests mentioned above, a municipal leachate was
used as a leaching medium, using a modified SLT procedure R. The dif-
ficulty in working with highly air sensitive real leachate necessitated
the modifications. The purpose of the real leachate test (RLT) (Table 7)
was not to verify the accuracy of the synthetic leachate used in the SLT,
as might be supposed, but rather to obtain an idea of the leaching ability
of a real leachate sample. The leachate was not used as aggressively as
the leachate upon which the synthetic leachate was modelled, and so cannot
be used as a verification of the synthetic leachate.
WASTES USED
Ten of the wastes used in the test comparison were supplied by
Environmental Clearinghouse Organization, Inc., Hazel Crest, Illinois,
at EPA's request. Two wastes were supplied by Chem-Trol Pollution
Services, Inc., Model City, New York, for the use in the background study
and were reused in the test comparison. One of these, the wastewater
treatment sludge, was used in only the SLT and the Minn. test. One
locally obtained waste was also used. In addition, one waste termed
papermill sludge (EPA), was used only in the SLT. The wastes, their
sources, and the tests in which they were used are given in Table 8.
Descriptions of the wastes and available chemical and physical analyses
for the wastes are presented in tables at the start of the test results
section for each waste.
WASTE SAMPLE PREPARATION
Since the intent of the comparison was to evaluate the tests them-
selves, the sample preparation procedure was kept the same for all tests.
This preparation included a solid/liquid separation procedure that is
recommended for sample preparation in the SLT background study (_!). This
technique is not included "in either the IUCS or Minn tests. Both of
8
-------
TABLE 3. SLT TEST PROCEDURE
Preparation of Sample
1. Representative samples of waste are taken using standard techniques
appropriate for waste (e.g., ASTM standard techniques for sampling
wastes) when available.
2. Wastes that are not obviously solid are separated into solid and
liquid components, using the suggested solid/liquid separation
scheme. Percentage solid (net weight) in waste is measured or
estimated.
3. The liquid portion of the waste is analyzed directly. If the liquid
is hazardous, an assessment is made of the total waste's hazardousness
due to the liquid component. If the waste is assessed as hazardous,
the test is terminated.
4. The moisture content of the solid component of the waste is determined
by drying at 105°C for 24 hours, or other procedure as appropriate.
The waste sample used for moisture content determination is discarded.
Selection of Leaching Solution
Leaching solutions are selected for use in the test based on the type
of landfill into which the waste might be disposed, as follows:
Landfill Leaching Solution
stabilized municipal landfill distilled deionized water*
or mono!andfill
actively decomposing synthetic municipal landfill
municipal landfill leachate"1"
co-landfilled with other distilled, deionized water*, plus
wastes in industrial landfill other leaching solutions deemed
useful for modeling industrial
landfills.
SLT Procedures
The solid portion of the waste sample is leached with the selected
leaching solutions using two elution procedures—C and R—described
—
Meeting ASTM Specifications D-1193 for distilled, deionized water,
or equivalent.
^A synthetic municipal landfill leachate, of pH 4.5, and composed of:
0.15M acetic acid, 0.15 M sodium acetate, 0.050 M glycine, 0.008 M pyrogallol,
and 0.024 M ferrous sulfate.
(continued)
9
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
below. Elution time, temperature, agitation technique, and filtration
procedure are the same for both elution procedures. Sufficient replicates
are run for statistical reliability.
Elution time-an elution time of 24 hours is used for all elutions.
Temperature-the test is conducted at ambient temperatures (~20°C)
unless major changes occur in waste characteristics at
temperatures close to 20°C. In sijch cases the test is
run at 20°C constant temperature.
Agitation-a circular shaker tilted such that the_shaking circle
radius is vertical or nearly vertical is used. Square
or rectangular flasks are used so that the waste
gently tumbles through the leaching solution as the
flasks turn. The rotation speed is 2-3 rpm.
•square or rectangular flasks are needed. Glass or plastic
may be used, depending on parameters to be analyzed.
Sample bottles
Procedure C (for estimation of maximum concentration)
1 In the first elution, leachate is added to the waste solid to_
give a solid/liquid ratio of one part waste by weight (dry weight)
to ten parts leaching solution by volume (e.g., 1 gm (dry weight;
waste to 10 ml leaching solution). The sample used in the test
should not be dried prior to use. The total leachate volume used
should be more than three times the leachate volume needed for
analysis.
2 The sample is agitated for 24 hours, then filtered through a 0.4b micron
pore size filter, using the filter aids described in the solid-
liquid separation scheme as necessary (1). The filtered waste is ens
carded.
3 A sample of the filtered leachate, not more than one-third of the
total volume, is removed for analysis. The volume of the remain-
ing leachate is measured and the leachate returned to the test flask.
Fresh waste is added to give a solid-liquid ratio of l:7.b.
4. Step 2 is repeated.
5. A sample of the filtered leachate, not more than one-half of the
filtered volume, is taken for analysis. The volume of the remain-
ing leachate is measured and the leachate returned to the test flask.
Fresh waste is added to give a solid-liquid ratio of 1:5.
6. Step 2 is repeated, and the filtered leachate is used for analysis.
(continued)
*
If other temperatures are more suitable for modeling a particular
landfill, appropriate temperatures can be used but should be noted.
10
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
Procedure R (for estimation of maximum release)
4.
5.
6.
7.
JinnfS «t?t eiut1on' leachate is added to the waste to give a solid
liquid ratio of one part waste by weight (dry weight) to ten
The sample is agitated for 24 hours, then filtered through a 0 45um
pore size fUter, using the filter aids described in the so'ld-llSuld
separation as necessary. The filtered leachate is used for analyses
p WSSt? 1sureturned t° the test flask and fresh leachate
added The same leachate volume used in the first elution is usS
maintaining the 1:10 solid-liquid ratio. eiution is used
Step 2 is repeated.
Step 3 is repeated.
Step 2 is repeated.
The test is terminated and the waste discarded unless an indicator
^ec^Vt^ea'c^^
continued until the Indicator parameter returns to baseline vl?ue.
Procedure C
Elution 1
120 gm wet weight (60 gm dry
weight) is added to 540 ml
leaching solution. (1:10
solid/liquid ratio).
Agitate 24 hours at room temperature, filter
Procedure R
40 gm weight (20 gm dry weight)
of waste is added to 180 ml
leaching solution. (1:10
solid/liquid ratio).
(continued)
11
-------
TABLE 3 (concluded)
Procedure C
Procedure R
Elution 2
Discard filtered waste. Remove
150 ml leachate for analysis.
Measure remaining leachate and
return to flask. If remaining
volume is 450 ml, add 120 gm* wet
weight waste. (1:7.5 solid/
liquid ratio.)
Remove filtered leachate for analy-
sis. Return filtered waste to
flask and add 200 ml fresh leach-
ate. (1:10 solid/liquid ratio.)
Agitate 24 hours at room temperature, filter
Discard filtered waste. Remove
150 ml filtered leachate for
analysis. Measure remaining
leachate and return to flask.
If remaining volume is 300 ml,
add 120 gmf wet weight waste.
(1:5 solid/liquid ratio.)T
Remove filtered leachate for analy-
sis. Return filtered waste to
flask and add 200 ml fresh leach-
ate. (1:10 solid/liquid ratio.)
Agitate 24 hours at room temperature, filter
Discard filtered waste. Use
filtered leachate for analysis.
Remove filtered leachate for analy-
sis. If indicator parameter indi-
cates more elutions are needed,
return waste to flask and add 200 ml
fresh leaching solution and continue
elutions until indicator parameter
returns to base line value. Other-
wise discard waste.
450 ml x
x 2 am waste (wet) = 120 gm waste
leaching solution 1 gm waste (dry) jwet wel-ght)
1 gm waste (dry)
7.5 ml
.
300 ml
1 am waste (dry) x 2 gm waste (wet) = 120 gm waste
5>0 ml leaching solution 1 gm waste (dry) jwet weight)
%lote that leaching media lost by removal of used waste will approx-
imately equal the liquid added with the new wet waste.
12
-------
TABLE 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE IUCS MODIFIED 48 HOUR SHAKE TEST
SCOPE
mnt^niinH i » u + the determination of the long-term diffusion-
controlled leachate properties of a soil or waste material. The pro-
Sm+^iJV? es*a°1lsn representative values of the long-term diffusion-
controlled leachate properties of a soil or waste material ai niIr*H ?«
embankments landfills, and other disposa? or use Sites These proper
ties result from prolonged water contact both on the surface of the soil
or waste materials and on a portion of the interior of a mass of soil or
waste material as limited by the permeability coefficient of the material.
PROCEDURE
1. Measure an aliquot of water specific for the field site or standard
water as defined by ASTM Committee D-19 such that the ratio of ml
of water to g, dry weight, of test specimen is 4 to 1. IUCS tvoical
practice is to use 500 g., dry weight, of specimen to 200 ml ofwater
Record measured water volume in liters. water.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
and we?ahTwMeh Water1to *he sPecimen of Predetermined surface area
and weight which was placed in a non-leaching container.
Seal container and place in the box carrier of a reciprocating shaker
c^in'th^i10" ^ °I SP t0 7° °ne-inch strokes P^r minute. Be
movement! placement of the container allows for maximum water
Shake container for 48 hours.
Immediately after the shake period, sample a 100 ml aliquot for total
suspended solids analysis. Vacuum filter at least 500 ml of the
remaining leachate using .45 micron membrane or glass fiber filters.
Decant off any leachate left in the non-leaching container, allowing
the test specimen to remain in the container. Note and record the
nhwc- ?Vr ^e te^ sPe^men, be1n9 sure to include comments on
SnSSl StSn9.r?*1Jn- These comments shall be as quantitative as
possible to facilitate any necessary modification in apparent sur-
face area for subsequent 48-hour shake periods.
Repeat steps 1 through 6 four times, thus obtaining five sets of
faS%ea[: set,C0nsist1ng of one 100 ml aliquot of unfiltered
leachate to be analyzed for total suspended solids and one 500 ml
aliquot of filtered leachate.
13
-------
TABLE 5. DESCRIPTION OF THE MINNESOTA TEST
12 5 gm dry weight of solid is placed in a 1000 nl separately
carded and the remainder is kept for analysis.
filtering technique for all tests.
14
-------
TABLE 6. A SUMMARY OF THE LEACHING TESTS USED IN
THE TEST COMPARISON
Leaching
Solution
Solid/Liquid
Ratio
SLT
Synthetic Leachate
H20*
1:10 (Process R)
Varied (Process C)
IUCS Test
H20
'•
Minnesota Test
Acetate Buffer,
'-40
Shaking Slow Tumbling
Technique
Time per 24 hrs
Elution
Number of 3 or more
Elutions
Temperature Room
Back and 1 min. shake,
Forth
Shaking 24 hr. rest
48 hrs 24 hrs
5 1
Room Room
Distilled, deionized water.
15
-------
TABLE 7. DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL LEACHATE TEST
(Leachate Collected August 13 from a Madison Landfill)
Leachate was collected in fifteen 250 ml acid-washed glass pre-
scription bottles. Four bottles (3 wastes + 1 duplicate) had the
wastes to be leached already inside. A solid/liquid ratio of 1:10
was used. Eight bottles were used to anaerobically store the leach-
ate until use in the experiment, and three bottles were collected to
store leachate for a daily background analysis during the duration of
the test. The test bottles were stored at room temperature and shaken
intermittently throughout the day. After a 24-hour elution time, the
leachate was decanted from the prescription bottles into screw top
polycarbonate centrifuge tubes. The tubes were closed then centrifuged
for 20-30 minutes at 10,000 RPM on a Son/all Centrifuge, then filtered
through a 0.45 micron membrane filter. Sufficient leachate was filtered
for analysis. (Even after centrifugation, the filtering process was
slow.) pH readings were taken as rapidly as possible, however, even in
a few minutes a brown flocculant precipitate formed. After the readings
were taken, the leachate was acidified to approximately pH 1 and stored
at 4°C until analysis. The four waste sample bottles plus one background
bottle were sampled daily. The background sample was split into two
aliquots, and each aliquot sampled and analyzed separately. New leachate
was used for each of the three elutions.
Leachate Background Values
COD
Cond
PH
Na
K
Mg
Fe
Zn
Cu
27,200 mg/1
1 x 10 umhos/cm
5.5 (varied from 5.15-5.81)
465 rag/1 ±15 (range)
720 + 40 mg/1
250 +_ 10 mg/1
very unstable (variable)
31 + 1 mg/1
1 mg/1, unstable
16
-------
TABLE 8. WASTES USED IN THE TEST COMPARISON
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Waste
Adhesive Waste #1
Ink & Paint Waste
Coal Tar Waste
Health & Beauty
Care Waste
Food Grade Waste
Adhesive Waste #6
Petrochemical Industry
Water/Oil Sludge
Grain Processing
Lipids & Fats
Food Wastes,
Clay
Marble Wash
Copper Oxide-
Sodium
Sulfate
Sludge
Electroplating
Sludge
Wastewater Treat-
ment Sludge
Papermill Sludge,
EPA
Waste Abbreviation Source
ECHO
I.P.W. ECHO
ECHO
H.B.C ECHO
ECHO
ECHO
Petrochemical Sludge ECHO
Grain Fats ECHO
ECHO
ECHO
CuO-Na2S04 Sludge Chem-trol
EPS Local
WTS Chem-trol
PMS-EPA Chem-trol
Test
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT,
SLT
Used
Minn,
Minn,
Minn,
Minn,
Mi nn ,
Mi nn ,
Minn,
Minn,
Minn,
Mi nn ,
Minn,
Minn,
Minn,
in
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
IUCS
-RLT
IUCS
-RLT
-RLT
17
-------
these tests, however, were designed for solid or semi-solid wastes rather
than for predominantly liquid wastes. As many of the wastes used in the
test comparison were predominantly liquid, the designers of both the IUCS
and Minn tests were asked how to prepare predominantly liquid wastes for
their tests.* Both agreed that a solid/liquid separation might be one
approach to sample preparation, although both emphasized that their tests
were not designed for such wastes, and that a solid/liquid separation
might not be the approach they would use to prepare predominantly liquid
wastes for their tests.
Different wastes required different sample preparation procedures.
The preparation used for each waste is given in the tables at the start
of the test results section for each waste.
SELECTION OF MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS
Inorganic
Several trace metals were selected for analysis in leachates from
tests on the wastes supplied by ECHO, Inc. Selection, made by EPA in
consultation with the authors, was based on their prevalence in the
waste as determined by ECHO, Inc. and on their general toxic nature.
These metals are listed as "metals of interest" in the table at the
start of each waste's data section.
Other parameters were measured to obtain an overview of the leaching
process (conductivity, pH) or in order to have additional parameters with
which to compare the leaching tests (Na, K, Mg, various trace metals).
Organic
COD was measured as a general indicator of organic materials in
leachate. With the exception of coal tar waste, identity of Teachable
organic compounds which might be present in a waste was not known.
Therefore, a first step in analysis of leached organic compounds was
identification of organic compounds present in the waste. Once these
were identified, compounds were chosen for analysis in leachates, in
order to evaluate the ability of different leaching solutions to solu-
bilize organic compounds of differing polarity. Compounds were classi-
fied as polar, slightly polar or nonpolar.
*B. Roberts and C. Perket, respectively.
18
-------
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Analytical methods for determination of inorganic parameters and
COD are given in Table 9. These procedures are all from Standard
Methods (3).
For organic parameters, except COD, identification arid 'analysis of
a parameter was much more complicated, as discussed previously. The
first step in analysis was a determination of major organic constituents
of a waste. A standard method for determination of an unknown organic
compound in a waste of unknown composition and consistency was not avail-
able, so a-method, described below, was devised for preparing a hexane
extract of a waste for analysis oh gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ten grams of the solid portion of a waste (i.e., after the liquid/
separation step) were placed in an extraction thimble.
The waste was extracted with 100 ml hexane for six to eight hours
in a soxhlet extraction apparatus.
The hexane extract, brought to 100 ml volume if necessary.
analyzed using gas chromatography—mass spectrometry.
was
Major peaks in the reconstructed ion chromatogram were analyzed
to see if the mass spectra could be identified.
A Finnigan model 1015 gas chromatograph—mass spectrometer was used in
conjunction with a Finnigan 6110 MS data analysis system. This procedure
allowed the identification of several compounds in the extracts from
several wastes. The adhesive wastes could not be analyzed by this method,
since both wastes solidified during analysis and clogged the apparatus
they were in at the time of solidification. (One glued the GC injection
syringe shut.) Hexane extracts from several wastes contained precipitates.
The analytical procedure for evaluating waste organic composition was
sufficient for this study, but obviously it is not a complete analysis
of all wastes.
Mass spectra of major peaks were identified either using a computer
comparison with spectra of known compounds, or by major peak comparison
with published spectra. If the identified compound was available, iden-
tification, was confirmed by running a standard and comparing retention
times and mass spectra.
The ink and paint waste was chosen for organic analysis because
of the variety of the identified compounds, and because the high COD
levels in the ink and paint waste leachates indicated that high concen-
trations of organic compounds were being leached.
19
-------
en
LO
O
LO o
o r—
LO
O
LO
CM
CU
O
CO
LU
to
«=c
a. o o r—
•r- Q. CO
«(- O
•r- X •!-
O O E
CUT3 CU
a. cu j=
coo; cj
(13
CU
Lu
•a
o
20
-------
Ink and paint waste leachates were extracted with methylene chloride
using a procedure based on the ASTM procedure for the extraction of oil
and grease from water (4). Three 3 ml extractions from a measured amount
of leachate (approximately 75 mis) were made. The extractions were dried
with anhydrous sodium sulfate, brought to 10 ml total volume, then analyzed
using GC - MS. Quantification was done by comparing peak areas in the
TIRGC with peak areas of standards run under the same conditions. The
pH of the leachates were not altered prior to extraction. Methylene
chloride was used rather than hexane primarily because the higher density
of methylene chloride simplified the solvent - leachate separation.
For the coal tar waste, a good estimation of the compounds of interest
was available without having to use GC - MS identification. Coal tar
wastes are known to frequently contain phenols and cresols. The leach-
ates from the coal tar wastes were distilled according to the procedures
given in Standard Methods (3) for the analysis of phenols. The dis-
tillates were analyzed using GC - MS. In addition to phenol and cresol,
naphthalene and quinoline were also identified in the distillates. Stand-
ards for all four compounds were run and the amounts in the distillates
determined. Since the distillation procedure is not a standard method
for analyzing napthalene or quinoline, the recovery of these compounds
from the original leachate is unknown. The same procedure was used for
all leachate samples; their relative concentrations can be compared.
The measured concentrations and releases for napthalene and quinoline
may be underestimates of the actual concentrations.
REPRODUCIBILITY
Replicates were run throughout the test series on most wastes.
Generally the replication was good. Replicates are plotted separately
on the data figures for each waste, allowing a visual estimation of
the reproducibility. Generally the replication for the acid and dis-
tilled water leachates in all tests were comparable.
In addition to the above use of replicates, 18 replicates were
run on a single waste (a paint waste from an auto assembly plant) with
synthetic leachate: nine replicates using SLT procedure R and nine using
SLT procedure C. Six parameters were determined. (pH was also measured,
but as the pH of the synthetic leachate was not affected by the paint
waste, the pH value in the leachates did not vary.) The mean values and
standard deviations for each parameter on each of the three elutions are
presented in Table 10. The deviations are for the complete test, and
include errors due to waste subsample differences, test procedures,
leachate instability, and analytical procedures. Fe data also include
errors in weighing the FeS04 used in the synthetic leachate. The stand-
ard deviations are generally under 15% unless near the detection limit.
The consistent exceptions are Zn and Fe in procedure C, which have quite
high deviations. Why the Zn data should show a high variation in pro-
cedure C^and not in procedure R, particularly on the first day when they
are replicates, is unknown. The Fe data in procedure C show that over
a three-day period, a significant amount of Fe is precipitating out of
solution. This precipitation illustrates a compromise made in the SLT.
21
-------
TABLE 10. STANDARD DEVIATION CALCULATIONS FOR MULTIPLE
REPLICATES OF PAINT WASTE LEACHED WITH SYNTHETIC
LEACHATE USING SLT PROCEDURES
Procedure R
(N = 9)
Procedure C
(N = 9)
Both Procedures
Day 1*
3aram-
eter
K
Mg
3
Zn
Pb
Cu
Fe
Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Mean
Value
3.86
2.10
1.58
9.9
1.4
0.51
16.92
-. 3.40,
1.44
0.52
0.27
0.22
b.d.1"
bid.'
b.d.
1180.
1166.
1094.
a
0.16
0.22
0.18
0.87
0.07
0.03
1.31
0,23
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.04
87.
80.
58.
%
4.1
10.7
11.6
8.8
4.9
6.1
7.74
6.8
5.4
4.4
8.2
17.2
7.4
7.0
5.6
Mean
Value
4.00
6.49
10.50
8.6
16.3
33.
22.68
70.5
123.
0.50
0.93
1.32
b.d.
b.d.
0.32
1123.
904.
585.
a
0.17
1.84
0.49
0.69
2.3
7.5
10.33
22.5
51.
0.03
0.14
0.18
0.09
71.
146.
204.
01
h
'.
4.3
28.3
4.7
8.1
14.0
22.7
45.6
31.9
41.3
6.0
15.4
13.8
28.3
6.4
16.3
35.
Mean
Value a %
3.93. 0.17 4.7
9.3 1.1 11.9
19.4 7.8 40.
0.51 0.025 5.0
1152. . 80. 7.0
On Day 1, procedures C and R are the same.
.d. = below detection.
22
-------
In order to model the anaerobic nature of municipal landfill leachate,
an anaerobic synthetic leachate is used. However, working with the
synthetic leachate under completely anaerobic conditions (filtering in
a glove bag, etc.) is too complicated for a routine test. Therefore,
an anaerobic leachate which has some redox buffering capacity was
designed and the lack of perfect redox control accepted as a necessary
compromise. The loss of iron in procedure C over the three-day period
is a result of this compromise. A non-anaerobic synthetic leachate,
described by Ham, et al_ (1) avoids the problem by not modeling the
anaerobic nature of municipal landfill leachate. " Note that the Fe
concentrations in the procedure R leachates are relatively stable,
indicating minimal loss of Fe due to oxidation-precipitation.
Standard addition was used to determine the detection limits for
different metals and to determine if any matrix effects could be seen
in the synthetic leachate. Various amounts of K, Mg, Cu, Zn, Pb, and
Cr were added to fresh synthetic leachate and analyzed using atomic
absorption or emission. The results indicated no major matrix effects
in the analysis of any of the metals. The detection limits estimated
for each metal are given in Table 9.
RELEASE CALCULATIONS
The release of a parameter per unit mass waste 'for each of the tests
was calculated using the equation given below:
Release
!elution(i)
N
(J Conc(i), mg/1)(leachate volume, ml)(l L/1000 ml)
(dry weight of solid in test, g)(l kg/1000 g)
where i is the elution number and n the total number of elutions. Leach-
ate volume and dry weight of solid is constant for each test, except for
SLT procedure C. Calculation of release in SLT procedure C is more com-
plicated and is described in Ham, et^ a]_ (1). Since the purpose of pro-
cedure C is to evaluate maximum concentration, release using this procedure
was not calculated. Except for unusual release patterns, release in pro-
cedure R will be greater than or equal to that in procedure C.
23
-------
SECTION 4
TEST COMPARISON
There are a number of ways to compare the different leaching tests.
A comparison can be made of the concentrations in the different test
leachates of a single parameter leached from a waste. This has been
done in Table 11 for the more important or interesting parameters from
selected wastes. The table indicates the aggressiveness of each test
and the wide range in results from three tests designed to indicate the
same thing—the leaching characterises of a waste. This single parameter
comparison does little good in understanding the relative aggressiveness
of the tests, however, unless the factors affecting the parameter concen-
trations in the leachates are known.
The relative aggressiveness of the tests can also be analyzed by
comparing the number of times each test gave the highest concentration
(or release) of a parameter for all the parameters analyzed throughout
the test comparison. This is done in Tables 12 (concentration) and
13 (release). As can be seen, the SLT gave the highest concentration
or release much more frequently than the other tests. Table 14 shows
a similar comparison for acid and water leachates, comparing only param-
eters that are measured in both. Obviously, the acid leachates are much
more aggressive than distilled water leachates. Such a comparison is
good for analyzing the general aggressiveness of a test.
A more complete comparison of the tests entails an analysis of the
effects of the differences between the tests on the test results, and
the importance of these differences for interpreting the test results.
A list of the major test variables or factors which must be set in devel-
oping a standardized leaching test is provided in Table 15. As the
effects of the different components or factors of the tests were not
analyzed separately, but rather the tests were compared as whole units
with several factors differing between them, it is not possible to isolate
the effect of any one factor and explain differences between the tests
as being due due to that specific factor. Rather, it is only possible
to say that a given factor varied between tests and in some cases it
seems reasonable to ascribe a given difference in the test results to
this factor. The major factors will be discussed individually in the
following sections.
LEACHATE COMPOSITION
The profound effect of leaching solution composition on the materials
and concentrations leached from a waste is shown with several wastes used
in the test comparison, most notably CuO - Na2S04 sludge. Acidic leach-
ates—the synthetic leachate and the acetate buffer—leached potentially
hazardous trace metals in significant concentrations that were either
below detection or leached in very low concentrations in the water leachates
(Figure 1). This is not surprising, since many metals are more soluble in
24
-------
i— ui
i— CM CO CO OJ
co r*-. co co cn
*r CM co ^r
J O CO O O "^
co cn co 10 co
r^- *a- co CM -
in en ro r^ in
- CO OJ O O
m ^ cn
«=r ^r o to
CM «=*• cn r^
i— i— CM
2»
. cn
-------
I
t/»H-
CJ O
2 af
Sio m c\j oo
t— r— r—
in m CM in )
gogcsc
O r— r-
o o
•— O O U1
P-* co o in
f o O n o or
00 m c\J r—
ro «a- r— t\J
m
8*r <
CM
f-. CM r-
- (M •— CO
> o o o
o o o o c»
J O O O O O
o o
£
O O
=~s
8 en m o o r
ro in
O i—
n oo i—
01 01
m CM
8nj
3=
26
-------
TABLE 12. THE NUMBER OF TIMES EACH TEST LEACHING SOLUTION GAVE THE
HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF AN INORGANIC PARAMETER FROM A WASTE. FOR
THE DIFFERENT TEST LEACHATES
Na
K
Mg
Fe
Zn
Pb
Cu
Cd
COD
Total
Number
Total, %
Total
for Each
Test, %
i
SLT
Proc C Proc R Minn. IUCS
H20 SL H20 SL Acet UQ H 0
*
8 - - - 4
1 10 i
17 11
1 -- 1 - 1
6 5 2
1 1 : 4
1 2 !
2
4 — — —
16 24 111 8 06
60.6 18.2 12.0 0 9
SLT Minn. IUCS
79% 12% 9%
*Not measured.
27
-------
TABLE 13. THE NUMBER OF TIMES EACH TEST LEACHING SOLUTION
GAVE THE HIGHEST RELEASE OF AN INORGANIC PARAMETER
FROM A WASTE FOR THE DIFFERENT TEST LEACHATES
Total %
SLT
Procedure R
HO SL
Mi nn.
Acetate
13
42
30
4.5
IUCS
H2° H2°
Na
K
Mg
Fe
Zn
Pb
Cu
Cd
COD
Total Number
5
8
1 8
1
8
1
1
2
2
9 28
4
2
2
4
5
2
1
20
2 5
1
1 1
3 7
0.5
Total for
each test,
SLT
55%
MINN.
34.5%
IUCS
10.5%
28
-------
TABLE 14. THE NUMBER OF TIMES ACID OR H20 LEACHING
SOLUTIONS GAVE HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS OR RELEASE
OF AN INORGANIC PARAMETER FROM A WASTE
(Only for Parameters Measured in Both Acid and H^O Leachates)
K
Mg
Zn
Pb
Cu
Cd
K
Mg
Zn
Pb
CU
Cd
SLT
Acid(SL) H20
Number of
10 1
8 1
11
2
2 1
1
Number
8
8 1
8
1
1
2
Minn.
Acid H£0
Times Giving
1
2
4
of Times Givi
4
2
4
5
2
1
IUCS Total
H20 Acid
H2U
TOTAL TESTS
Maximum Concentration
1 10
9
13
6
1 2
J_
41
Total, % 89
ng Maximum Release
12
10
12
6
1 3
_3
46
Total , % 96
2
1
0
0
2
0_
5
n
0
i
0
0
i
0.
2
4
12
10
13
6
4
1
46*
12
11
12
6
4
3
48*
K
Totals are not equal because two tests may both give the maximum
concentration but have different maximum releases. In cases where the
maximum concentration or release were the same, the results were not tabu
lated.
29
-------
TABLE 15. TEST FACTORS AFFECTING PARAMETER
CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATES
1. Sampling Technique and Sample Pretreatment
A. Sampling technique in waste stream
B. Sample storage and shipment
age, temperature, air contact, mixing, etc.
2. Subsampling in Laboratory
3. Solid Sampling and Preparation
A. Particle size reduction
B. Particle size selection
C. Solid/liquid separation
D. Other preparatory procedures
4. Test Conditions
A. Leachate composition
pH, complexing, etc.
B. Solid/liquid ratio
C. Number of elutions
D. Agitation technique and surface area contact
E. Time per elution
F. Temperature
6. Waste or leachate replacement in each elution.
5. Separation Procedure after Leaching-
6. Leachate Handling after Separation
7. Analysis
30
-------
CuQ-Na2S04
Cu
A SLT- SL
SLUDGE' TEST COMPARISON
RELEASE 8 CONCENTRATION
O SLT - H20
D IUCS - H20
Cu CONCENTRATION,ppm
4000-r
3000--
2000--
I 000- -
Mg CONCENTRATIONS, ppm
150 -r H20 LEACHATES
2345
ELUTIONS
V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
W MINN - H20
A REAL LEACHATE
Cu RELEASE, Eg/kg
160-r
120-•
80--
40--
^^r- "f "t- - 1
Mg RELEASE, 2g/kg
60-r
45--
30--
15--
I 234
ELUTIONS
Figure 1.
Cu and Mg concentration and release curves for CuO-Na?SCL
sludge, test comparison.
(Cu concentrations in all distilled water leachates were
less than 0.6 ppm.)
31
-------
acidic than in neutral or slightly basic solutions. The copper concen-
trations in the acidic leachates fromthe CuO - Na2S04 sludge were four
orders of magnitude (10,000 times) higher than the copper concentrations
in the water leachates. The copper concentrations in the acidic leach-
ates could not be predicted with water leachates alone. Since municipal
landfills generally have acidic leachates for much of their lifespan and
would leach Cu from the CuO - NaeS04 sludge, the need for an acidic leach-
ate in the leaching test is apparent. This is supported by the results of
a leaching test using municipal landfill leachate (RLT). Although not as
acidic as either of the acid leachates, the municipal landfill leachate
still leached high concentrations of copper, concentrations that could
not be obtained using distilled water as the leachate.
The synthetic leachate gives a more accurate view of the leaching
that would occur in a young municipal landfill, since it models other
aspects of municipal leachate in addition to pH when compared to the acetate
buffer which models only pH. The disadvantage of the synthetic leachate
comes from the attempt to fully model municipal leachate. Since municipal
leachate is anaerobic, the synthetic leachate is also anaerobic. Being
anaerobic, it is air sensitive and requires more careful handling than
aerobic leachates. Furthermore, a precipitate forms on oxidation, intro-
ducing the possibility of a loss from solution of materials, either
occluded in or adsorbed on the precipitate. Thus, improper handling of
the synthetic leachate may cause inaccurate results. An alternative
aerobic synthetic leachate has been developed as described in Ham, £t
al (1). This leachate avoids the oxidation-precipitation problem, but
Hoes so at the cost of not modeling real leachate as completely as does
the anaerobic synthetic leachate.
The synthetic leachate is designed to model the leaching environment
found in actively decomposing municipal landfills. Since many wastes will
not be subjected to such leaching conditions, because the landfill is
stabilizing or because of the placement of the waste, distilled water is
used to model a less aggressive leaching situation. This also happens
to model landfilling the waste in question by itself, or with stabilized
industrial wastes. All three leach tests use distilled water for this
purpose.
SOLID-LIQUID RATIO
The importance of the solid to liquid ratio could frequently be seen
in the test results. There are several possible effects of the solid/
liquid ratio on a parameter's concentration in leachate. For every soluble
component, the concentration will be directly dependent on the solid/liquid
ratio, simply because the more solid present, the more parameter there is
to be dissolved and the higher the concentration. This situation was seen
with very soluble parameters, such as Na and K, quite frequently. Good
examples of this are the Na and K from ink and paint waste. A graph of the
Na or K concentrations in the first HeO leachate from ink and paint waste
versus the amount of solid present per 100 ml leachate (Figure 2) shows
that the Na or K concentrations fall nearly on a straight line. This indi-
cates that the concentration in solution is directly dependent on the
amount of solid present.
32
-------
INK B PAINT WASTE
GRAMS WASTE
CONCENTRATION a RELEASE vs.
100 ml LEACHATE
OSLT, DIUCS, V MINNESOTA, H90 LEACHATE
No CONCENTRATION, ppm,
450-r
300--
150- •
Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
2250T
I500--
750-1
D
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
30-r
20--
IO--
K RELEASE, Smg/kg
I2O-T
80--
40--
H
10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
gm WASTE / 100 ml LEACHATE
Figure 2. Variation in Na and K concentration and release for ink
and paint waste with solid/liquid ratio (gm waste/100 ml
leachate) using a distilled water leachate.
33
-------
At the other extreme is a parameter whose concentration is controlled
strictly by a solubility equilibrium. In this case, the concentration in
solution would be independent of the amount of solid present and would be
the same in all tests. Such a situation has not been encountered with the
wastes studied. For most parameters, concentration will probably be con-
trolled by a number of competing factors—amount present, solubility,
sorption or desorption, etc.—and the effect of solid/liquid ratio on the
concentration will be complex.
Several practical considerations enter into the choice of a solid/
liquid ratio for a good standard test. A very low ratio, such as that
used in the Minnesota test, leads to very small amounts of waste being
used in the test, and to generally low concentrations. Both results
emphasize analytical or subsampling errors, particularly when calculating
release. Also, a very low solid/liquid ratio models a much longer leach-
ing time in a landfill than does a higher ratio. While this might at
first appear to be an advantage, the accuracy with which a short test
models long-term leaching in a landfill probably decreases as the time
span modeled gets longer. Thus, a test with a very low solid/liquid
ratio is less accurate for modeling reasons as well as analytical ones.
On the other hand, a test with a very high solid/liquid ratio requires
more elutions to leach a partially soluble parameter and so to determine
maximum release than does a test with a lower ratio. A solid/liquid
ratio intermediate between the very low and very high ratios should be
used in a good standard test. The 1:40 ratio used in the Minnesota test
appears to be rather low for a good test. Both the 1:10 and T;4 ratios
used in the SLT and IUCS tests, respectively,
and either could be used.
It is important to note how the weight of waste material is measured
when calculating the solid/liquid ratio. Dry weight, which is commonly
used, can present analytical difficulties for wastes containing volatile
or semi volatile components other than water.
The choice of a solid/liquid ratio generally is not directly based
on landfill conditions (unless calculated from waste and rainfall con-
ditions), -and, within a range of intermediate values, is therefore arbi-
trary.
MULTIPLE ELUTIONS
Both the SLT and IUCS tests use multiple elutions. Far more infor-
mation can be obtained from these multiple elutions than from a single
elution as used in the Minnesota test. The IUCS test uses five elutions,
while the SLT uses three (unless the pH in the SL samples has not returned
to below 5.0). The extra elutions in the IUCS;test provide more informa-
tion than the three elutions in the SLT, however, they also require more
work. A compromise needs to be made between the added information ob-
tained from the extra elutions, and the added work involved in obtaining
34
-------
it. One factor in the selection of the number of elutions for a standard
leaching test is simply convenience. As long as there is no technical
reason for selecting one number of elutions over another, the number of
elutions chosen should be convenient for lab personnel. The IUCS test
was more inconvenient than the other tests in that it required working
on weekends. One of the reasons for selecting three elutions in the SLT
was simply convenience. The test can be started on Monday, samples taken
on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, with Friday left for analysis of the
samples. Four elutions could also be taken without inconvenience.
Note that no matter how many elutions are chosen, an argument can
always be made for using one more elution. For some wastes, one elution
will give all the information obtainable from the waste; some wastes will
require three elutions, some five, some fifty. There is no way of know-
ing the optimum number of elutions for a given waste without running
extensive tests to determine when some acceptable degree of equilibration
is reached. This, obviously, is contrary to the concept of a standard
test. Selection of the optimum number of elutions should be based on the
optimum number of elutions for a variety of extensively tested wastes,
and on convenience. Experience with the SLT suggests that three elutions
is generally adequate (1).
AGITATION TECHNIQUE AND SURFACE AREA OF CONTACT
The SLT and the IUCS tests had generally effective agitation tech-
niques in that little particle abrasion was observed and particle and
leaching media movement was sufficient to avoid visually obvious concen-
tration profiles in the media. The Minn, test developed pronounced con-
centration differences which were observable between the liquid located
near the waste particles and that located away from the particles when
colored components were being leached. These concentration differences
are not surprising, since the waste is not agitated for 24 hours follow-
ing the initial shaking.
For two wastes, namely, the coal tar waste and the CuO-Na2S04 waste,
the SLT agitation method in itself appeared to be one reason for the higher
release with the SLT test than with the IUCS test. In the SLT agitation
procedure, the waste is always gently tumbling through the leachate. This
exposes more surface area of the waste to leachate contact. The IUCS test
agitation procedure did not provide such particle agitation of the waste,
resulting in approximately the same waste surface being in contact with the
leachate. With coal tar waste, the concentration of napthalene was higher
in the SLT H20 leachates than in the IUCS H20 leachates (Figure 3). Given
the physical nature of coal tar, it is reasonable to ascribe the higher
concentrations to the greater surface area in contact with the leachate.
Coal tar is impervious to water and viscous enough to inhibit internal dif-
fusion. Thus, for unsaturated parameters, the concentration in leachate
will depend on the surface area of contact with the waste.
Another probable example of the effects of agitation on release can
be seen in the Na release from the CuO-Na2S04 sludge (Figure 4) A com-
parison of the Na release in the H20 leach SLT and IUCS tests shows a
more rapid drop off in release in the IUCS test such that the fifth elu-
tion, for example, provided little additional release beyond that of the
35
-------
COAL TAR WASTE TEST COMPARISON
NAPTHALENE a QUINOLINE' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT -S.L.
O SLT - HpO V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
D1UCS-H0 V MINN - HO
NAPTHALENE
CONCENTRATION, ppm
SOT-
10-
RELEASE, 2mg/kg
750T
500--
250--
CONCENTRATION, ppm
100-r
75--
50--
25-•
QUINOLINE
RELEASE, Zmg/kg
4000T
3000--
2000- -
IOOO--
-I 1
1234
ELUTIONS
234
ELUTIONS
Figure 3. Napthalene and quinoline concentration and curves for
coal tar waste, test comparison.
36
-------
E
Q.
^ 30000
z
LU
20000
8 10 000
1234
ELUTIONS
A SLT-S.L.
O SLT-H20
D IUCS-H20
Ul
en
<
UJ
_j
LU
CE
300i—
200
100
I
I
01234
ELUTIONS
V MINN -ACETATE BUFFER
V MINN - H20
A REAL LEACHATE
Figure 4. Na concentration and release from a CuO-Na?SCL
sludge in test leachates.
37
-------
fourth elution. The SLT data indicate that the Na is continuing to be
released in the later elutions. It appears that the waste in the IUCS
test formed a thick layer in the test vessel and was subsequently re-
leased slowly by diffusion. In the SLT, the tumbling agitation con-
stantly mixed the waste and leachate in order to minimize the amount of
stagnant interstitial water. Thus the more complete mixing in the SLT
promoted continued dissolution of very soluble components.
ELUTION TIME AND TEMPERATURE
The effects of two test conditions—time per elution and temperature-
could not be analyzed from the test results. All the tests were run at the
same temperature, ambient or 20°C. The IUCS test uses a 48-hour elution
time, while both the Minnesota and SLT tests use 24-hour elution times.
However, the effects of the longer elution time in the IUCS test could not
be ascertained from the data. Ham, et al_ (1) investigated and discussed
the effects of elution time on leaching test results.
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION AND MAXIMUM RELEASE
The SLT uses two procedures: one in which fresh waste is contacted
with leachate from the previous elution (procedure C) and one in which
fresh leachate is contacted with a previously eluted waste (procedure R).
The IUCS test uses a procedure similar to procedure R, whereas the Minne-
sota test uses only one elution. Procedure C gives an indication of what
will happen to a given parameter as the leachate passes through a large
volume of waste, i.e., the procedure will approximate or approach maximum
concentrations or saturated conditions. As landfills will generally have
very high solid/liquid ratios at a given time and the leachates could
often be saturated, this information should be very useful. On the other
hand, an estimation of the amount of a parameter potentially available to
groundwater requires maximum release under landfill conditions per unit
mass of waste. The two procedures in the SLT allow estimation of both
maximum concentration and maximum release. Neither of the other tests,
nor any other tests known to the authors, allow both estimations. The
IUCS test gives an estimation of maximum release, since it also involves
multiple Teachings of the same waste sample. The Minnesota test, with
only one elution, cannot be relied upon to provide either maximum concen-
tration or release.
SOLID/LIQUID SEPARATION
Since the solid/liquid separation was run for all tests, a comparison
of the behavior of separated versus nonseparated wastes is not possible.
However, the procedure is unique to the SLT preparation and is not sug-
gested for either the IUCS or Minnesota tests. (Neither of the latter
tests gives directions for dealing with predominantly liquid wastes.)
Some comments on the solid/liquid separation are therefore in order.
The IUCS test, specifiq.ations^ read .as follows:
The procedure is to establish representative values of the
long-term...leachate properties of a waste material as placed
in...landfills and other disposal sites. (See Table 4.)
38
-------
I ianS?m ll ?"S 0V^ obJectlves of a standard leaching test. In
a landfill, the solid and liquid components of the waste should separate
as the liquid percolates down or is absorbed by surrounding material.
w?thethIecJ-H?i-er^lea^1ng °ccurs on the Sol1d P°rtion of the waste.
With the solid/liquid ratios used in the leaching tests, several years
may be modeled by the tests. In this time span, certainly a S Id/liquid
fnS10" Wi-i/?-CU^1n the landfi11- " is reasonable, therefore to
include a solid/liquid separation step in the preparation of wastes having
liquid components. Furthermore, this preparatory step can make the test
solids rn±naS^/-H A "*?*£ S^ ™ ^ 'nd ^ waste wi™ a *ery low
solids content (6% dry weight) in organic solvents would be very difficult
to work with if not separated prior to the test. First, a 1:10 solid to
liquid ratio on dry weight basis would be almost a 2:1 waste to leachate
third5 nf thftnf I9?- bar- The l6aChate WOUld make »P °^ abo"t one-
inn ?h tfV0*?1 Jlquid Present. Second, the difficulties in separat-
ing the solid and liquid components in the ink and paint waste would
only be exacerbated by mixing the waste with the Teaching solution
instead of a mixture of organic solvents with some solids, the waste
would now consist of an emulsion with a very low solids content. Separat-
ing the liquid and solid components would now be even more difficult
and there would be more samples to be separated. A solid/liquid separa-
tion scheme prior to the test makes the test more realistic and simpler
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
Several identified organic compounds were quantified in the coal
tar waste and ink and paint waste leachates. Identified compounds were
classified as polar, nonpolar, or slightly polar, as follows:
Polar:
cyclohexanone
phenol
cresol
Nonpolar:
aromatic ring compounds with aliphatic side chains:
xylene
isopropyl benzene
m-ethyl toluene
Slightly polar:
quinoline
The release curves of the polar compounds from both wastes were
similar and follow the general release' curve for a very soluble compound.
The acid leachates are no more effective at solubilizing these compounds
than were the H20 leachates, and in the case of cyclohexanone, consider-
ably less effective.
39
-------
Three of the four nonpolar compounds were not solubilized in either
acid or H20 leachates. Naphthalene was solubilized in both acid and
H?0 leachates at about the same concentrations. These concentrations
were lower and followed a different release pattern than found with polar
compounds. In the coal tar waste leachates, napthalene appeared to be
saturated.
Quinoline showed different behavior in acid and H20 leachates,
presumably due to its basic nature (K^ = 3 x 10-'°). It would be
expected to be more soluble in acidic than in neutral solutions, as
was found in the leachates.
In short, the acid and H20 leachates exhibited similar leaching
aggressiveness towards polar and nonpolar organic compounds, while the
acid leachate was more aggressive towards quinoline, which is a base.
40
-------
SECTION 5
DETAILED RESULTS
The data are presented in the-following format:
1. Description of the waste and a summary of the leaching test results.
2. Graphical presentation of the SLT data.
3. Graphical presentation of the test comparison data, including
A. SLT procedure R data,
B. IUCS test data, and
C. Minnesota test data
4. GC-MS Total Ion Reconstructed Gas Chromatograph
Mass spectra of identified TIRGC peaks are presented in the Appendix.
The format for the description of the waste and summary of test results
is given in Table 16. The physical and chemical descriptions of the
wastes given by ECHO, Inc. or Chem-Trol, Inc. are presented as received.
The analytical methods used for the determinations presented by the
companies are not known.
The complete SLT data is presented separately from the test compari-
son data to avoid cluttering the test comparison graphs. SLT procedure R
data are presented on both the SLT and test comparison graphs. The test
comparison graphs thus present only half of the SLT data. The IUCS and
SLT procedure R procedures are directly comparable.
A summary of the symbols used in presenting the SLT and test com-
parison data is given in Table 17.
A discussion of the results for wastes with particularly interest-
ing leaching results follows the graphical presentation of the data.
41
-------
TABLE 16. FORMAT FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF WASTES AND
SUMMARY OF LEACHING TESTS RESULTS
Waste No.
Waste Name
Source
Physical description
Chemical analysis, if available
inorganic
organic
Sample preparation, including S/L sep. procedure.
necessary.
Special comments as
Maximum Concentration, mg/1
Acid leaching solutions
Wisconsin test procedure C, SL
Wisconsin test procedure R, SL
Minnesota test, Acetate buffer
HpO leachates
Wisconsin test, procedure C
Wisconsin test, procedure R
IUCS
Minn.
Maximum (Cumulative) Release, mq/kg Waste
Acid leaching solutions
Wisconsin test, procedure R, SL
Minnesota test, Acetate buffer
HpO leachates
Wisconsin test, procedure R
IUCS test
Minnesota test
42
-------
TABLE 17. . SUMMARY OF SYMB.OLS USED IN PRESENTING
SLT AND TEST COMPARISON DATA
Standard Leaching Test Symbols
Synthetic Leachate
O
—Procedure C
O Distilled, Deionized HgO— Procedure C
/\ Synthetic Leachate — Procedure R
O Distilled, Deionized FLO— Procedure R
Test Comparison Symbols
SLT— Synthetic Leachate
O SLT— Distilled, Deionized H20
IUCS Test— Distilled, Deionized H20
Minnesota Test— Acetate Buffer
Minnesota Test — Distilled, Deionized H?0
Real Leachate Test
43
-------
TABLETS. ADHESIVE WASTE #1: DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Waste Number 1, ECHO, Inc.
Description:
An adhesive manufacturing waste, contains plasticizers DPB and SAIBF
and resins polyvinyl acetate and styrene butadiene, as well as filler and
pigments. It consists of large chunks of an amber colored gel, sticky to
the touch, which melt at just over room temperature.
Analysis:
ECHO, INC.
Wisconsin:
Organics:
Metals of
Interest:
pH (water slurry) 8.5, Ash 1.1%, Cd 0.87 ppm,
Pb 3.31 ppm, Cr 0.61 ppm, Zn 6.74 ppm, Cu "1.04 ppm,
no phenol.
99.7% volatile at 600°C, 66% volatile at 105°C for 24
hours, partically soluble in hexane and in acetone.
not analyzed, glued GC injection syringe shut.
Pb, Zn, Cu
Sample Preparation:
Obvious solid, cut into 1-inch cubes.
Comments:
Tests run at 20°C to prevent glue from melting. In a test at room
temperature (25°C), the glue melted, then resolidified incorporating much
of the leaching solution in the resolidified gel.
(continued)
44
-------
TABLE 18 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentration
Acid leachates
SLT procedure C, SL
SLT procedure R, SL
Minn. Acetate
H20 leachates
SLT procedure C
SLT procedure R
IUCS
Minn.
Release
Acid leachates
SLT procedure R, SL
Minn. Acetate
FLO leachates
SLT procedure R
IUCS
Minn.
(mg/1)
Na_ K_
9.0
2.75
0.85
4.70 24.2
0.88 1.20
7.0 0.15
1.3 0.05
(mg/kg)
Na_ JC
65
34
15.9 14.4
40.7 2.7
52. 20.
In
0.84
0.58
0.32
0.58
0.10
B.D.
0.34
In
15
6.8
2.8
2.0
0.
Pb, Cu: all samples below detection.
B.D.: below detection.
45
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO.I
PROCEDURE C * SYNTH. LEACH.
PROCEDURE R • HgO
PH
5-1-
4--
3--
CONDUCTIVITY, ^MHOS/CM
1500-r
IOOO--
500 -
2
ELUTIONS
Figure 5. pH and specific conductance curves for adhesive waste #1, SLT.
46
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO.I
Nd a K' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
— PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
© H20
PROCEDURE R
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm ""'Nd RELEASE, Smg/kg
6.0-r 60-r
4.0
2.0
40--
20
_- — —*
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
12 T f24.2
8--
4--
ELUT10NS
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
I20T
80--
40--
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 6. Na and K concentration and release curves for Adhesive
Waste #1, SLT.
47
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. I
Mg a Zn » CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
—— PROCEDURE C * SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R • HgO
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
2.0 T-
1.5 - -
I.O--
0.5--
Mg RELEASE,Smg/kg
16..-
12--
6--
4-- /
T
/ /
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
1.5-r
1.0--
0.5-- *=r--.-_
2 3
ELUTIONS
Zn RELEASE, SmgAg
10"
5--
//
ELUTIONS
Figure 7. Mg and Zn concentration and release curves for Adhesive
Waste #1, SLT.
48
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. J
PROCEDURE C PROCEDURE R
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm COD RELEASE, 2g/kg
1200-r
800
400- •
•i 1— 1
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
15-r
IO-
\ 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 8. COD concentration and release curves for Adhesive Waste #1,
SLT.
49
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. I TEST COMPARISON
pH, CONDUCTIVITY, Nd' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT-S.L.
O SLT - H20 V MlNN - ACETATE BUFFER
DlUCS-HoO ^
DH CONDUCTIVITY
6-r 75-r
5--
50--
25--
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
12-r
1 234
ELUT10NS
Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
60-
40--
20--
+—\ 1 1
1234
ELUT10NS
Figure 9. pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Adhesive Waste #1, test comparison.
50
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. I TEST COMPARISON
K a Zn = CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT- S.L.
O SLT - H20 V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
D IUCS - HgO W MINN- HgO
K CONCENTRATION, ppm K RELEASE, Smg/kg
3.0-r >A 90T
2.0-•
1.0 --
60--
30--
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
0.75
0.50- -
0.25--
Zn RELEASE, 2mg/kg
15-r
10--
5--
2345
ELUTIONS
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 10. K and Zn concentration and release curves for Adhesive
Waste #1, test comparison.
51
-------
TABLE 19. INK AND PAINT WASTE (I.PVJ): DESCRIPTION
AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Waste Number 2, ECHO, Inc.
Description:
Contains alky! resins, vinyl acrylics, aromatic and aliphatic
solvents. A black slightly viscous fluid with no noticeable solids
on the bottom of the container.
Chemical Analysis:
ECHO, INC:
Wisconsin:
Organics:
Trace Metals
of Interest:
flash point 100°C, ash 4.6%, Cd 110 ppm, Hg 0.02 ppm,
Pb 0.51 ppm, Cr 0.12 ppm, Zn 190 ppm, Cu 0.11 ppm.
97.2% volatile at 600°C, 78% volatile at 105°C for
24 hours, specific gravity 0.88. Solids 49% volatile
at 105°C, dry solids were 5.9% by weight of waste.
Xylene (o,m, + p, CgH10), isopropyl benzene (cumene-CgH12)
m-ethyltoluene (1-methyl-3 ethyl benzene (CgH12))
cyclohexanone (CgH^O), 2-nor-butoxyethanol (CgH-,^),
3,3,6-trimethylbicyclo(3.1.0)hexan-2~one or
3,5,5-trimethyl-2-cyclohexanone (CgH140),
Dimethyl glutarate (C7H1204), napthalene (C-,gH8),
methylnapthalene (C-,^^).
Zn, Pb, Cd
Sample Preparation:
Waste is very difficult to separate into solid and liquid components.
It dissolves Mi 11ipore MF filters and plastic centrifuge tubes and so will not
filter through Teflon 0.45 ym filters. Finally separated using glass
centrifuge tubes.
Comments:
Due to difficulty in separating large quantities of waste, procedure C
in the SLT, which requires a lot of waste, was not run. H20 leachates in
all tests were colored, either green or orange, depending on elution.
52
-------
TABLE 19 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentration, ing/1
Acid leachates
SLT procedure R,
Minn. Acetate
H20 leachates
SLT procedure R
IUCS
Minn.
Acid leachates
SLT procedure R,
Minn. Acetate
H20 leachates
SLT -procedure R
IUCS
Mi nn .
Na^
SL —
190
455
35
Rel
Na_
SL
2410
2862
1400
K_
24.5
9
10
30.5
2.5
ease,
K_
505
360
169
274
100
Mg_
23
1.9;
5.5
18
1.3
mg/kg
Mg_,
292
72
83
137
52
Fe_
, .46
3.2
.20
0
Fe
18.4
34
1.8
0
Zn_
36
38-
.27
1.17
0
Zn_
681
1520
2.7
5.8
0
Pb
4.2
10.2
0
.24
0
Pp_
85.5
406
0
0
0
CM.
.20
.14
.34
1.15
.09
Cu_
3.8
5.6
3.9
5.3
0
Cd_
.28
.11
0
0
0
Cd_
4.2
4.4
0
0
0
53
-------
INK a PAINT WASTE
pH CONDUCTIVITY, a Nd' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
---PROCEDURE R ^YNTHETIC^ACHATE^ *Hg/ ^
8-
7-
6-
5-
4
ouu-
^«
•*
*^
,&'
/ 600-
x»
400-
200-
A ^- *
1 -l 1
"\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
^--^
*"*•<
, i 1
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
200T >
I50--
IOO--
50--
+
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
No RELEASE, 2mg/kg
3200-r
2400-
1600-
800--
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 11.
PH, specific conductance and Na concentration and release
curves for Ink and Paint waste, SLl.
54
-------
INK a PAINT WASTE
K a Mg» CONCENTRATION S RELEASE
• PROCEDURE R A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE ©
K CONCENTRATION, ppm K RELEASE, Smg/kg
30-r 600-r
20--
10--
400- -
300--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
40r 400r
30--
20--
10- •
\
\\
\\
v
300--
200-- A--
100
I 2 3
ELUT10NS
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 12. K and Mg concentration and release curves for Ink and Paint
Waste, SLT.
55
-------
INK a PAINT WASTE
Zn a Pb» CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE R ^SYNTHETIC LEACHATE ® H£C
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm Zn RELEASE, Smg/kg
900T
30--
15
//
4 *
600--
300--
/
-9-
Pb CONCENTRATION, ppm Pb RELEASE, Smg/kg
o-
6-
4-
2-
12-
9-
\
\
\ 6-
\
j^^ \
"^---^A 3-
a m ft
4
X
X A
x xx
J^ ^f*
,'
^^
^ »f
a a a
2 3
ELUTIONS
ELUTIONS
Figure 13. Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for Ink and
Paint Waste, SLT.
56
-------
INK a PAINT WASTE
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm
40000-]
30000-
20000-
10000-
* 9 H90
r *
\ PROCEDURE R
\ COD RELEASE, 2g/kg
\ 600y
\
\
\ 400-
\
\
\ 200-
""""--*
1 1 i
_ — • — *
*"
1 1 4
I 2 3
ELUT10N3
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 14. COD concentration and release curves for Ink and Paint
Waste, SLT.
57
-------
INK a PAINT WASTE' S.L.T.
O H20 A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE, 2g/kg
400-r CYCLOHEXANONE 4T
300--
200--
100--
\\
-fc-
3--
2--
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE, 2mg/kg
I.QT NAPTHALENE 87
0.75-
0.5--
0.25--
_Qn "* "" *—-"^
2 3
ELUTIONS
6-
4.-
p. -
. — — -o— — -y—-O
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 15. Cyclohexanone and Napthalene concentration and release
curves for Ink and Paint Waste, SLT.
58
-------
INK a PAINT WASTES^ TEST COMPARISONS
PH
9 i
8--
7--
6--
5--
A SLT - S. L.
o SLT- H20
0 IUCS - H20
V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
* MINN-H?0
CONDUCTIVITY, //.MHOS / CM
3000-
2000- -
1000 •-
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
600-r
400--
200--
2345
ELUTIONS
Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
4000-r
3000--
2000-
1000
234
ELUTIONS
Figure 16. pH, specific conductance and Na concentration and release
curves for Ink and Paint Waste, test comparison.
59
-------
INK a PAINT WASTES' JEST COMPARISONS
K & Mg - RELEASE a CONCENTRATION
A SLT- S. L. V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
O SLT - H20 W MINN - HgO
DIUCS- H0
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
40-r
30--
20--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
30r
20--
10--
2345
ELUTIONS
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
600 T
400--
200--
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
300-r
200--
100--
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 17.
K and Mg concentration and release curves for Ink and
Paint Waste, test comparison.
60
-------
INK a PAINT WASTES' TEST COMPARISONS
Zn & Pb: CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT-S.L.
O SLT - H20
D IUCS- H20
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
40--
30--
20--
10--
10.0--
7.5--
5.0--
2.5--
VMINN - ACETATE BUFFER
- H20
Zn RELEASE, Smg/kg
1600-j-
v
1200--
800-
400-
v
Pb CONCENTRATION, Pb RELEASE, Smg/kg
PPm 450-r
300--
150--
234
ELUTIONS
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 18. Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for Ink and
Paint Waste, test comparison.
61
-------
INK 8 PAINT WASTE-- TEST COMPARISON
A SLT - SYNTHETIC LEACH ATE
O SLT - H20 V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
DIUCS- H20 ^ MINN- H20
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE, 2g/kg
CYCLOHEXANONE *
V
400
300--
200-•
100- •
NAPTHALENE
CONCENTRATION, ppm
v
I.5T v
1.0- •
0.5- •
234
ELUTION5
3--
2-
I • •
RELEASE, Smg/kg
T
60-r „
40-•
20--
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 19.
Cyclohexanone and Napthalene concentration and release
curves for Ink and Paint Waste, test comparison.
62
-------
:g
'"CO
CU
CO
(O
o
•i—
M-
ns
Q.
"O
CD
T3
t CM
(C
OJ
Q.
s-
o
-p
X
fC
I
JC
o
CO
to
01
T3
CU
4->
O
3
UJ O
J— CD
J2 Q£
G, »— i
rs: i—
cc
ex.
O
o
O)
(O
4J
O
O
CM
63
-------
o
t—i
l_
CC
LU
\
T-4
O
I— O
Z5 CD
U.J t-i
C3
CM
a:
CO
o
O)
•M
(O
jr
o
03
d)
O
CM
3C
q-
o
en
o
4->
(O
I
-C
o
T3
O)
+J
O
IS
4->
to
c
o
o
CD
O
CO O)
•4-> 4->
O CO
-)-> (O
QJ
> •*-»
•!-> Q-
£=
d) T3
CO C
OJ (T3
tU
D; I
CM
I
O5
64
-------
CU
co
•i— D-
CO "O
•»-> E
E CO
CU
in _i£
CU E
S- I-H
O.
CU M-
o: o
CM
CU
65
-------
o
CO
+•>
03
.e
o
03
,j
LU
O
CM
CO
a:
S-'l
fO
O
•)->
(O
o
in
03
CD
-o
0)
4->
O
3
S.
o
o
cu
(C OJ
O (/>
4-> 10
fO fO
-)-> O.
c
cu -o
in c
01 fd
cu
oo
CM
66
-------
Discussion
The inorganic parameters are not of great interest. Pb and Zn were
released in acid leaching solutions but not in H20 leachates, and both
were released in higher concentrations in the Minnesota leachates than
in the SLT leachates.
The organic parameters are of interest and were thoroughly investi-
gated. COD in the SLT H£0 leachates shows that very large amounts of
organic compounds were being released. The h^O leachates in all tests
were colored—the first day the color was a combination of green and
orange, while on subsequent elutions the color was orange. The relatively
low conductivity indicates that nonionic compounds were being released.
Extensive gas chromatograph—mass spectrometry analysis of both the
waste hexane extract and the leachates was done.
The waste hexane extract showed that the waste contained at least
six aromatic ring compounds with alky! side chains. Th.ese elute in the
total ion reconstructed gas chromatogram (TIR6C) at peaks numbered 42,
47, 59, 104, 126, and 135 (see Figure 20). Three were identified as
xylene (peak number 42), isopropylbenzene (also called cumene, peak
number 47), and m-ethyltoluene ^peak number 59). The structures for
these compounds are given below.
(xylene,o,m, p)
isopropyl benzene
m-ethyltoluene
(1-methyl-3-ethyl benzene)
The other aromatic compounds with alkyl side chains could not be further
characterized. Five other compounds were positively identified in the
waste. Their structures and peak numbers are given in the following
drawings:
67
-------
cyclohexanone
peak No. 66
-C4HgnOCH2CH2OH
2-nor-butoxyethanol
peak No. 76
Dimethyl glutarate
peak No. 229
napthalene
peak No. 309
methylnapthalene (a and/or 3)
peak No. 450
In addition, peak number 188 was identified as either 3,3,6-trimethyl
bicyclo (3.1.0.) hexan-2-one or 3,5,.5-trimethyl-2-cyclohexanone.
Six of the identified compounds were analyzed in the leachate extracts.
The three identified aromatic compounds with alkyl side chains were found
to not elute in any of the test procedures or with any leaching solution.
The substance in peak 188 was found to e-Tute in leachates from all tests
in significant concentrations. No standards of either compound were avail-
able, so neither positive identification nor quantification could be made.
Cyclohexanone and napthalene were quantified in the leachates. The
release patterns of both compounds are given in Figures 15 and 19. Cyclo-
hexanone is released in high concentrations, with the highest concentra-
tions coming in the first elution. In the IUCS test, the cyclohexanone
reached a constant concentration after the first elution, whereas, in the
SLT the concentration decreased with each elution. In both the SLT and
the Minnesota tests, the HeO leachates had higher cyclohexanone concen-
trations than the acid leachates. Napthalene was released in low concen-
trations in a pattern that is very difficult to interpret. The Minnesota
test had the highest napthalene concentrations and release.
The high COD concentrations leached from the waste and the comparatively
small amounts of materials identified indicate that much of the leached
organic material was not identified. The use of a relatively nonpolar
solvent for extracting the waste or leachate emphasizes the analysis of
compounds of lower polarity, Noting the lack of aromatic compounds _
with side chains in the leachates, it is apparent that the high organic
leaching from the waste, as indicated by the high COD concentrations,
does not cause solubilization of these nonpolar compounds. The high COD
concentrations should be of concern when considering landfill ing of this
waste.
The use of GC-MS for analysis of unidentified or unclassified organic
compounds is not recommended for routine use in a standard test. GC-MS
analyses require highly trained personnel and considerable time. The
identification of a specific compound in a waste when the identity or
general classification of the compound is not known is very difficult
and time consuming. Note that Figures A-l through A-9 present additional
GC-MS results.
68
-------
TABLE 20. COAL TAR SLUDGE: DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Haste Number 3. ECHO, Inc.
Physical Description: Thick, viscous tar floating on water layer.
Chemical Description:
ECHO
Wisconsin
(solid)
Organics
Trace Metals of
Interest
Sample Preparation:
- BTU - 14000/lb, flash point 98°C, Ash 2.7%,
Cd 1.15 ppm, Pb 29.9 ppm, Cr 51.5 ppm,
Zn 107 ppm, Cu 9.7 ppm.
- 62% volatile at 600°C
29% volatile at 105°C, 24 hours
- phenol, cresol, napthalene and quinoline identi'
fied in leachate
- Cu, Zn, Cr, Pb
Floating tar sampled directly. Homogenization of water and tar
layers would have been impossible given consistency of tar. Tar dif-
ficult to clean.
(continued)
69
-------
TABLE 20 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentration, mg/1
Acid leachates Na_ K_ Mg_ Zn_ COD Napt. Phenol Cresol Quinoline
SLT proc. C, SL
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn. Acet.
54 1.4 .50
9.3 .56 .42
.94 .15 .12
12.7
21.9
2.8
493
96
2.6
138
58.5
1.4
307
93.5
0
HO leachates
Ol_ 1
SLT
IUCS
Minn
pi uv..
proc.
.
o
R
U •
4.
0.
1.
I W
0
49
2
"T
1
.9
.40
.14
.65
.59
.17
w
0
0
0
20.1
20.9
5.7
2.4
193
112
67.9
2.7
80.2
58.1
36.5
1.3
64.0
62.0
26
0
Release, mg/kg
Acid leachates Na
Ma. ZH
Phenol Cresol Quinoline
SLT proc. R,
FLO leachates
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
SL
59
7.
48
167
37.
25.
5 2.
5.
6
5
9
6
10.9
6
11
3.7
6.8
11.0
4.8
0
0
0
624
112
15390 578
4492 81.2
4560 96
1644
104
1949
472
108
1290
56
1338
288
52
2176
0
1726
333
0
Cu, Cr, Zn and Pb were below detection.
Note that the Napthalene and Quinoline concentration and release
test comparison curves were presented earlier as Figure 3.
70
-------
COAL TAR RESIDUE
^SYNTHETIC LEACHATE ®
PROCEDURE C
PH PROCEDURE R
8 T
6--
4--
CONDUCTIVITY, jiMHOS/CM
1500-r
1000- -
5 00--
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 24. pH and specific conductance curves for Coal Tar Waste, SLT.
71
-------
COAL TAR RESIDUE
PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R ® HO
Na CONCENTRATION,ppm Na CUMULATIVE RELEASE,
80-r
60--
40-.
20--
T
75-
5O--
25--
Zmg/kg
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
15-r ts4
10-•
5--
0--
I
K CUMULATIVE RELEASE,
200T 2mg/kg
I50--
100--
50--
-{
Figure 25. Na and K concentration and release curves for Coal Tar
Waste, SLT.
72
-------
COAL TAR WASTE
Mg& COD= CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C «H2O
PROCEDURE R A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm Mg RELEASE, Smg/kg
3-r
20--
10--
®
.-A
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm COD RELEASE, Eg/kg
s-uuu-
3OOO-
2000-
1000-
2O-
15-
/ 10
*^^^ 5"
1 ! — J
X*
X
X
X
/x
1. 1 -,.,,.J
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 26. Mg and COD concentration and release curves for Coal Tar
Waste, SLT.
73
-------
COAL TAR RESIDUE
PROCEDURE C © HgO
PROCEDURE R A SYNTHETIC LEACH ATE
NAPTHALENE
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE.Zmg/kg
30-r
20-
10-
r-r=t
500-
250--
PHENOL
CONCENTRATION, ppm
800T
600-
400-•
200--
RELEASE, 2mg /kg
2250T
1500- -
750--
H
I 2
ELUTIONS
"j 2~" 3
ELUTIONS
Fjgure 27. Napthalene and Phenol concentration and release curves
for Coal Tar Waste, SLT.
74
-------
COAL TAR RESIDUE
PROCEDURE C ®HgO
PROCEDURE R A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
CREOSOLS (O.M.aP)
CONCENTRATION,ppm RELEASE, 2mg/kg
200T
100- -
1500-
750
CONCENTRATION, ppm
400 T
200T 200- -
I50--
IOO--
50--
QUINOLINE
RELEASE, Smg/kg
3000T
20OO- -
1000--
o- —
.' *v
f
I 2
ELUTIONS
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 28. Creosols and Quinoline concentration and release curves
for Coal Tar Waste, SLT.
75
-------
COAL TAR WASTED JEST COMPARISON
PH
8-r
6--
ASLT - S.L.
o SLT - H20
D IUCS-H20
V MINN-ACETATE BUFFER
V MINN-H20
CONDUCTIVITY, ^.MHOS/CM
600 T
400--
200--
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
1.51 of 6.9
I.O--
0.5--
234
ELUTIONS
Na RELEASE, 2rng/kQ
90-r
60
30--
234
ELUTiONS
Figure 29.
pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Coal Tar Waste, test comparison.
76
-------
COAL TAR WASTE * TEST COMPARISON
K a Mg= CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S.L. , V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
O SLT - HpO V MINN - Hp 0
DiUCS- HoO
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
!6T
12--
8--
4-
K RELEASE, Smg/kg
I50--
IOO--
50--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
0.9-r
0.6--
0.3--
12345
ELUTIONS
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
18-r
12--
6--
4—H
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 30. K and Mg concentration and release curves for Coal Tar
Waste, test comparison.
77
-------
COAL TAR WASTE TEST COMPARISON
PHENOL a CRESOL-- CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT-S.L.
V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
OSLT- H20
DIUCS- H20
PHENOL CONCENTRATION,
125 T
100-
75--
50--
25--
MINN- H20
PHENOL RELEASE, Smg/kg
2500-r
2000--
1500--
IOOO--
500--
CREOSOL (0, M, 8 P)
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE, 2mg/kg
60-r A I500T
40--
20--
1000--
5OO--
2345
ELUTIONS
23 45
ELUTIONS
Figure 31. Phenol and Creosol concentration and release curves for
Coal Tar Waste, test comparison.
78
-------
CJ
CJQ
IX
o
O)
•4->
fO
J^
O
«
O)
O
C\J
oo
q-
o
cu
•t-j
re
CO
•5
res
s_
cn
o
o
s-
CO
re
en
•o
cu
o
S-
co
c: •
o cu
o +->
cu co
s- re
o s-
•i- re
re t—
4-> re
o o
I— cj>
CM
ro
CU
T3
OJ
re
3
o-
cu
re
o
CJ
-------
IN,
IN,
1
CD
1
CO
CE
CO
LlJ
CD
CO
i—i
a
2
o
o
"CO
o
LD
"Cxi
O
O
"CM
O
LD
O
O
O
LO
o
CM
cu
-p
CO
CU
•p
(O
4-5
to
T3
q-
o
(O
en
o
4->
(O
o
.£=
o •
O)
to -t-»
fO CO
CD
80
-------
Discussion
The waste's physical composition, much like road tar, seems to be an
important factor in controlling the leaching test results.
The inorganic parameters are not of much interest. Na, K, Mg, and
Zn are leached in low concentrations, while Cu is below detection.
Organic parameters are of interest. Phenols and cresols (ortho,
meta and para) were presumed to be present due to their common occurrence
in coal tar wastes, and so test leachates were analyzed for these compounds.
The leachates were distilled using the distillation procedure given in
Standard Methods (3), then analyzed on a GC-MS. Napthalene and
quinoline were also found in the distillates. The structures for these
compounds are given below:
phenol
cresol
quinoline
napthalene
Phenol and cresol are both polar compounds due to the OH group.
Quinoline is slightly polar and napthalene nonpolar. Phenol and cresol
show similar behavior—increasing concentrations in both SL and H2<3
leachates using procedure C and decreasing concentrations in procedure R.
From the concentrations in procedure C leachates, it is apparent that the
solutions are not saturated with either phenol or cresol at the end of the
test, while the decreasing concentrations in procedure R show that the
waste has not been completely depleted of either component. Napthalene,
on the other hand, behaves as if it were saturated in both SL and H20
leachates. The napthalene concentrations in both leachates maintains
steady values throughout the test. The similarity in napthalene concentra-
tion in the SL and H20 leachates show that the leachate composition does
not have a great effect on solubilizing naphthalene.
Quinoline, on the other hand, shows different leaching patterns in
SL and HgO leaching solutions. The H20 leachates have constant concen-
trations, indicating saturation, while the SL leachates have a rising
concentration in procedure C leachates and a falling concentration in
procedure R.
Quinoline is a base (K. = 3 x 10~10) and should be more soluble in
acid solutions than in neutral or basic solutions. Quinoline concentra-
tions in the SL and H20 leachates from procedure C of the SLT shows the
differing solubilities quite well. In SL samples, the quinoline con-
centration rises in each procedure C elution, suggesting that the amount
of quinoline available for leaching controlled the concentration, and
81
-------
that quinoline was not near saturation. In the M leacha,tes, on the
other hand, the quinoline behaves as if it were saturated, i.e., the
concentration is constant in procedure C leachate, At the pH of the
SL (4.5), much of the quinoline (Q) should t»e protonated (i,e,, be in
the form HQ+) and should be more spluble than the unprotonated quinqline.
At the pH of the HeO leachates ( 7), quinoline should be predominately
unprotonated. In short, at a pH of about 7, qwinoline (in an unprotonated
form) appears to be saturated in the SIT HgQ leachates a,t a concentration
of around 60 mg/1, while in the acid SL, quinoline (in a protonated form)
appears to be unsaturated at concentrations over 300 mg/1.
82
-------
TABLE 21. HEALTH AND BEAUTY CARE WASTE (HBC):
.DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
(Including Latex from Paint Manufacture.and Some Basic
Chemical Salt Wash Water)
Waste Number 4, ECHO, Inc.
Physical Description:
Chemical Analysis:
ECHO
Wisconsin
Organics
Trace Metal of Interest
Sample Preparation:
slightly viscous emulsion, black,
some noticeable solids.
pH-5.9, sus. solids-1%, Ash 6.1%, Cd.07 ppm,
Hg .02 ppm, Pb 1.1 ppm, Cr .40 ppm, Zn 18 ppm,
Cu 2.8 ppm.
99.2% volatile at 600°C
27% volatile at 105°C for 24 hours
specific gravity, 0.85
None specified.
Pb, Zn, Cu
separates with centrifugation
solids - 38.9% volatile at 105°C, 24 hours
solids (dry weight) compose 2.8% of waste
(continued)
83
-------
TABLE 21 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Acid leachates
SLT proc. C,
SLT proc. R,
Minn. Acet.
FLO leachates
SLT proc. C
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
Acid leachates
SLT proc. R,
Minn. Acet.
O leachates
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
Concentration, mg/1
Na_ K Mg Zn
SL
SL
630
294
570
58
Na_
SL
3590
3211
2320
182
67
1.7
88
48.9
84
1.1
Rel
1<
921
68
615
500
44
32
12.2
2.6
18
8.70
18.4
1.8
ease,
Mg_
154
104
123
98
72
25.0
12.8
2.9
11.0
5.9
11.5
1.4
mg/kg
ZD_
174
116
73
67
56
Cd Fe
.92
.39
52
122
.14 37.0
81.0
11
Cd Fe
6.0
2080
1.4 543
440
440
Cu Pb
5.60 0.86
1.55 0.69
9.6 .40
14.0 0
5.9 0
10 0
1.5 0
Cu Pb
38 18.8
384 16
112 0
79.2 0
60 8.4
COD
93,600
12,760
33,600
COD
1.49 1
1.86 1
84
-------
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE
e H20
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
pH
5-r
4--
3--
2--
6000--
Figure 34.
CONDUCTIVITY, ^MHOS/CM
8000-r
A
4000+ ' ' *
2000
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
pH and specific conductance curves for Health and Beauty
Care Waste, SLT.
85
-------
400-•
200--
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE
Na a K: CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
• H20
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
No RELEASE, 2mg/kg
6000T
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
600-r *
\
4000--
2000--
K CONCENTRATION, ppm K RELEASE, Smg/kg
200-r 1000-
150-•
IOO--
50--
I 2
ELUTIONS
750 •-
5OO--
250--
2
ELUTIONS
Figure 35.
Na and K concentration and release curves for Health and
Beauty Care Waste, SLT.
86
-------
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE
Mg aZn> CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C 9 H20
PROCEDURE R A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
Mg CONCENTRATION
40-
30--
20--
10-
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
200-T-
I50--
100--
50-
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
3O-r
20--
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Zn RELEASE, Smg/kg
200-r
I50--
IOO--
5O--
•H 1 1
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 36. Mg and Zn concentration and release curves for Health and
Beauty Care Waste, SLT.
87
-------
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE
Cu a Cch CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
Cu CONCENTRATION, ppm
4--
H20
SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
Cu RELEASE, 2mg/kg
150-r
100-•
50--
Cd CONCENTRATION, ppm
1.5-r
I.O--
0.5- •
I 2
ELUTIONS
Cd RELEASE, 2mg/kg
7.5T
5.0-
2.5--
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 37.
Cu and Cd concentration and release curves for Health and
Beauty Care Waste, SLT.
88
-------
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE
Fe a Pb: CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C ©H20
PROCEDURE R ^SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
Fe CONCENTRATION, ppm Fe RELEASE, 2mg/kg
i£tj- • -
I£U-
80-
40-
Pb
1.5-1
.0-
).5-
* 600
400-
*. 400-
\
. — |- T""*?
CONCENTRATION, ppm Pb
20-
f. ,,,11 A
^ ^w**
• --**' I0
DETECTION LIMIT
n ' — — -X
Q .g> O
— -«
/*~-~~
S
*'
— 1 f
RELEASE,2mg/kg
,**
**'
^
«''
1 — i i
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
2 3
ELUTtONS
Figure 38. Fe and Pb concentration and release curves for Health
and Beauty Care Waste, SLT.
89
-------
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE
• H20
T IUCS
COD RELEASE, Sg/kg
lOOr
75-
50-
25--
PROCEDUREC
PROCEDURE R
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm
35000T
30000-
25000-
20000
15000
10000- -
5000- -
1234
ELUTfONS
Figure 39. COD concentration and release curves for Health and
Beauty Care Waste, SLT.
12345
ELUTIONS
90
-------
HEALTH 8 BEAUTY CARE WASTE TEST COMPARISON
pH, CONDUCTIVITY, Na« CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT-S. L.
V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
V MINN - H20
CONDUCTIVITY, ^MHOS/CM
800C-T
O SLT - H20
DIUCS-H20
5--
4--
3--
6000- •
4000- •
2000-
No CONCENTRATION, ppm Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
600-r _ 4500-
400--
400--
2345
ELUTIONS
3000--
I500--
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 40. pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Health and Beauty Care Waste, test comparison.
91
-------
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE TEST COMPARISON
K a Mg = CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S. L.
O SLT - H20
DlUCS-H20
K CONCENTRATION, ppm K RELEASE, Smg/kg
V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
90i
900i
600-
300--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
18-r ~
12345
ELUT10NS
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
I50T
100--
50--
4-
4-
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 41
K and Mg concentration and release curves for Health and
Beauty Care Waste, test comparison.
92
-------
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE TEST COMPARISON
Zn a Fe= CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S. L
OSLT - H20 y MINN-ACETATE BUFFER
DIUCS- H20 VMINN-H20
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm Zn RELEASE, Smg/kg
180-r
I20--
60--
Fe CONCENTRATION,ppm
40--
1234
ELUTIONS
Fe RELEASE, 2mg/kg
2000 T V
I500--
IOOO--
500--
1-
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 42. Zn and Fe concentration and release curves for Health and
Beauty Care Waste, test comparison.
93
-------
HEALTH a BEAUTY CARE WASTE TEST COMPARISON
Cu a Pb= CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT-S.L.
OSLT- H20
D1UCS - H20
VMINN- ACETATE BUFFER
Cu CONCENTION, ppm
I2T
VMINN -H20
Cu RELEASE, Smg/kg
120 T
80-
40--
Pb CONCENTRATION, ppm
1.0 -r
0.5-•
DETECTION LIMIT x
—IS fH $ EC
2345
ELUTIONS
Pb RELEASE, Smg/kg
20-r
10- •
H 1 h
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 43. Cu and Pb concentration and release curves for Health and
Beauty Care Waste, test comparison.
94
-------
LU
I—
CT3
cn
UJ
Hi
cc
cr o
UJ C3
CO CK
I—I
Q *—
cr
re
_
cr
UJ
re
•>*
*
O
to
4->
X
0)
(C
X
OJ
o
3
S-
O
o
ai
c:
o
a>
cn
tZ
95
-------
Discussion
SLT-
The H?0 leachates contained a significant oil layer, one which was
emulsified when passing through a filter but which rapidly separated on
standing. The heavy oil layer, particularly in the procedure C leachates
made analysis difficult. Several samples were not analyzed for parameters
measured by atomic absorption for this reason.
The waste gave leaching results which are difficult to explain. For
example, the pH data for H20 leachates indicate the release of acidic mate-
rials Both procedure C and procedure R HoO leachates become more acidic
in successive elutions. However, one of the procedure R duplicates and
the procedure C leachate show a pH minimum in the second elution, while
the other procedure R duplicate shows a steadily decreasing pH. The
duplicates are two pH units apart on the second elution. Why the dupli-
cates should be so far apart, and why the procedure C leachates should show
a minimum are not known nor easily explained.
The inorganic elements behave normally, with the exception of Cu. The
H?0 leachates had higher Cu concentrations than the corresponding SL leach-
ates Cu was released in fairly high amounts. Cd was detectable although
was not released in high concentrations. Thp COD concentrations were very
high indicating the observed oil release.
The TIRGC from GC-MS analysis of organics is shown as Figure 44.
Peaks were not required to be identified for this waste.
Test Comparison--
Test comparison results are interesting primarily in the higher Fe
and Cu concentrations, seen in the IUCS leachates than in the acid leach-
ates. pH does not seem to be the controlling factor in the release of
these metals. The COD of the IUCS leachates was considerably higher than
that of the SLT procedure R HeO leachates. Perhaps Fe and Cu are corn-
pi exed with organics or are in organic form and are released with the
organic materials.
96
-------
TABLE 22. FOOD GRADE WASTE: DESCRIPTION AND
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Haste Number 5, ECHO, Inc.
Physical Description:
Chemical Analysis:
ECHO
Wisconsin (solid):
Organics:
Trace Metals of Interest
Sample Preparation:
Comments:
Fatty layer floating on water. Fat
layer looks like oily brown corn mush.
pH 8.7, sus. solids 1.3%, Ash 1%, Cd .003 ppm,
Hg 0, pB .001 ppm, Cr .40 ppm, Zn .011 ppm,
Cu .001
20% volatile at 105°C for 24 hours
None specified
None
Solid layer sampled directly
Some leachate absorbed by waste in
procedure C samples.
(continued)
97
-------
TABLE 22 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentration, mg/1
Acid leachates
SLT procedure C, SL
SLT procedure R, SL
Mi nn.
HpO leachates
SLT procedure C
SLT procedure R
IUCS
Minn.
Na
JC
36.5
11.5
1.4
Ma
19.9
5.45
.45
Zn_
147.
26.3
1.8
106.9
24.0
45.
2.4
18.0
5.1
8.5
.39
16.0
5.0
8.
.37
4.9
3.3
3.9
1.0
Release, rhg/kg
Acid leachates
Na
SLT procedure R, SL
Minn.
K.
209.
56.
74.6
18.
Zn_
627.
72.
FLO leachates
SLT procedure R
IUCS
Minn.
319.
234.
96.,
64.
44.
16.
56.8
41.1
15.6
42.
27.8
38.
98
-------
FOOD GRADE WASTE
— PROCEDURE C * SYNTH. LEACH.
•—PROCEDURE R • H£0
PH
7 T-
6--
CONDUCTIVITY, aMHOS/CM
I500T
IOOO--
500--
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 45. pH and specific conductance curves for Food Grade Waste, SLT.
99
-------
FOOD GRADE WASTE
Na a K * CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R ® HO
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
125 T
IOO--
Na RELEASE,2mg/kg
50O-r
400"
300 --
200--
100--
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
40 T
30-
20--
10- •
K RELEASE, mg/kg
320 T
240-
160-
80--
,*•'
-f
I 2 3
ELUT10NS
Figure 46.
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Na and K concentration and release curves for Food Grade
Waste, SLT.
100
-------
FOOD GRADE WASTE
Mg a Zn= CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R
Mg CONCENTRATION,ppm
20-r
15-
10--
* H2°
Mg RELEASE, Smg/kg
80T
60--
40-
20--
&•'
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
150-r
100--
50--
I 2
ELUTIONS
Zn RELEASE, Smg/kg
750-r
500--
25O-- *
s/
\ 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 47. Mg and Zn concentration and release curves for Food Grade
Waste, SLT.
101
-------
FOOD GRADE WASTE
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm COD RELEASE, 2g/kg
8000-r 40-r
6000-
4000--
2000- -
30--
20--
10--
^
4-
^
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
I 2 3
ELUTFONS
Figure 48. COD concentration and release curves for Food Grade Waste,
SLT.
102
-------
FOOD GRADE WASTE TEST COMPARISON
pH, CONDUCTIVITY, Na«. CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT-S.L
V MINN-ACETATE BUFFER
VMINN- H^O
OSLT- H20
DIUCS-H20
pH
7-r
6--
5--
4
CONDUCTIVfTY, ^MHOS/CM
600-r
400--
200--
H \ 1-
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
60-r
4O -
20--
234
ELUTIONS
Na RELEASE, Zmg/kg
450-r
3OO
150
•4 1 1 1
234
ELUTIONS
Figure 49. pH,specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Food Grade Waste, test comparison.
103
-------
FOOD GRADE WASTE TEST COMPARISON
K a Mg: CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S.L.
OSLT - H20
DIUCS- H00
V MINN-ACETATE BUFFER
^ MINN- H00
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
12-r
8-
K RELEASE, Zmg/kg
300T
200-
100--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
I2T
234
ELUTIONS
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
75T
50-
25--
v
\
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 50. K and Mg concentration and release curves for Food Grade
Waste, test comparison.
104
-------
FOOD GRADE WASTE TEST COMPARISON
Ziv CONCENTRATION S RELEASE
A SLT- S.L.
O SLT - HoO V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
niucs-
H20
H20
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
40-r
30--
20--
10--
1234
ELUTIONS
V MINN
H2O
Zn RELEASE, 2mg/kg
800-r
600--
400--
200--
234
ELUTIONS
Figure 51. Zn concentration and release curves for Food Grade Waste,
test comparison.
105
-------
CVK
*- ED
r^
- O
U3
O)
c:
03
O
O)
•o
(C
•»->
o
o
CO
•r-
LL_
CU
CU
oo
O
to
+J
X
Ol
CO
O)
-a
-a
o
o
q-
o
to-
S-'
CT>
O
O
J=
o
co
(C
CD
-a
cu
4->
O
3
S-
o
o
cu
(O
+j
o
CM
LT>
C1J
106
-------
TABLE 23. ADHESIVE WASTE #6: DESCRIPTION AND
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Waste Number 6, ECHO, Inc.
Description:
Pressure sensitive adhesives, will contain tackifiers, NBR, and
SBR cuts in hexane, and some filler, predominately carbonates and metal
oxides. Very sticky, viscous liquid. Difficult to work with or to
clean from glassware or hands.
Chemical Analysis:
ECHO:
Wisconsin:
Organics:
Trace Metals of
Interest:
pH 7.2, suspended solids 0.17%, Cd 0.06 ppm,
Pb 0.54 ppm, Cr 0.13 ppm, Zn 1.21 ppm,
Cu 0.08 ppm
99.7% volatile at 600°C, 34% volatile at 105°C
for 24 hours
Not analyzed. Sample solidified and clogged
soxhlet extractor.
Zn, Pb, Cr
Sample Preparation:
Would not filter, sampled directly.
Comments:
Difficult waste to work with. Glues caps onto bottles, filters onto
filter frits. Glassware was cleaned by burning the waste off glass-
ware at 600°C, then washing.
In procedure C, SLT, some leachate was absorbed by the solid. It
was very difficult to remove all the solids from the test vessel in this
procedure, so old waste was not completely removed before fresh waste was
added.
107
-------
TABLE 23 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentration, mg/1
Acid leachates
SLT proc. C, SL
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn.
Na
K_
2.7
2.5
.99
2.20
.94
.16
Pb
b.d.
b.d.
C_r
b.d.
b.d.
H?0 leachates
SLT proc.
SLT proc.
IUCS
Minn.
C
R
31.1
2.5
2.9
.6
1.0
.35
.16
.05
2.85
.51
.82
.05
Acid leachates
SLT proc. R, SL
Mi nn.
Release, mg/kg
Na_ K,
53.6
39.6
ID.
18.4
6.4
leachates
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
46.8
18.4
25.6
5.7
6.5
2.
5.1
3.3
2.
Pb and Cr below detection.
108
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. 6
' PROCEDURE C A SYN. LEACH.
—- PROCEDURE R «H90
pH
5T
4--
e
CONDUCTIVITY, /iMHOS/CM
400T
300-
200-
100--
ELUTIONS
Figure 53. pH and specific conductance curves for Adhesive Waste #6,
oL I •
109
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. 6
No & K * CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
- PROCEDURE C * SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R
Na CONCENTRATION, ppr
30-r
20--
10--
H20
Na RELEASE, Smg/kg
60-r
40-
20- • •-•
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
I 2
ELUTIONS
K RELEASE, Smg/kg
60T ^"'"
30-•
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 54. Na and K concentration and release curves for Adhesive
Waste #6, SLT.
110
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. 6
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
H2°
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm COD RELEASE, 2g/kg
lOOOOO-r / 400T
75000--
50 000--
25 000- -
300"
200--
100"
2 3
ELUTJONS
2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 55. COD concentration and release curves for Adhesive Waste #6,
SLT. . . . ,
m
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. 6 TEST COMPARISON
pH, CONDUCTIVITY, Na= CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S. L.
O SLT - H20 V MINN- ACETATE BUFFER
D IUCS- H20 V MINN - H 20
pH CONDUCTIVITY, /^MHOS/CM
5.0-r
4.5--
4.0--
100-
50--
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
3-r
•2345
ELUTIONS
Na RELEASE, Zmg/kg
GOT
40-
20--
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 56 pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Adhesive Waste #6, test comparison.
112
-------
ADHESIVE WASTE NO. 6 TEST COMPARISON
K a Zn' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT -S. L.
OSLT - H20 v MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
D IUCS - H20 V MINN - H20
K CONCENTRATION, ppm K RELEASE, Smg/kg
4-r 80-
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
I.OT
0.5--
234
ELUTIONS
Zn RELEASE, 2mg/kg
20T
10- •
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 57. K and Zn concentration and release curves for Adhesive
Waste #6, test comparison,. ,
113
-------
Discussion
SLT—
The waste released very high concentrations of COD. The COD in the
procedure C H?0 leachate in the third elution was over 100,000 mg/1. The
total COD release in procedure R ^ leachates was 360,000 mg/1. These
very high COD values show that a significant portion of the waste is
dissolved in the leaching test. The low conductivity indicates that non-
ionic species are being dissolved. No metals of interest were leached.
Test Comparison—
pH data for the
acidic components.
leachates indicate the slow release of slightly
No metals of interest were leached in any of the tests,
114
-------
TABLE 24. PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY WATER-OIL SLUDGE:
DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
(Petrochemical Sludge)
Waste Number 7, ECHO., Inc.
Description:
A black, goopey sludge.
Analysis:
ECHO, Inc.
Wisconsin:
Organics:
Trace metals of
interest:
flash point > 150°F, Ash 0.20%, B.T.U.-
19,350 BTU/lb, Zn- 187 mg/1, Cu - 39.0 mg/1
Pb - 23.2 mg/1 , Cr - 2.38 mg/1 , Cd - 0.60 mg/1
Waste contains 3 fractions: an oil layer,
a water layer and solids. Dry solids are
11% by weight. Liquid, 42% H20 by volume;
58% oil by volume. Solids are 51.3%
volatile.
Hexadecane
Cu, Pb, Zn
, napthalene
Sample Preparation:
Sludge stirred vigorously prior to sampling. Centrifuged to separate
solids. Liquid layers after centrifuge were filtered separately but con-
tained no solids.
(continued)
115
-------
TABLE 24 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Acid Leachates Na_
SLT Proc C, SL
SLT Proc R, SL
Minn
H£O Leachates
SLT Proc C 62
SLT Proc R 20.5
IUCS 144
Minn 4.2
Acid Leachates
SLT Proc. R, SL
Minn
H00 Leachates
2
SLT Proc R 327
IUCS 780
Minn 168
Concentration mg/1
K.- M£L . Zn, Pb Cu*
10 360 5.0 .73 b.d.
3.5 128 7,0 ,98 b.d.
2.9 22 1.5 .80 b.d,
4.9 53 .15 .25 b.d.
.4 17,2 0 .19 b.d.
2.3 26 0 0 b,d.
.2 4.7 0 .30 b,d.
Release mg/kg
•75 1770 173 24.3 b.d.
88 880 60 32 b.d.
6.2 279 0 1.9 b.d.
14.4 238 0 " 0 b.d.
6 188 0 12 b.d.
*Below detection limits.
116
-------
PETROCHEMICAL SLUDGE
PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R
H20
CONDUCTIVITY, /iMHOS/CM
2000-r
1600--
1200-
800- -
400--
"fcx--.-.-
2
ELUTIONS
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 58, pH and specific conductance curves for Petrochemical
Sludge, SLT,
117
-------
PETROCHEMICAL SLUDGE
No a K * CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
Na CONCENTRATION,ppm
80-r
60--
& SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
* H2°
Na RELEASE, Smg/kg
400-r
300
200--
100-
e
X
X X
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
ELUTIONS
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
LOOT
75--
50-
25-
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 59.
Na and K concentration and release curves for Petrochemical
Sludge, SLT.
118
-------
PETROCHEMICAL SLUDGE
Mg a Zn« CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
- PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R
© H20
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
400-r 2000 T
300--
200--
100-
1500--
1000- •
500--
X S
X X
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
8 -r
Zn RELEASE, 2mg/kg
200 T
150--
I50--
50--
,4'
ELUTIONS
2
ELUTIONS
Figure 60. Mg and Zn concentration aid release curves for Petrochemical
Sludge, SLT.
119
-------
PETROCHEMICAL SLUDGE
Pb CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C © H20
PROCEDURE R A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
Pb CONCENTRATION, ppm
I.O-r • 2°T
0.5--
DETECTION LIMIT
^
2 3
ELUT10NS
• I I* I I II— I I W »__ C_«—*^->« •«-• I ft.
Pb RELEASE,Smg/kgxxx
10--
ELUTIONS
COD CONCENTRATION,ppm
400-r
300--
200--
100--
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
COD RELEASE, 2g/kg
4-r
3-
2-
/
//
//
2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 61. Pb and COD concentration and release curves for Petrochemical
Sludge, SLT.
120
-------
PETROCHEMICAL SLUDGE TEST COMPARISON
pH, CONDUCTIVITY, Na= CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT - S.L
OSLT - H20
niucs- H2o
VMINN- ACETATE BUFFER
¥M!NN- H20
CONDUCTIVITY, /^MHOS/CM
1500-r
1000
500--
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
KX)T
75-
50--
25--
Na RELEASE, Zmg/kg
I600T
I200--
800--
400--
2345
ELUTIONS
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 62. pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration afid release
curves for Petrochemical Sludge, test comparison.
121
-------
PETROCHEMICAL SLUDGE TEST COMPARISON
K a Mg = CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT- S.L.
OSLT- H20
DIUCS-H20
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
VMINN- ACETATE BUFFER
VMINN- H20
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
120-r
80--
40--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
!60T
120--
Mg RELEASE, Smg/kg
12345
ELUTIONS
1500-1
1000-
500
4-
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 63. K and Mg concentration and release curves for Petrochemical
Sludge, test comparison.
122
-------
PETROCHEMICAL SLUDGE TEST COMPARISONS
Zn a Pb' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT- S.L.
O SLT - H2O V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
DIUCS-H20 VMINN-H20
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm Zn RELEASE, 2mg/kg
12-r 180-r
8--
4 - -
V
HH—S-
ft
120--
60-- v
Pb CONCENTRATION, ppm
1.5-r
I.O--
O.5--
DETECJI_ON_
LIMIT
H 1 1 1 1
12345
ELUTIONS
Pb RELEASE, Smg/kg
30--
15--
o
h
I 2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 64. Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for Petrochemical
Sludge, test comparison.
123
-------
I—
~
g
t-i
LU
5
en
(K
Hi
a.
UJ
tn
r.i o
ZD CD
_ i ct:
O
Q-:
LU
tr
tv
3
to
QJ
t/5
O
to
s~
+J
X
a>
OJ
c
(O
X
0)
a>
•a
3
OO
(C
O
•r—
(O O
p-• i ^
O (O
"~ o
a)
fO
o
T3
rtS
to
S- rO
O O5
M-
•a
•* O)
I— -p
o
3
S-
-a
^ c
ca.
10
S-
3
CO
124
-------
TABLE 25. GRAIN PROCESSING LIPIDS AND FATS WASTE:
DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Waste Number 8, ECHO. Inc.
Description:
Analysis:
ECHO:
Wisconsin:
Organics:
Trace Metals of
Interest:
Sample Preparation:
Solid, hard fat
pH - 7.8, suspended solids - 18.75%, As.h-11.4%
Zn - 11.4 mg/1, Cu - 0.40 mg/1, Pb - .,01 mg/1,
Cr - 1.3 mg/1, Cd - 0.3 mg/1
52% volatile at T05°C for 24 hours
Not analyzed
Zn, Cr
Sampled directly
(continued)
125
-------
TABLE 25 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Acid leachates
SLT proc. C, SL
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn.
Concentration, mg/1
Na K MS.
12.5
11.0
1.1
95.
28.
8.7
2.3
2.2
.74
.4
.4
.5
HpO leachat.es
SLT proc.
SLT proc.
IUCS
Minn.
C
R
6.2
2.9
24.5
1.4
4.5
7.1
1.5
.15
5.0
1.1
14.5
.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2
Acid leachates
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn.
Release, mg/kg
137.
44.
570.
348.
49.
30.
9.
18.
H«0 leachates
SLT proc.
IUCS
Minn.
R
60.
163.
56.
78.
11.9
6.
30.5
165.
15.
0
0
0
0
0
0
*Cr below detection.
126
-------
pH
8r
7--
6--
5--
GRAIN PROCESSING LIPIDS a FATS
• PROCEDURE C ASYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R «H20
CONDUCTIVITY, »MHOS/CM
r ^_ 1000-r
750--
500--
250--
2
ELUTIONS
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 66.
pH and specific conductance curves for Grain Processing
Lipids and Fats, SLT.
127
-------
GRAIN PROCESSING LIPIDS a FATS
Na & K « CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C * SYNTHETIC LEACH ATE
• H20
PROCEDURE R
Na CONCENTRATION, 0ppm Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
6-r
4-
2--
60-r
40-
20--
x
x
x
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
15-r
10-
K RELEASE, Smg /kg
I 2
ELUTIONS
100-
50--
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 67. Na and K concentration and release curves for Grain
Processing Lipids and Fats, SLT.
128
-------
GRAIN PROCESSING LIP1DS a FATS
Mg a Zn ' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURER
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
100-r
75--
50--
25--
H20
Mg RELEASE, Smg/kg
800r
600--
400--
200--
f -r
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
3-r
I 2
ELUTiONS
Zn RELEASE, Zmg/kg
75-r
50--
25--
2
ELUTIONS
Figure 68. Mg and Zn concentration and release curves for Grain
Processing Lipids and Fats, SLT.
129
-------
GRAIN PROCESSING LIPIDS a FATS
PROCEDURE C ft H o
PROCEDURE R 2
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm COD RELEASE,
3000T
2000- -
1000- -
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
I5T
10+
5--
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 69. COD concentration and release curves for Grain Processing
Lipids and Fats, SLT.
130
-------
GRAIN PROCESSING LIPIDS a FATS TEST COMPARISON
pH, CONDUCTIVITY, Ncr CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
pH
A SIT- S.L.
OSLT - H20
DIUCS- H20
10
8-
^,
ACETATE BUFFER
H20
VM1NN-
¥ MINN
CONDUCTIVITY, /iMHOS/CM
600T
400--
200--
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
40T 4OOT
300--
200--
100--
H h
12345
ELUTIONS
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 7Q. pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Grain Processing Lipids and Fats, test comparison,
131
-------
GRAIN PROCESSING LIPIDS a FATS TEST COMPARISON
K a Mg: CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT- S.L.
O SLT - H20 V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
DIUCS-H20 VMINN-H20
K CONCENTRATION, ppm K RELEASE, Smg/kg
15 T 150-r
10"
5--
100--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
30-r
20--
10--
12345
ELUTIONS
Mg RELEASE, Zmg/kg
600-r
400--
200--
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 71.
K and Mg concentration and release curves for Grain Process-
ing Lipids and Fats, test comparison.
132
-------
GRAIN PROCESSING LIPIDS a FATS TEST COMPARISON
Zn a Pb' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S. L.
O SLT - H20
D IUCS- H20
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
V MINN- H20
3-r
2 -
Zn RELEASE, Zmg/kg
60-r
40--
m
Pb CONCENTRATION, ppm
.0-r
0.5--
DETECTION
LIMIT
12345
ELUTIONS
Pb RELEASE, Smg/kg
v
10+
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 72. Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for Grain Process-
ing Lipids and Fats, test comparison.
133
-------
TABLE 26. FOOD INDUSTRY CLAY WASTE:
DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Haste Number 9, ECHO. Inc.
Description:
Clay-like suspension in water
Analysis:
ECHO:
Wisconsin:
Organ ics:
pH - 6.6, Ash < 1%, Zn - .011 mg/1 , Pb - .001 mg/1,
Cr - .02 mg/1, Cu - .001 mg/1, Cd - .003 mg/1
(solids) 37,1% volatile at 103°C
dodecane (C12H26), tridecane (C-,3H38),
tetradecane (CH)
Metals of Interest:
Sample Preparation:
None
Solids settled; liquid decanted, centrifuged
and filtered. Centrifuged, filtered solids
returned to those left behind in the decant-
ing and stirred thoroughly. Sampled.
(continued)
134
-------
TABLE 26 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentration, mg/1: , , ,•
Acid
H20
Acid
H20
leachates
SLT proc. C, SL
SLT proc. R, SL
Mi nn .
leachates
SLT proc. C
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
leachates
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn.
leachates
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
Na. K_
12
6
2.
22 2.
5.7
15 4.
2
Release,
94
104
116 12
124 29
80 13
Mg_
27
22
6 57
7 9.0
8 2.8
6 5.1
3 .7
mg/kg
570
2280
41
49
29
Zn_
1.8
2.0
1.5
0
0
0
0
51
60
0
0
0
Pb_
.95
3.8
6.5
0
0
0
0
56
260
COD
0
0
0
340
190
128
4
3340
1800
160
135
-------
FOOD WASTES, CLAY
PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACH ATE
PROCEDURE R
pH
8-r
7-
6--
5--
H2°
I 2
ELUTIONS
CONDUCTIVITY, /zMHOS/CM
800 T
600-
400--
200--
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 73. pH and specific conductance curves for Food Wastes, Clay,
SLT.
136
-------
FOOD WASTE, CLAY
Na, K, MQ « CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
- PROCEDURE C
--- PROCEDURE R
YNTHETIC LEACHATE
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
30T
20
10--
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
15 T
10- •
5--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
30-r
20--
* H2°
Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
I50T
IOO--
50--
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
150-
100-
50--
RELEASE, 2mg/kg
6OO-r
400
200--
-I
123 123
ELUTIONS ELUTIONS
Figure 74. Na, K, and Mg concentration and release curves for
Food Wastes, Clay, SLT.
137
-------
FOOD WASTES, CLAY
Zn a Pb' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACH ATE
PROCEDURE R « H90
Zn CONCENTRATION.ppm
3 *"
Zn RELEASE, Img/kg
60T
40
20--
Pb CONCENTRATION, ppm
£51~
4* -
\
1 2 3
ELUTIONS
Pb RELEASE, Smg/kg
60r
40--
20--
2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 75. Zn and Pb concentration and release curves for Food
Wastes, Clay, SLT.
138
-------
FOOD WASTES, CLAY
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm ^* COD RELEASE, 2mg/kg
300T
200--
100--
3000-r
2000--
1000- -
I 2 3
ELUTIONS
I 23
ELUTIONS
Figure 76. COD concentration and release curves for Food Wastes,
Clay, SLT.
139
-------
FOOD INDUSTRY-CLAY WASTE TEST COMPARISON
pH, CONDUCTIVITY, Na = CONCENTRATION ft RELEASE
A SLT - S.U
OSLT-H20 V MINN-ACETATE BUFFER
DIUCS-HgO VMINN-H20
pH CONDUCTIVITY, ^MHOS / CM
I20C-T
8-r
6--
800-•
400--
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
20-r
I5--
10--
6--
2345
ELUTIONS
Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
160-r
I20--
80--
40 -
H H
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 77.
pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Food Wastes, Clay, test comparison.
HO
-------
FOOD INDUSTRY-CLAY WASTE TEST COMPARISON
K a Mg-« CONCENTRATION S RELEASE
A SLT - S.L.
OSLT - H20 V MINN- ACETATE BUFFER
DIUCS-H20 V MINN-H20
K CONCENTRATION, ppm K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
61-4 H I20r
80--
40-|- n 0—*-P
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
60T
40 -
20--
12345
ELUTIONS
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
9bO-r
i 2280
v
600--
300- •
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 78, K and Mg concentration and release curves for Food Wastes,
Clay, SLT.
141
-------
FOOD INDUSTRY - CLAY WASTE TEST COMPARISON
Zn, Pb a COD= CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S.L.
O SLT - H20 V MINN- ACETATE BUFFER
DIUCS- H20
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
p
Zn RELEASE, Smg/kg
60T v
30-
m
Pb CONCENTRATION, ppm Pb RELEASE, Smg/kg
300 T
S7
V
150-
COD CONCENTRATION,ppm COD RELEASE, ^P 2mg/kg
200T - 3000-r
IOO--
Figure 79.
1500--
-I 1 1
1234
ELUTIONS
I 2345
ELUTIONS
Zn, Pb, and COD concentration and release curves for Food
Wastes, Clay, test comparison.
142
-------
JT
ft- o
i,
f
(
\
2
4
1
\
/
i
)
{
?
\
* -2
/
i
>
s 1
Jo J
cc S,
=z f
1
>- X
en *
— j f
0 /
» •wssri"*""
^ ~7
C£ 0 ^
*••- ta «— "*•
23 a: "-^?
7j f— f p-j „, ^jtfn^™"^".!^— «--w-"**tf" '
g H- ~~^p
•"^J1 - __,. ,.m^.-l™*nJS
•*J*« ***sr-S;5.7,«^
'""^ CM »««*rf>te
T "^~" E3 «~~— ™ ».„ «™^r ,1.^
•
c
ro
O
QJ
-o
(8
OJ
-(_>
B
00
O)
c:
03
O
O)
•o
si
p{— 3
.
CM
c:
o
OJ
-a
o
-a
w
r—
Z3
to
CO
S-
co
s:
i
C_5
CD
r— •
03
O
4*^
-m
•a
03
s-
o
4-
.^
-E
n
03
O
V)
Qi
(/)
03
-o
O
O
U_
s_
o
£
03
O
03
Q
O
to
03
CO
-a
a)
o
H5
S-
to
o
o
CD
c:
o
03
O
0
CO
=5
CO
143
-------
TABLE 27. MARBLE WASH: DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Haste Number 10. ECHQ^Jnc.
Description:
Analysis:
ECHO:
Wisconsin:
Organics:
Trace Metals of
Interest:
Sample Preparation:
Suspension
Unavailable.
Tetradecane (C-,4H30), hexadecane
Octadecane (C-igHog)-
Unavailable.
Similar to food industry, clay waste. Solids were allowed to
settle. The liquid was decanted, centrifuged and filtered, and the
solids removed from the decanted liquid and mixed thoroughly with the
original solids. The solids were then sampled directly.
(continued)
144
-------
TABLE 27 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Acid leachates
SLT proc. C, SL
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn.
FLO leachates
SLT proc. C.
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
Concentration, mg/1
20.0
10.0
1.1
24.0
8.9
22.5
3.1
4.4
1.7
3.9
0.6
Mg_
109
60
77
21
10.0
.47
1,8
Pb.
.60
.63
3.5
0
0
0
0
COD
142
128
116
72
Acid leachates
SLT proc. R. SL
Minn.
HpO leachates
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
127
301
124
Release, mg/kg
196
44
37
45
26
1105
3080
192
6.4
72
16.6
140
0
0
0
2230
1576
2880
145
-------
MARBLE WASH
-PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R
pH
8-r
7-
fi- •
• H20
CONDUCTIVITY, /iMHOS/ CM
300T
200--
100--
No CONCENTRATION, ppm
30T
20-
10--
I 2
ELUTIONS
Na RELEASE, Smg/kg
I50T
100- -
50--
•4-
I 2
ELUTIONS
Figure 81. pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Marble Wash, SLT.
146
-------
MARBLE WASTE
K, Mg, Pb' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
e H20
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
200T .' ' ' • .-
IOO--
PROCEDURE R
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
20T
10--
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
150-r
100--
5O--
Mg RELEASE, Smg/kg
1500-r
1000--
---dt-—^^
Pb CONCENTRATlON.ppm
I.O-r
2 3
ELUTIONS
Pb RELEASE, Smg/kg.
20
ELUTIONS
Figure 82. K, Mg, and Pb concentration and release curves for Marble
Wash, SLT.
147
-------
MARBLE WASH
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm
l5O-r
100
50-•
©H20
COD RELEASE, 2g/kg
ELUTIONS
I 2. 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 83. COD concentration and release curves for Marble Wash, SLT.
148
-------
MARBLE WASH TEST COMPARISON
pH, CONDUCTIVITY, Na= CONCENTRATION 6 RELEASE
pH
10-r
8--
6 —
A SLT-
O SLT -
S.L.
H20
D IUCS- H20
V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
VMINN- H20
CONDUCTIVITY, ^MHOS/CM
600-r
400-•
200--
No CONCENTRATION, ppm
SOT-
12345
ELUTIONS
Na RELEASE, 2mg/kg
300-r
2OO--
100--
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 84.
pH, specific conductance, and Na concentration and release
curves for Marble Wash, test comparison.
149
-------
MARBLE WASH TEST COMPARISON
K & Mg: CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S. L.
O SLT - H20 V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
DIUCS - H20 T MINN - H20
K CONCENTRATION, ppm _A RELEASE, Smg/kg
I2T
8--
300-1
200-
100- •
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
80T „
6O-
40--
20--
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
4000-r
3OOO-
2000
1000--
-
-------
MARBLE WASH TEST COMPARISON
Pb a COD • CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT - S.L.
V MINN-ACETATE BUFFER
VMINN-H2O
Pb RELEASE, 2mg/kg
200-r
100- -
OSLT -H20
niucs-H2o
Pb CONCENTRATION.ppm
4-r
2- -
&
-* 4
COD CONCENTRATION.ppm COD RELEASE, Smg/kg
I50r 3000r _
IOO--
50--
1234
ELUTIONS
2000- -
1000- •
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 86. Pb and COD concentration and release curves for Marble Wash,
test comparison.
151
-------
E3
.to
ED
£3
•8
o
X
•r™
U-
152
-------
TABLE 28. COPPER OXIDE-SODIUM SULFATE SLUDGE (CuO-Na2S04 WASTE)
DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Waste Number 11, Chem-Trol
Description:
Analysis:
Chem-Trol:
Sample Preparation:
Generated by large chemical manufacturer.
Black, low viscosity liquid containing both
fine particulates and large (soft-ball size)
translucent crystals. Large crystals had
apparently precipitated during shipment, as
analysis by Chem-Trol did not mention them.
Less than 5% solids, sp. gr. 1.28, pH 10.4, phenol
20 ppm, total carbon 200 ppm; total inorganic
carbon 50 ppm, Cu 9 ppm.
Liquid decanted and filtered. Solids returned to sample pail
These were stirred to get as homogeneous a sample as possible A sub-
andPiL??P nSff ^V largS b!a?er' then the S"bsanPle ground in mortar
flltSSrf aS il the.!;r9e crystals were broken up. This mixture was
filtered, and the solid portion used for analysis.
(continued)
153
-------
TABLE 28 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentration, mg/1
Acid leachates Na
t
SLT proc. C, SL
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn.
HgO leachates
SLT proc. C 42000
SLT proc. R 9740
IUCS 23000
Minn. 4970
K_
32.4
5.2
4.4
39
4.30
24
3.5
3281
1970
380
153
132
6.4
12
2916
3120
1450
ZL
7.65
6.84
3.7
0.57 .20
0.38 0
0.27 .12
.18 0
Fe
120
1.55
.1
.31
.18
Acid leachates
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn
Release, mg/kg
171 4.32xl04 1.04xl05 155
185 1.53x104 7.42xl04 155
5.1x10^
O leachates
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn
2.20x10° 90 6734
1.70x105 140 104
2.07x105 150 616
6.9 .6
2.0 .7
13.6 2
3.8
2.2
18
Note that the Na and the Cu and Mg concentration and release
test comparison curves were presented earlier as Figures 4 and 1, respec-
tively.
154
-------
pH
H.OT
10.0
9.0--
8.0--
7.0-
6.0-•
5.0-
COPPER OXIDE- SODIUM SULFATE SLUDGE
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE © H£0
4.0
.- A---A
2345
ELUTIONS
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
REDOX, mV
200
150-•
IOO--
50--
O--
+ 50
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 88. pH and redox curves for CuO-Na^SO,, Sludge, SLT.
155
-------
COPPER OXIDE-SODIUM SULFATE SLUDGE
No CONCENTRATION
ppm MOLAR
50,000
40,000-
30,000-
PROCEDURE C
ppm
IO,000T
500--
5,000--
2,500--
PROCEDURE R
2 3
ELUTiONS
Figure 89. Na concentration curves for CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, SLT.
156
-------
COPPER OXIDE-SODIUM SULFATE SLUDGE
Nd CUMULATIVE RELEASE
2g/kg PROCEDURE C
225-r
200--
I75--
I50--
I25--
100-
75-
50-
15-
•- PROCEDURE R
3 4
ELUTIONS
Figure 90. Na release curves for CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, SLT.
157
-------
COPPER OXIDE-SODIUM SULFATE SLUDGE
K CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SYNTHETIC LEACH ATE ® HgO
PROCEDURE C
CONCENTRATION, ppm
RELEASE, Smg/kg
150-r
125-
100 •-
75--
PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm
4--
RELEASE, Zmg/kg
50--
2345
ELUTIONS
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 91
K concentration and release curves for CuO-Na2$04 Sludge.
SLT.
158
-------
COPPER OXIDE - SODIUM SULFATE SLUDGE
Mg CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE © HgO
PROCEDURE C
CONCENTRATION, pprn RELEASE, Sg/kg
4OOO-r
3000
2000--
IOOO--
40-r
30"
20--
10--
PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm
2500T
2000--
I50O--
1000--
500
RELEASE, 2g/kg
50-r
10
Figure 92.
12345
ELUTIONS
Mg concentration and release curves for CuO-Na0SO,, Sludge.
SLT. 2 4 y
2345
ELUTIONS
159
-------
COPPER OXIDE - SODIUM SULFATE SLUDGE
Cu CONCENTRATION & RELEASE
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE »HgO
PROCEDURE C
CONCENTRATION,ppm RELEASE, 2g/kg
3,000-r - 60-
2,000--
1,000--
40--
20--
PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE, 2g/kg
125 T
100-
I 2345
ELUTIONS
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 93. Cu concentration and release curves for CuO-Na2$04
Sludge, SLT.
160
-------
CuO-Nd2S04 SLUDGE' TEST COMPARISON
A SLT - S.L.
V MINN- ACETATE
•* MINN-H20BUFFER
D IUCS-H20 A REAL LEACHATE
O SLT- H20
2 3 A . .
ELUTIONS
Figure 94. pH curves for CuO-Na2S04 Sludge, test comparison.
161
-------
CuO-Na2S04 SLUDGD TEST COMPARISON
ASLT-s L
niucs- H2o
VMINN- ACETATE BUFFER
Zn CONCENTRATION,ppm Zn RELEASE, 2mg/kg
8-r 200-r
OSLT-H20
2345
ELUTIONS
150-
100-
50--
2345
ELUTIONS
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
30-r
2345
ELUTIONS
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
300 r
200--
100
-\ 1
234
ELUTIONS
Figure 95. Zn and K concentration and release curves for CuO-Na2S04
Sludge, test comparison.
162
-------
Discussion
SLT—
This was the most interesting and informative of the wastes.
si on of each parameter of interest will be done separately.
Discus-
pH—Distilled water leachates show that the waste is basic, buffer-
ing solutions at a pH between 9.9 and 10.7. SL procedure C leachates
show the strong basic nature of the waste. By the fourth elution, the
pH in the SL leachate was equal to that in the t^O leachates. Procedure
R SL samples show that the basic salt is removed by the third elution.
Na— The Na concentration curves in the procedure C and R ^0 leach-
ates are characteristic of a .very soluble parameter. Na concentration
in the procedure C f^O leachate rises and is almost a straight line,
reaching over 40,000 mg/1 (almost 2M) by the fourth elution. Procedure R
curves show a first elution maximum with much lower values thereafter.
There is no hint of a concentration plateau in the procedure C leachates,
so even after four elutions the maximum concentration cannot be estimated
from the procedure C data.
K--K curves are interesting in that they are similar to the Na curves
but at much lower concentrations. Whereas the Na concentration in the
first elution leachates is about 10,000 mg/1, K concentration is only
5 mg/1.
Cu--Cu leaching curves show the effect pH can have on the release
of trace metals. In the first elution, Cu concentration in SL leachates
was approximately 3,000 mg/1, while in the H20 leachates, it was only
0.5 mg/1. Procedure R SL samples continue to extract high concentrations
of Cu until all available Cu is extracted, while the distilled water
leachates1 Cu concentrations remain near the detection limit. After
five elutions, SL leachates had extracted v ver 100 g/kg Cu, while the
H20 leachates extracted only 3 mg/kg. The major reason for the
different leaching behavior of the SL and H20 leachates is explained
by a pH versus Cu concentration phase diagram, as shown in Figure 96.
Cu solubility increases rapidly with decreasing pH below pH 9. From the
diagram, one would expect a Cu concentration in solution at pH 4.5 to
be about four orders of magnitude (10,000 times) higher than the concen-
tration at pH 10.4, assuming no complexing agents are present other than
hydroxide. Also plotted in Figure 96 are the Cu concentrations found in
the test leachates. The points are generally close to the CuO-Cu++ lines,
163
-------
A SLT, SL, PROC R
O SLT, H O, PROC R
O IUCS, H O
^ MINN, ACET.
V MINN, H O
ARLT
Figure 96. pH vs. Cu concentration solubility diagram for Cu and CuO
system.
(Cu concentrations in leachates from CuO-Na2$04 Sludge, using
various leaching tests are also plotted.)
*Detection limit using Atomic Absorption spectrometer.
164
-------
indicating that pH is probably th.e major controlling factor for Cu concen-
tration. The seemingly oversaturated conditions found in th.e SL and real
leachates samples probably show the effect of complexing in solubilizing Cu.
Falling Cu concentrations in procedure C SL samples indicate that
Cu is being lost from solution in each elution after the first. The
rising pH of these leachates explains the loss of Cu from solution.
Apparently, however, the strong complexing capacity of SL maintains Cu
concentrations well above that predicted from pH considerations alone.
Mg—The procedure C SL Mg curve also shows a pH effect, with a fall in
Mg concentration as the pH rises. The procedure R SL curve shows almost
complete extraction of Teachable Mg on the first elution with low con-
centrations thereafter. Mg concentrations in first elution SL samples
in procedures C and R do not duplicate well. Concentrations range from
750 to 2500 mg/1 in the three replicates. This range is far beyond usual
Mg deviations (~10% standard deviation). Whether the lack of duplication
was caused by subsampling differences or by changes in the SL causing
changes in the Mg concentration is unknown.
There is an interesting rise in Mg concentration in 1^0 leachates
in both procedures C and R samples to around 100 mg/1. Why Mg should
elute in later elutions and not in the initial elutions is not known.
Summary—The waste is a mixture of basic salts of Cu, Mg, and Na, Cu and
Mg are leached in high concentrations by acid media, but not by HgO
leachates. In the acid environment of a municipal landfill, this waste
would probably release .significant amounts of Cu to the surrounding
environment. This release is foreseen in the acid media but is completely
missed by the H20 leachates. The differences in the Cu concentrations
are so large that one could not predict the Cu concentrations possible
under acid conditions,from the ^0 leachates alone. The HeQ.leachates,
on the other hand, show that the waste will not leach high concentrations
of Cu unless subjected,to acid or strongly complexing conditions. Both
acid and HgO leachates are needed to obtain a clear picture of the leach-
ing characteristics of the waste.
The high releases from the waste indicate that most of the waste is
dissolving in the acid leachates. Assuming that Na is present in the
waste as Na2S04 and is leached equally well under H20 and acid conditions,
and that Cu and Mg are present as CuO and MgS04, respectively, the per-
•centage of waste dissolved can be calculated from the release figures.
For SL samples, the calculated percentages are around 100% (98.4% for one
duplicate, 105.3% for the other). Whether or not the assumptions regard-
ing the waste composition are correct, it is obvious from the calculations
that a urge portion of the waste is dissolved in SL.
165
-------
It would be surprising if large quantities of this waste were
actually landfilled. With large amounts of Cu easily extractable
from the waste, it is a prime candidate for Cu recovery.
Test Comparison —
The test comparison data show the same general trends as the SLT
data discussed previously, namely, high Na release in H20 leachates
and high Mg and Cu releases in acid leachates.
There is an interesting difference between the Na release patterns
in the IUCS and SLT procedure R ^0 leachates (Figure 4). Na concentra-
tion in the SLT procedure R h^O leachate drops from an initial high
(10,000 mg/1) in the first elution to steady values of around 1000 mg/1
in subsequent elutions. The IUCS leachate Na concentrations, on the
other hand, fell steadily for four elutions. When transformed into
release, these concentrations and the different solid-liquid ratios
indicate a release in the first elution of the SLT comparable to the
cumulative release attained with the IUCS test after five elutions,
both on a grams Na released per kg waste basis. In other words, the
SLT leached in one day more than the IUCS test leached in 10 days.
Further, the SLT continued to leach more Na in three of the four elu-
tions performed beyond the first; whereas the IUCS leached very little
additional Na in the third, fourth, or- fifth elutions. The test
results indicate that the. Na is present as a very soluble and rapidly
leached salt (probably NagStty, given the name of the waste). One pos-
sible explanation of the slower release of Na in the IUCS test is that
the agitation procedure in the IUCS test does not mix the waste and
leachate as thoroughly as the agitation procedure in the SLT, thus
delaying release of the Na. In the IUCS test, the waste lies on the
bottom of the flask while the leachate is sloshed back and forth on
top of the waste. The SLT agitation procedure gently tumbles the waste
as the flask is turned through a verticle circle. Anyone who has tried
to dissolve a large amount of salt in a volumetric flask can attest to
the fact that just swirling the flask is not as effective at dissolving
the salt as tilting it back and forth. The same situation may be pre-
sent here.
Cu concentrations in the RLT demonstrated that municipal landfill
leachate was able to solubilize significant amounts of Cu. The concen-
trations in the RLT leachates were not as high as those in the acid
leachates, but the pH of the RLT leachates was higher than that in the
acid leachates. The very large difference in Cu concentrations between
acid and H?0 leachates observed in the SLT was also seen in the other
test leachates. The acetate buffer contained very high concentrations
of Cu (-1500 mg/1), while h^O leachates were less than 0.5 mg/1.
166
-------
TABLE 29. ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE (EPS):
DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Waste Number 12, Obtained Locally
Description:
Two jars of the sludge were obtained. One had red spots on the
outside, the other was black. Both had very little free liquid. Sludge
was not homogeneous, but rather had pockets of a clay-like material dis-
tributed throughout.
Analysis:
pH (of free liquid) 8.40; 72% volatile at 105°C for 24 hours.
Sample Preparation:
Liquid removed by filtration through a Whattman 42 filter, then
through a 0.45 micron filter. Sample homogenized by gentle grinding
with mortar and pestle.
(continued)
167
-------
TABLE 29 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentration, mg/1
Acid leachates
SLT proc. C, SL
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn.
H20 leachates
SLT proc. C
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
Na,
167
79
92
29.8
K.
69.9
42.3
21.5
43.3
16.6
22
6.3
Mg_
532
343
125
190
83.4
28
8.3
Zn_
45
160
210
0
0
0
0
£4.
7,50
19.9
7.4
0
0
0
0
Acid leachates
Release mg/kg
SLT proc. R, SL
Minn.
tLO leachates
SLT proc. R
IUCS
Minn.
1081
593
1420
914
1014
251
160
336
6542
5400
1428
346
508
6570
9540
0
0
0
943
344
0
0
0
168
-------
ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE
pH a CONDUCTIVITY
SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
—PROCEDUREC
-PROCEDURE R
-'•—PROCEDURE R, 'B1
'A1 CONDUCTIVITY, ju.MHOS /CM x I03
3.0T
23456
ELUTIONS
2.0-•
1.0- •
2 3
ELUTIONS
Figure 97. pH and specific conductance curves for Electroplating
Sludge, SLT.
169
-------
ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE
Ma a K « CONCENTRATION & RELEASE
] *
PROCEDURE R, 'B1
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm
200-r
150-
100-
50--
I
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
80-r
60-
40- - ^
20--
23456
ELUT10NS
*
® M2U
Na RELEASE, 2g/kg
4-r
2-
K RELEASE,2g/kg
/
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 98.
Na and K concentration and-release curves for Electroplating
Sludge, SLT.
170
-------
ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE
Mg a Ziv CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C] , ,
PROCEDURE RJ A
PROCEDURE R, 'B1
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
750-r
500- •
250-f
SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
H20
Mg RELEASE, 2g/kg
7.5-r
5.0
2.5-1-
v
- Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
Zn RELEASE, 2g/kg
C.W
150-
100-
5O-
«-
6-
f'' ^ 4-
/ ^A
/ S"-^-*"'
' & / 2"
$ f==$_ fe A A
1
/^ /
»"'' 1 1 1 1 J
I 23456
ELUTIONS
23456
ELUTIONS
Figure 99. Mg and Zn concentration and release curves for Electro-
plating Sludge, SLT.
171
-------
ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE
Pb a Cd» CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
C
R
'A1
PROCEDURE R, 'B1
Pb CONCENTRATION, ppm
1.5-r
I.O--
0.5--
DETECTION LIMIT
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
® H20
Pb RELEASE.Smg/kg
75-r
50-
25-
_l 1 1 1 1
Cd CONCENTRATION,ppm
20-r
15-
10-
Cd RELEASE, 2g/kg
1.0-r
0.75-
O.5--
0.25--
/
4 H
1 — 1
I 23456
ELUTIONS
23456
ELUTIONS
Figure 100. Pb and Cd concentration and release curves for Electro-
plating Sludge, SLT.
172
-------
ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE A' TEST COMPARISON
A SLT-S.L.
o SLT-H20
D IUCS-H20
V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
T MINN - H20
A REAL LEACHATE
Na CONCENTRATION, ppm Na RELEASE, Smg/kg
IOOT 1600-r
I2OO- -
800--
400- •
12345
ELUTIONS
-I \ 1
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 101. pH and Na concentration and release curves for Electro-
plating Sludge, test comparison.
173
-------
ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE A' TEST COMPARISON
K a Mg ' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SLT - S L. V MINN - ACETATE BUFFER
O SLT- H20 * MINN-H20
D IUCS-H20 A REAL LEACHATE
K CONCENTRATION, ppm K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
40-
30-
20--
10--
1600-
1200-
800--
400-
-A-
Mg CONCENTRATION,ppm
400-r
300-
200--
100--
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/ kg
2345
ELUTIONS
234
ELUTIONS
Figure 102.
K and Mg concentration and release curves for Electro-
plating Sludge, test comparison.
174
-------
V MINN- H20
V MINN-ACETATE BUFFER
ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE A = TEST COMPARISON
Zn a Cd = CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
ASLT- S.L.
O SLT - HO
D IUCS - H20 A REAL LEACHATE
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm Zn RELEASE, 2g/kg
200-r X 12-r
100--
0--
-100
4—4-
Cd CONCENTRATION, ppm Cd RELEASE, Smg/kg
20-r ^ IOOOT
15--
10--
5--
a
12345
ELUTIONS
750
500- •
250- •
I 23456
ELUTIONS
Figure 103. Zn and Cd concentration and release curves for Electro-
plating Sludge, test comparison.
175
-------
Discussion
Two samples of the sludge (A and B) were used. At testing time it
was not knowK whether the samples were duplicates so both were run using
procedure R. Sample A was run with procedure C. Later it was determined
that the samples were duplicates.
The sludge is a very strongly buffered neutral sludge Six elutions
with SL in procedure R were required to return the PH of the leachate to
below 5.0, indicating very strong neutralizing power. However, thegO
leachates maintained a PH of just over 8.0, indicating a strongly buffered
neutral waste, rather than a strongly basic waste.
As with the CuO-Na2S04 sludge, the effects of pH on the release of
several trace metals can be seen, although the pH range with electro-
plating sludge is not as great. Zn, Pb, and Cd show pH effects. The
concentration! of these metals drop.in the procedure C SL leachates as
the pH rises. The concentrations rise in similar patterns for all three
metals in the procedure R SL leachates The PH of the Procedure R SL
leachates steadily falls from an initial value of 7.0.™ thej^rs*f" .
tion to 5 in the sixth elution. These results emphasize, again, the need
for an acid leachate to model the acid conditions likely to be found in
municipal landfills.
Cd release is particularly interesting In that it.reaches quite high
concentrations (20 mg/1) in one duplicate while remaining below.detection
in the other The two samples were a different color when received,
Sdicat?ng at least some difference between them. Leachate redox values
showed that the waste was a very strong reducing agent, much stronger
than the SL. A possible explanation for the different Cd release behavior
was that one sample had become much more oxidized than the other during
shipping and sample pretreatment, which also gave rise to the different
co Srs"9and that this oxidation difference affected the Cd please in some
way. Other explanations are also possible. The difference in Jd release
shows the need for strict control of sample treatment prior to the test,
the need for duplicates, and the need for cautious interpretation of test
results.
176
-------
TABLE 30. WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE (WTS):
DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Haste Number 13, Chem-Trol
Description:
A suspension from a typical industrial wastewater treatment plant
employing coagulation/precipitation and lime softening. It will consist
of various heavy metals and other metals precipitated as hydroxides,
chelated, chemisorbed, or otherwise "fixed" in the sludge.
Analysis:
CHEM-TROL:
Wisconsin:
Solids:
Fe 11%, Cu 2.9%, Cr 0.6%, Zn 1.3% (% of dry weight),
pH 11.0, sp. gr. 3.4, approximately 80% water,
high viscosity.
pH of liquid 12.57, redox -45 mV vs S.C.E.
51.2% volatile at 105°C for 24 hours
79% volatile at 600°C
Sample Preparation:
Liquid decanted, filtered, solids from filtered liquid returned to
settled solids and mixed. Solids then refiltered.
177
-------
TABLE 30 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Concentrati on, mg/1
Acid leachates
SLT procedure C, SL
SLT procedure R, SL
Minn.
Real leachate
H20 leachates
SLT procedure C
SLT procedure R
Minn.
Zn
Cu
Acid leachates
SLT procedure R, SL
Minn.
Real leachate
O leachates
SLT procedure R
Minn.
480
3200
1425
95
Release,
Na_
5000
26100
3800
190
40
15
146
29
4
mg/kg
K.
923
600
334
160
1.4
250
78
loss from
solution
0
0
0
Mg_
5670
3120
loss from
solution
0
0
2.0
18.5
9.2
loss from
solution
1.0
0.9
0
Zn_
464
368
loss from
solution
23
0
156
292
69
30
6.8
3.5
0.2
Cu.
5820
2760
640
55
178
-------
® COINCIDENT VALUES
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
1 ©HgO
I2.0--
11,0--
10.0-
9.0--
8.0--
7.0--
6.0-•
5,0--
4.0
\\
I
\
\\
\\
\\
\\
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 104. pH curve fpr Wastewater Treatment Sludge, SLT.
179
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
No CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C
CONCENTRATION, ppm
4,000j
RELEASE, 2g/kg
20-r
15-
10
PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm
I,500T
1,000-
500--
RELEASE, 2g/kg
30 T
2345
EUJTIONS
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 105.
Na concentration and release curves for Wastewater
Treatment Sludge, SLT.
180
-------
WASTE WATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
K CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
& SYNTHETIC LEACHATE © HgO
PROCEDURE C
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE.Smg/kg
200-r
I50--
IOO--
50--
1500-r
1000--
500
250--
PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm
40T
2345
ELUTIONS
RELEASE, Smg/kg
lOOOr
750 --
500--
25O--
I 2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 106.
K concentration and release curves for'Wastewater Treat-
ment Sludge, SLT.
181
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
Zn CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE ®H?0
PROCEDURE C
2.0
CONCENTRATION, ppm
RELEASE, 2mg/kg
20-r
15 -
10--
5--
PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE, 2mg/kg
25-r
20--
15--
10-
5--
500-r
400--
300--
200--
100- •
12345
ELUTIONS
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 107. Zn concentration and release curves for Wastewater
Treatment Sludge, SLT.
182
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
Mg CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE ©HoO
PROCEDURE C
CONCENTRATION, ppm
2.0T
I.5--
1.0--
0.5--
RELEASE, Smg/kg
20 T
5--
PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm
400 T
3OO--
200--
100- •
2345
ELUT10NS
RELEASE, 2g/kg
O - r.
1234
ELUTIONS
Figure 108.
Mg concentration and release .curves for Wastewater Treat-
ment Sludge, SLT.
183
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
Cu CONCENTRATION 8. RELEASE
A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE • HgO
PROCEDURE C
CONCENTRATION, ppm RELEASE, 2g/kg
200-r
150-
100-
50-
PROCEDURE R
CONCENTRATION, ppm
300-r
EOO--
100--
Figure 109.
12345
ELUTIONS
RELEASE, 2g/kg
7.5 T
5,0--
2.5--
12345
ELUTIONS
Cu concentration and release curves for Wastewater Treat-
ment Sludge, SLT.
184
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
— PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
COD CONCENTRATION, ppm
6000T
4000--
2000--
I 2345
ELUTIONS
®H20
COD RELEASE, 2g/kg
30-
20--
10--
-®
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 110. COD concentration and release curves for Wastewater Treat-
ment Sludge, SLT.
185
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE' TEST COMPARISON
A SLT - S.L.
O SLT - H20
D IUCS- H20
V MINN- ACETATE BUFFER
V MINN- H20
A REAL LEACHATE
No CONCENTRATION, ppm
I500T
1000- -
500--
12345
ELUTIONS
No RELEASE, Zg/kg
30T
20-
10--
2345
ELUTIONS
Figure 111. pH and Na concentration and release curves for Wastewater
Treatment Sludge, test comparison.
186
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE' TEST COMPARISON
K 8 Mg« CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
?MINN-H20 ASLT- S. L.
VMINN-ACETATE BUFFER OSLT- H 0
K CONCENTRATION.ppm
40-r
30--
20--
10-
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
40O-r
300--
200- •
100--
2345
ELUTIONS
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
1000 T
750-•
500-
250-
Mg RELEASE, 2g/kg
8-r
234
ELUTIONS
Figure 112.
K and Mg concentration and release curves for Wastewater
Treatment Sludge, test compariso.n.
187
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE* TEST COMPARISON
Cu a Zn * CONCENTRATION & RELASE
VMINN-H20
V MINN-ACETATE BUFFER
Cu CONCENTRATION, ppm
300-r
20O--
100--
A SLT - S . L .
O SLT- H20
Cu RELEASE,
6-r
4-
2-
Zn CONCENTRATION, ppm
20-r
10-•
12345
ELUTIONS
Zn RELEASE, 2mg/kg
800T
400--
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 113. Cu and Zn concentration and release curves for Wastewater
Treatment Sludge, test comparison.
188
-------
Discussion
Wastewater treatment sludge is a strongly basic waste, raising the pH
hVlrfi?L el"?1on t°.around 1K The PH of subsequent procedure R SL
leachates fell until reaching below 5.0 in the fifth elution. The H?0
leachates maintain pH values of 12.0 to 12.5. Cu, Mg, and Zn have par-
ticularly interesting release curves, primarily due to the apparent
effect of pH on their solubility. The Cu concentration in procedure C
SL leachates reaches a maximum (200 mg/1 ) in the first elution and falls
steadily thereafter. The pH of the second through fourth and last elution
leachates is relatively constant, so the observed drop in Cu concentration
during these elutions must be due to removal of Cu by the fresh waste
rather than simply precipitation due to the high pH. Since the Cu con-
centrations are well above those expected on the basis of pH considerations
(see Figure 96), it is apparent that complexing is instrumental in maintain-
ing the high Cu concentrations. Adding fresh waste may either decrease the
complexer concentration in solution, replace the Cu in the complex with
another metal, or add a species to the system which can extract the Cu
from the complex and precipitate it. Hrocedure R SL leachates have a Cu
maximum in the second elution, with falling concentrations thereafter.
Possibly during the first two elutions the Cu concentration is controlled
by pH, while after the second elution most of the extractable Cu has been
leached. Note that as with both CuO - Na2S04 sludge and electroplating sludge
the Cu concentrations in the H20 leachates are very low and give no indica-
tion of the Cu leaching potential under acid conditions.
Test Comparison —
Minn., SLT, and RLT tests were run on the waste. Cu concentrations
in the RLT leachates are lower than those in the acid leachates, but are
much higher than those in the H20 leachates. The same pattern was found
in the CuO-Na2S04 tests, and the same comments apply.
pH values in the Minn, acetate buffer leachates showed that the
greater buffering capacity of the acetate buffer compared to SL and the
lower solid to liquid ratio in the Minn, test compared with the SLT
compensate for the strongly basic nature of the waste.
189
-------
TABLE 31. PAPERMILL SLUDGE (PMS-EPA):
DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Waste Number 14. CHEM-TROL
Descri pti on:
31% clay slurry with the following characteristics: bi-layered
liquid, 20% top layer, cloudy while low-viscosity aqueous suspension;
80% bottom layer, opaque, off-white sludge.
Analysis:
CHEM-TROL:
pH 7-8, sp. gr. 1.28;
solids—total carbon 45 ppm, total inorganic
carbon 15 ppm
Sample Preparation:
Mixture stirred to obtain a uniform suspension,
centrifuged to obtain solids.
A subsample was
190
-------
TABLE 31 (continued)
Maximum Concentration and Release
Acid leachates
SLT procedure C, SL
SLT procedure R, SL
H20 leachates
SLT procedure C
SLT procedure R
Acid leachate
SLT procedure R
H20 leachate
SLT procedure R
Na
430
450
Concentration, mg/1
K.
12
5.3
1.5
0.9
Ba
73
58
0.25
0.2
Release,
•~* *
Fe
0.6
0.5
mg/kg
In
2.43
0.6
0
0
2.65
0.85
0
0
Na K Mg_ Fe Zn Cu_
121 1225 18.3 15
13850
23
8 13.6 0
191
-------
PAPER MILL SLUDGE, EPA
pH
8.0-r
7.0-
6.0--
5.0--
4.0
PROCEDURE C
PROCEDURE R
A SYN. LEACH ATE.
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 114. pH curve for Papermill Sludge, EPA, SLT.
192
-------
PAPER MILL SLUDGE, EPA
a K' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C A SYN. LEACHATE
PROCEDURE R ® H^O
K CONCENTRATION, ppm
20 T
15--
10--
5-- V
K RELEASE, 2mg/kg
200 T
150--
100-•
50-
H 1
/s
Mg CONCENTRATION, ppm
75-
50--
25--
Figure 115.
2345
ELUTIONS
Mg RELEASE, 2mg/kg
1500-r
1000--
500--
tl
It
H 1 1 1 \
12345
ELUTIONS
K and Mg concentration and release curves for Papermill
Sludge, EPA, SLT.
193
-------
PAPER MILL SLUDGE, EPA
Zn a Fe ' CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C, — - PROCEDURE R, * SYN. LEACHATE,
Zn CONCENTRATION,ppm
4.0-r
RELEASE, 2mg/kg
15-
10
-? «? 9 9-
Fe CONCENTRATION, ppm
Fe RELEASE,2rng/kgX
1.5-
1.0-
0.5-
10-
10-
/ \
K \ 5
^v \
--••^ ^4 '+
-JL-^-Jpi-H-H
^,'
i
1 0
/ /
1 /
' /
i XX
. 0-^
/ xx
/
S
, 1 1 \ i
A ~t A f>
ELUTIONS
12345
ELUTIONS
Figure 116. Zn and Fe concentration and release curves for Papermill
Sludge, EPA, SLT.
194
-------
PAPER MILL SLUDGE, EPA
Cu CONCENTRATION a RELEASE
PROCEDURE C 0HpO
PROCEDURE R A SYNTHETIC LEACHATE
Cu CONCENTRATION, ppm Cu RELEASE, Smg/kg
4-
3--
2-
15--
10--
5--
12345
ELUTIONS
/
\r
I!
-*
12345
ELUTiONS
Figure 117. Cu concentration and release curves for Papermill Sludge
EPA, SLT.
195
-------
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ham, R.K'., M.A. Anderson, R. Stegmann, and R. Stanforth. Back-
ground Study on the Development of a Standard Leaching Test.
Final Report on EPA Contract R-804773-01, submitted to EPA
August, 1978.
Abel son, H. and W. Lowenbach. Procedure Manual for Environmental
Assessment of Fluidized Bed Combustion Processes. Mitre Corp.,
M77-34 (1977).
American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition, APHA, Inc.,
New York, 1971.
ASTM. Standard Test Method for Solvent Extraction of Organic
Matter from Water, D-2778-7Q.
196
-------
APPENDIX
MASS SPECTRA OF COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED
IN WASTE HEXANE EXTRACTS
INK
42
HI WRSTE
WR8TE
35
r
1
50
150
290
Figure A-1. Mass spectrum of xylene identified in
Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract.
197
-------
»
100
INK
47
PRINT WfiSTE
-45, WflSTE
jL
^Hs^ta^sfss/^s
45
I
50
150
200
Figure A-2. Mass spectrum of cumene identified in
Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract.
198
-------
*
100
INK
59
PRINT NflSTE
-56, WflSTE
I
,
1
50
200
Figure A-3. Mass spectrum of m-ethyltoluene identified
in Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract.
199
-------
»2 INK
« 69
100
PRINT WRSTE DRY 1, ELUTION 1
-73, (67 SflT.), ELUTION
10
50
71i(13?£ijC^^
100 150
200
Figure A-4. Mass spectrum of cyclohexanone identified
in Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract.
(Spectrum in hexane extract was too close to background
for a clear spectrum, so corresponding spectrum from SLT
H20 leachate, day 1, is presented.)
200
-------
«2 INK
« 76
ISO
WRSTE
WRSTE
10Q
150
200
Figure A-5. Mass spectrum of 2-nor-butoxyethanbl identified
in Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract.
201
-------
*2 INK
* 188
100
PRINT WRSTE DRY 1, ELUTION 1
-178, ELUTION
65
130
150
200
Fiaure A-6. Mass spectrum of 3,3,6-trimethyl bicyclo (3.1.0)
hexan-2-one or 3,5,5-trimethyl-2-cyclohexanone
identified in Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract.
(Spectrum in hexane extract was too close to backgrounder
a clear spectrum, so corresponding spectrum from SLT H20
leachate, day 1, is presented.)
202
-------
*2 INK * PRINT WfiSTE DRY 1, ELUT!
* 229 -221, ELUTION
LOO
^^^.J J
50
.08
Figure A-7. Mass spectrum of dimethyl glutarate identified in
Ink and Paint Waste hexane extract.
(Spectrum in hexane extract was too close to background for a
clear spectrum, so corresponding spectrum from SLT H00 leachate,
day i is presented.) £
203
-------
ol-
io
o
•s
o
rC
-l->
X
OJ
C1J
(O
X
OJ
JC
(1)
-p
CO
CO
(O
D-
T3
C
CO
LU
H-
CO
3
csi
•-. CO
CM
c
I—I
c.
•o
M-
o
cu
a.
C/J
to
CO
CO
CO
01
=3
CT>
"»••—•""»-
204
-------
CJ
03
O>
X
cu
CD
4->
CO
H-J
to
a.
UJ
I—
CD
c:
co
c:
i—i
E
"O
d)
•M
c
O)
O)
c
O)
"TO
-p
Q-
(O
>>
01
O
O)
Q.
co
(O
LD
CTl
I
*
O)
205
-------
FOOD GRRDE HflSTE
» 274 -264, F.6.W. *S
100
20
1
100
50
20
251 ±0
100
150
200
Fiqure A-10. Mass spectrum of octadecane identified
in Food Grade Waste hexane extract.
206
-------
FOOD GRflOE WflSTE
« 122 -115, F.G.W. *5
100
. .J, . a
20
1
1(30
251
SO
20
100
150
200
Figure A-^IK Mass spectrum of hexadecane identified
in Food Grade Waste hexane extract.
207
-------
FOOD GRROE WRSTE
* 54 -58. F.G.H-
15
251
300
Figure A-12. Mass spectrum of tetradecane identified
in Food Grade Waste hexane extract.
208
-------
(Q
•(J
X
g
res
X
O)
O)
+->
V)
O
O
D.
£=
UJ
I—
CO
CC
OJ
•r-
M-
cu
O
QC
LU
a>
a>
re
*j
p.
(O
CO
a
a: *
cc «-i
-
a>
en
u_
209
-------
.
CM
O
(C
•)-»
X
CD
OJ
c
(C
X
m
-i->
fO
o
o
o
•4->
0)
Q-
"O
OJ
O)
T3
O)
C
03
O
-------
*10 FOOD INDUSTRY, CLRY WflSTE
«* 37 -39. #13 CLRY WflSTE
100
00
50
, ,!
50
sbo' .
. J
2£
100 150 200
21
'350 41
30
Figure A-15. Mass spectrum of dodecane identified
in Food. Industry, Clay Waste hexane extract.
211
-------
«10 FOOD INDUSTRY, CLRY WRSTE
» 52 -55, «10 CLRY HRSTE
100
,
^o
3 100 150 200
25
Figure A-16. Mass spectrum of tridecane identified
in Food Industry Clay Waste hexane extract.
212
-------
•10 FOOD INDUSTRY, CLRY WRSTE
« 75 -79, *10 CLflY WRSTE
100
.1. ... 1 JL .Ji d
25
100
250
50
25
100
150
300
200
Figure A-17. Mass spectrum of tetradecane identified
in Food Industry Clay Waste hexane extract.
213
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-071
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
COMPARISON OF THREE WASTE LEACHING TESTS
REPOI
July 1979 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7.AUTHOR(S)
Robert K. Ham, Marc A. Anderson, Rainer Stegmann,
and Robert Stanforth
9, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
10. I
1DC818. SOS 1, Task 38A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant No. R-804773-01
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin. ,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES rnn/o in nn
See also "Comparison of Three Waste Leaching Tests; Executive Summary," EPA-600/8-79-00
Project Officer: Donald Sanning 513/684-7871.
16. ABSTRACT
A comparison of three leaching tests was performed with fourteen industrial wastes to
evaluate the potential of each test for use as a standard leaching test. The study
was done in conjunction with a background study on the development of a standard
leaching test.
The advantages and disadvantages of each test, based on the leaching characteristics
of the fourteen wastes and the usefulness of each procedure as a standard test, are
analyzed and compared. Finally, some comments on the need for careful interpretation
of test results are provided.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Waste disposal
Tests
Assessments
Leaching
Methodology
Selection
Interpretation
Industrial wastes
Evaluation
Solid waste management
Leachate
Methods
Leaching tests
Industrial sludges
Landfill
14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
234
L
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Fo»m 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
214
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTIHG OFFICE: 1979 — 657-060/5308
-------
-------
------- |