EPA/600/R-96/103
September 1996
STAGNATION TIME, COMPOSITION, pH, AND ORTHOPHOSPHATE EFFECTS
ON METAL LEACHING FROM BRASS
by
Darren A. Lytle and Michael R.Schock
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and
administration review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products are for explanatory purposes only, and does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate,
EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental
problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological
resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and
the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the
prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies;
develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Plumbing products made of brass and similar alloys are the only lead containing
materials still installed in drinking water systems and, by law, may contain up to 8% lead.
Brass ranges in metal composition depending on its application. Brass is composed of
approximately 60 to 80% copper, 4 to 32% zinc, 2 to 8% lead, £ 6% tin, and trace amounts of
iron, tin, and cadmium. The relationship between alloy composition and resulting amounts of
metal leached from the alloy in drinking water has not been fully established. Better
understanding brass corrosion may provide information and guidance to the use of the safest
materials for the production of plumbing fixtures, and optimization of corrosion control
treatments.
This study examined the effect of alloy composition, pH, orthophosphate, and
stagnation time on the metal leached from 6 different brasses and the pure metals that make-up
brass (lead, copper, and zinc) in Cincinnati, Ohio, tap water. Results demonstrated that the
amount of various metals leached from the alloys corresponded well with the alloy's
composition. Leaching of metal components from brass were generally less affected by pH
than the pure metals. A pH of 7.5 and 0.5 to 3.0 mg/L orthophosphate significantly reduced
the amount of lead leached from the alloys initially, but had less impact as time continued.
Orthophosphate had a minimal impact on copper levels. The impact of stand time was
dependent on water quality and alloy composition. This report covers a period from August
1991 to January 1996, and work was completed as of December 1994.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES 1
BACKGROUND 2
Brass composition 2
Brass production procedures 3
Brass corrosion 4
Dezincification 4
Dissolution 5
Dissolution controls 7
Lead release assessment from alloys in drinking water 8
Alternatives to the use of leaded brass 9
TEST APPARATUS DESIGN AND OPERATION 10
Test apparatus 10
Coupon material .-^ 11
Coupon and test system cleaning procedures 11
Operating procedures 12
Sampling 13
Analytical procedures 14
Instrumentation 14
Quality assurance and quality control 15
Statistical data analysis and interpretation 15
RESULTS 16
Test run #1 16
Extraction water quality 16
-------
Lead leached from brass coupons 17
Copper leached from brass coupons 19
Zinc leached from brass coupons 20
Test run #2 20
Extraction water quality 20
Lead leached from brass coupons 21
Copper leached from brass coupons 21
Zinc leached from brass coupons 22
Impact of pH on metal leached from coupons 23
Brass coupons 23
Lead coupons 24
Copper coupon 24
Zinc coupons 24
60:40 tin:lead solder coupons 25
Impact of orthophosphate on the metal leached from coupons 25
Extraction water quality 25
Brass coupons 25
Impact of stagnation tune on metals leached 27
Evaluation of low-lead alloy 29
Impact of sulfate on copper dissolution 29
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 29
FUTURE NEEDS .32
REFERENCES 33
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
A-l.
A-2.
A-3.
A-4.
A-5.
A-6.
A-7.
A-8.
A-9.
A-10.
A-ll.
A-12.
A-13.
A-14.
A-15.
A-16.
A-17.
A-18.
A-19.
A-20.
A-21.
A-22.
A-23.
A-24.
A-25.
A-26.
Extraction water used in the Nordtest
Metal composition of test coupons used in leach study
Analytical methods used for chemical analysis of water samples
Test run conditions
Extraction water quality: test run #1
Extraction water quality: test run #2
Extraction water quality: test run #3
Extraction water quality: test run #4
Extraction water quality: test run #5
Lead, Run 1,
Lead, Run 2,
Lead, Run 3,
Lead, Run 4,
Lead, Run 5,
Copper, Run
Copper, Run
Copper, Run
Copper, Run
Copper, Run
Zinc, Run 1,
Zinc, Run 2,
Zinc, Run 3,
Zinc, Run 4,
Zinc, Run 5,
Lead, Run 1,
Lead, Run 2,
Lead, Run 3,
Lead, Run 4,
Lead, Run 5,
Copper, Run
Copper, Run
Copper, Run
Copper, Run
Copper, Run
Zinc, Run 1,
pH=8.3-8.5, 24-hour stand time
pH=7.0, 24-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO4/L, 24-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO/L, 24-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 24-hour stand time
1, pH=8.3-8.5, 24-hour stand time
2, pH=7.0, 24-hour stand time
3, pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO4/L, 24-hour stand time
4, pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO4/L, 24-hour stand time
5, pH=7.5, 24-hour stand time
pH=8.3-8.5, 24-hour stand time
pH=7.0, 24-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO4/L, 24-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO4/L, 24-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 24-hour stand time
pH=8.3-8.5, 72-hour stand time
pH=7.0, 72-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO/L, 72-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO4/L, 72-hour stand time
pH=7.5, 72-hour stand time
1, pH=8.3-8.5, 72-hour stand time
2, pH=7.0, 72-hour stand time
3, pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO4/L, 72-hour stand time
4, pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO4/L, 72-hour stand time
5, pH=7.5, 72-hour stand time
pH=8.3-8.5, 72-hour stand time
P_age
39
40
41
42
43
43
44
44
45
93
95
97
98
99
101
103
105
106
107
109
111
113
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number
A-27. Zinc, Run 2, pH=7.0, 72-hour stand time
A-28. Zinc, Run 3, pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO4/L, 72-hour stand time
A-29. Zinc, Run 4, pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO4/L, 72-hour stand time
A-30. Zinc, Run 5, pH=7.5, 72-hour stand time
A-31. Run 1, Extraction Water Quality, pH=8.3-8.5
A-32. Run 2, Extraction Water Quality, pH=7.0
A-33. Run 3, Extraction Water Quality, pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO/L
A-34. Run 4, Extraction Water Quality, pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO4/L
A-35. Run 5, Extraction Water Quality, pH=7.5
A-36. Statistical Comparisons of Lead Leaching Trends
A-37. Statistical Comparisons of Copper Leaching Trends
A-38. Statistical Comparisons of Copper Leaching Trends
A-39. Quality control table showing duplicate sample analysis differences
over the entire study period.
A-40. Quality control table showing spike recovery analysis over the
entire study period.
A-41. Quality control table showing standard reference material (SRM)
analysis over the entire study period.
128
129
130
131
132
134
136
138
140
142
143
144
145
146
147
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Photograph of test system.
Schematic of individual test loop.
Lead leached from brass coupons during test run #1, pH =8.5.
Copper leached from brass and pure copper coupons during test
run#l,pH =8.5.
Zinc leached levels from brass coupons during test run #1, pH =8.5.
Lead leached from brass coupons during test run #2, pH =7.0.
Copper leached from brass and pure copper coupons during test
run #2, pH =7.0.
Zinc leached from brass coupons during test run #2, pH =7.0.
Effect of phosphate on lead leached from C36000 brass coupon at pH 7.5.
Effect of phosphate on lead leached from C83600 (red brass) coupon at pH
7.5.
Effect of phosphate on lead leached from C84400 (red brass) coupon at pH
7.5.
Effect of phosphate on lead leached from C84500 (red brass) coupon at pH
7.5.
Effect of phosphate on lead leached from C85200 (yellow brass) coupon at
pH 7.5.
Effect of phosphate on lead leached from C85400 (yellow brass) coupon at
pH 7.5.
Effect of phosphate on lead leached from pure lead at pH 7.5.
Page
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Effect of phosphate on lead leached from 60:40 Sn:Pb solder coupon at pH
7.5.
Effect of phosphate on copper leached from C36000 brass coupon at pH 7.5. 62
Effect of phosphate on copper leached from C83600 (red brass) coupon at 63
pH 7.5.
Effect of phosphate on copper leached from C84400 (red brass) coupon at 64
pH 7.5.
Effect of phosphate on copper leached from C84500 (red brass) coupon at 65
pH 7.5.
Effect of phosphate on copper leached from C85200 (yellow brass) coupon at 66
pH 7.5.
Effect of phosphate on copper leached from C85400 (yellow brass) coupon at 67
pH 7.5.
Effect of phosphate on copper leached from C122 (pure copper) coupon at pH 68
7.5.
Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from C36000 brass coupon at pH 7.5. 69
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Number
25. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from C83600 (red brass) coupon at pH
7.5.
26. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from C84400 (red brass) coupon at pH
7.5.
27. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from C84500 (red brass) coupon at pH
7.5.
28. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from C85200 (yellow brass) coupon at
pH 7.5.
29. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from C85400 (yellow brass) coupon at
pH 7.5.
30. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from pure zinc coupon at pH 7.5.
31. Influence of stagnation time on lead leached from a red and yellow brass
coupon during test run 2: pH=7.0.
32. Influence of stagnation time on lead leached from a red and yellow brass
coupon during test run 1: pH=8.5.
33. Influence of stagnation time on lead leached from pure lead coupons during
test run 2: pH=7.0.
34. Influence of stagnation time on copper leached from a red and yellow brass
coupon during test run 2: pH=7.0.
35. Influence of stagnation time on copper leached from pure copper coupons
during test run 2: pH=7.0.
36. Influence of stagnation time on zinc leached from a red and yellow brass
coupon during test run 2: pH=7.0.
37. Influence of stagnation time on zinc leached from pure zinc coupons during
test run 2: pH=7.0.
38. Influence of stagnation time on zinc leached from a red and yellow brass,
and pure zinc coupons during test run 2: pH=7.0.
39. Influence of stagnation time on zinc leached from a red and yellow brass
coupon during test run 1: pH=8.5.
40. Lead stagnation profile for yellow brass C85200.
41. Lead stagnation profile for red brass C84400.
42. Copper stagnation profile for yellow brass C85200.
43. Copper stagnation profile for red brass C84400.
44. Zinc stagnation profile for yellow brass C85200.
45. Zinc stagnation profile for red brass C84400.
46. Lead leached from "lead-free" brass during test run 5: pH=7.5.
47. Comparison of theoretical and observed copper levels for all test runs.
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Number
A-l. pH variation of test waters during each test run
A-2. Free chlorine variation of test waters during each test run
A-3. Ortho-phosphate concentrations during test runs 3,4, and 5
A-4. Lead leached from brass C36000 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-5. Lead leached from brass C83600 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-6. Lead leached from brass C84400 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-7. Lead leached from brass C84500 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-8. Lead leached from brass C85200 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-9. Lead leached from brass C85400 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-10 Copper leached from brass C36000 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-l 1 Copper leached from brass C83600 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-12. Copper leached from brass C84400 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-13. Copper leached from brass C84500 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-14. Copper leached from brass C85200 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-15. Copper leached from brass C85400 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-16. Zinc leached from brass C36000 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-17. Zinc leached from brass C83600 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-18. Zinc leached from brass C84400 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-19. Zinc leached from brass C84500 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-20. Zinc leached from brass C85200 at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-21. Lead leached from 60:40 Sn:Pb solder at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-22. Lead leached from pure lead at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-23. Copper leached from pure copper at pH 8.5 and 7.0
A-24. Zinc leached from pure zinc at pH 8.5 and 7.0
Page
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express particular thanks to Dr. Stanford Tackett for his initiation
of the study. We would also like to thank the following members of the USEPA staff: Herb
Braxton, Leslie Ostrozny, Kelly Mayhew, and Kenneth Kropp for daily operating and
sampling of the test system; Keith Kelty, James Doerger, James Caldwell, Louis Trombly, and
Patrick Clark for analytical support; and Thomas Sorg and James Owens for providing
editorial review of the document. And final thanks goes to Greg George, Steve Harmon, John
Damman, and Roger Rickabaugh of Dyncorp/Technology Applications, Incorporated and Kim
Brackett and Cory Demaris of IT Corp. for additional analytical support and technical
discussions.
Xll
-------
INTRODUCTION
Water sampling and monitoring requirements described in the Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR)1"3 specify that one liter first-draw water samples must be collected at selected consumer's
taps following at least 6 hours of stagnation. Lead service lines, tin:lead solder, and brass fixtures
are considered major contributors of lead to that one liter sample. The practice of using lead pipe
and lead-based solders in home plumbing systems was eliminated in 1986.4 In addition, all pipes
and fittings were required to be constructed of "lead-free" material which, by legal definition,
contain less than 8% lead.
The metal composition of brass ranges from approximately 60 to 80% copper, 4 to 32%
zinc, 2 to 8% lead, < 6% tin, and trace amounts of iron and other alloying elements depending
on its application. Therefore, by previous definition, plumbing products constructed of brass and
similar alloys such as faucets and valves are considered "lead-free" and are the only lead-
containing components still permitted for use in drinking water systems. For this reason,
understanding the major influences upon and mechanism(s) of metal release from brass and
techniques to control that release are important in meeting LCR requirements and limiting metal
exposure to consumers.
The effect of water quality (i.e. pH, dissolved inorganic carbon [DIG], sulfate, chloride,
free chlorine, dissolved oxygen, etc.) on the solubility of the primary metals that make-up brass
(Cu, Zn, and Pb) has been explored to varying degrees by numerous investigators and is generally
understood. However, predicting the dissolution of metals from an alloy is likely more
complicated than solubility relationships alone, and may be influenced by many factors including
alloy composition, structure, and surface area. As an example, initial work conducted by British
researchers5 indicates that the amount of lead leached from brass and lead containing alloys is
independent of the percentage of lead in the alloy. Other researchers6 theorize that dezincification
of zinc-containing alloys can result in increased lead surface area which results in increased lead
dissolution. Developing a better understanding of the control aspects of brass corrosion will
provide additional guidance to water utilities, consultants, and governmental agencies on strategies
to reduce lead release into drinking water.
OBJECTIVES
The initial purposes of this multi-year research project was to establish relationship(s)
among the composition of six brass alloys and the metal (Cu, Zn, and Pb) concentrations leached
from them in Cincinnati (Ohio) tap water and to provide insight into brass corrosion control
measures. The same water quality effects on the metals leached from the major pure metal
components of brass (Cu, Zn, and Pb) were also explored. The project was expanded to include
the evaluation of the impact of pH (7.0 and 8.5) and a non-zinc containing orthophosphate
chemical (dosed at 0.5 and 3.0 mg PO4/L) at pH 7.5 on metal leached from brasses, lead, copper,
zinc, and 60:40 Sn:Pb solder. Also, the effect of stagnation period on metal(s) leached from the
-------
brasses, lead, copper, zinc, and 60:40 Sn:Pb solder was examined. Finally, metals leached from
a "lead-free" brass were briefly explored.
The experiments were conducted using standard l"x2"xl/8" metal coupons and a "fill-and-
dump" test protocol in chemical variations of Cincinnati tap water. Conclusions were based on
graphical and statistical data interpretations.
BACKGROUND
A growing public awareness about the toxicity of lead has brought about the question of
the contribution of lead by leaded brass plumbing fixtures and faucets to drinking water. A recent
preliminary lead and copper rule survey7 of 46 large systems and 7 medium and small systems
conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies stated: "By far the major reason
is or is suspected to be lead leaching from new (newer) faucets and fixtures.", referring to
reported causes of high lead values in drinking water samples. As the public grows more familiar
with the issues concerning safe drinking water, pressure on legislators to reduce or even ban the
use of lead (and other contaminants) in plumbing products may grow.
In California, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Law
Foundation filed a complaint with the California Superior Court on December 15, 1992. The
complaint stated that a number of major faucet manufacturers marketed faucets that leach lead into
the drinking water at levels exceeding the limit of 0.5 /ig/L set under the State's Proposition 65
Standard.8 The lawsuit targeted 13 major faucet manufacturers. The case was settled in August
of 1995 when a number of major manufacturers agreed to meet stipulations which included
warning labels and a lead reduction program.9
In a similar situation, the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense
Council, and the California Attorney General recently filed suit under California Proposition 65
against four manufacturers of submersible water pumps.10 Some of these pumps, which are used
to draw water from private wells, are constructed with brass components and, as a result, can
provide a point source of lead contamination.
Brass composition
Brasses are defined as copper alloys that contain zinc (5 to 40% Zn) as the principal
alloying element with or without other alloying elements, such as tin, iron, aluminum, nickel, and
silicon. Brass can be subdivided into three main families: copper-zinc alloys; copper-zinc-tin
alloys (tin brasses); and copper-zinc-lead alloys (leaded brasses).11
Zinc is added to copper to increase tensile strength. The tensile strength of the alloy
increases significantly with increasing zinc concentration up to 20% zinc, whereas further zinc
addition only slightly increases tensile strength. Brasses containing more than 20% zinc are
referred to as "yellow brass," while brasses containing less than 15% zinc are referred to as "red
-------
brass." Zinc is soluble in copper, and when added to copper to produce brass, up to 35% of the
zinc will dissolve to form an alpha solid-solution (alpha brass). When still more zinc is added,
a second or beta, solid-solution is formed. Brasses with 35 to 40% zinc consist of mixtures of
these two solutions and are referred to as alpha-beta or "duplex" brasses. Duplex brasses are
cheaper and easier to fabricate than alpha brasses. However, they are susceptible to
dezincification, a form of corrosion that will be discussed in more detail later in the paper.
Lead is added to brasses to improve machinability of the alloy and make castings pressure
tight by filling the voids created as the casting cools. Lead is insoluble in copper-zinc alloys and
therefore during solidification, lead precipitates and forms a dispersion of second phase particles
or globules both at the grain boundaries and within the matrix. The globules serve to improve the
alloy's machinability by acting as chip breakers, reducing tool clogging and allowing increased
cutting speed.12 Lead is found in brass from 0.1 to 12.0%13, however, brasses most commonly
used in household fixtures contain 1.5 to 7.5% Pb14. The reference standard for machinability is
"free-cutting" or "free-machining" brass, composed of 61.5% Cu, 3% Pb, and 35.5% Zn. This
alloy, designated C36000, is given a reference machinability rating of 100% and is the standard
to which all other brasses are related. Lead offers little effect on corrosion resistance of the alloy.
Tin is added to brass to improve corrosion resistance (particularly impingement or erosion
attack), and increase the tensile strength and hardness of the alloy. In addition, tin significantly
increases the resistance of the alloy to attack by acidic media and the tendency for dezincification.
Admiralty alloy is a tin brass extensively used as condenser tubing. Admiralty brass is made by
adding 1% tin to cartridge brass (70% Cu, 30% Zn). Approximately 3 to 5% tin is often added
to red or semi-red brasses to increase the strength and hardness of the alloys.
r
A variety of other elements may be added in small quantities to enhance properties of the
alloy. For example, arsenic, antimony, and phosphorous are added to certain brasses to inhibit
dezincification. Aluminum is added to provide corrosion resistance and color enhancement and
nickel is added as a whitening agent.
Brass production procedures
Brass plumbing fixtures and faucets are most commonly formed by either cast or wrought
processes. Cast brass products are made by pouring melted alloy (ingot, virgin metal, or scrap)
into a mold and allowing it to cool. Castings offer corrosion resistance, high thermal and
electrical'conductivities, and good wear qualities. Casting permits the production of irregular and
complex internal and external shapes, such as those often seen in faucets. The production of these
products may not be practical by forming or machining processes. The major market for cast
products in the United States in 1991 was plumbing and heating; 108 million pounds and 26% of
the market.15 The dominant cast alloys were identified as C84400 (75%) and C83800/C84800
(25%).
-------
Wrought (forged) brass products are produced by mechanically forming the alloy to the
desired shape while the metal either still hot (700 to 850 °C) and ductile, or at room temperature
(referred to as cold-working). Wrought alloys have not been remelted. Wrought brass offers
many advantages including high electrical and thermal conductivities, facilitating joining by
welding and soldering, good corrosion resistance, high strength and ductility, and excellent
machinability. Compared to cast products, wrought products have smoother surfaces, a faster
production time, greater freedom from porosity, and lower cost. Duplex brasses are easily
worked by hot pressing while alpha brasses tend to be stiff to work, even when hot.16
Additionally, alpha brasses tend to crack during hard working if they contain small amounts of
impurities, especially lead (which is often added to improve machinability). Forging brass (60.0%
Cu, 38.0% Zn, and 2.0% Pb), alloy number C37700, is the most forgeable and therefore the most
common forged alloy. Forging is the method manufacturers prefer using to produce compression
fittings.
Brass corrosion
Dezincification
The majority of published research that has examined the effect of drinking water on brass,
bronze, and other zinc containing alloys is focused on the corrosion phenomena referred to as
"dezincification." Dezincification has received special attention from the drinking water industry
primarily because of the physical and visible damage to plumbing systems that results, leading to
costly pipe failures and plumbing blockages. Dezincification of small valves and fittings in the
United States has not been nearly the problem it has in Great Britain and some other places in
northern Europe primarily because standard materials used in the U.S. tend ^o be low zinc
containing red brasses.17
Dezincification is a specific form of dealloying or selective leaching corrosion. In the case
of dezincification, zinc is preferentially removed from the brass or other copper-zinc alloys.
Researchers have developed three main hypotheses to describe the mechanisms of zinc removal.
The first hypothesis, and generally more widely accepted, is that simultaneous dissolution of
copper and zinc occurs anodically, producing an electrolyte containing both copper and zinc,
followed by the redeposition of copper.18"20 The second and less widely accepted hypothesis is that
zinc is preferentially removed from the alloy, thus leaving a porous residue.21 A third school of
thought is that a combination of the two occurs.22'23 Depending on water composition and service
conditions, the dissolved zinc may react with carbonate or oxygen to form a crust of solid
corrosion products close to the corroded area. These corrosion products usually form smooth
mounds. Upon opening they show a structure made up of many hollow shells resembling the
appearance of a "meringue", giving rise to the term "meringue dezincification". This bulky by-
product causes home plumbing blockages which often present more of a problem than pipe failure
by corrosion. The remaining alloy is a porous, weakened, reddish residue that is susceptible to
failure.
-------
The resistance of an alloy to dezincification does not change significantly until the zinc
content is greater than 15%; after which the possibility for dezincification increases. Arsenic
(typically up to 0.1% As) added to alpha brass effectively inhibits dezincification24'25, however,
does not prevent dezincification of greater zinc-containing duplex brasses. Antimony and
phosphorous in amounts of 0.02 to 0.05% have also been used to safeguard against dezincification
attack in alpha brasses.26
Many researchers have studied the effect of water quality parameters on dezincification.
Turner showed that chloride and carbonate hardness contents were major factors influencing
"meringue" dezincification.16'27 He found that in waters where the pH was above 8.3 and the
chloride concentration was high relative to temporary bicarbonate hardness, dezincification
occurred. He developed the "Turner" Diagram relating chloride concentration and temporary
hardness to suitability for resistance to dezincification. Lime softening converts water that does
not support dezincification to one that does by increasing the pH and lowering the temporary
hardness. Other factors identified in controlling dezincification include: percent zinc in alloy,
electrolyte condition of water, galvanic couples or electric currents, and the availability of oxygen
and other chemicals in water.
Tabor28 examined bronze (copper alloy in which zinc or nickel is not the major alloying
elements) valve stems from the city of Los Angeles water distribution system that had failed as
a result of dezincification. He discovered that in cases where bronzes containing high zinc
contents were being used with water that had been softened with lime, dezincification was
common. Through experimentation using a galvanic bronze-iron cell, he discovered that generally
the higher the zinc content of the bronze, the greater the chance of dezincification. In the case
of alloys with low zinc content (less than 15% zinc), zinc and copper acted as a unit, with iron
providing the cathodic protection. In alloys with high zinc content (greater than 20% zinc), the
zinc and copper acted independently of each other, with zinc being anodic to the iron and copper
being cathodic. The zinc rapidly dissipated because of the irons inability to provide protection.
There appeared to be a transition zone between a zinc content of 15 to 20% where dezincification
may or may not occur. Other findings indicated that the dezincification process may be increased
with oxygen content in system, water velocity, temperature, and deposits built-up on the material
surface.
Ingleson et al.29 conducted experiments to examine the effect of chlorination on ball valves
made of cast and hot-pressed brass (single alpha-phase brass containing 2 to 3% lead). They
concluded that the presence of up to 0.4 mg/L of free chlorine increased the rate of
dezincification. They also concluded, however, that the impact of chlorine was low relative to
the impact of variations in water composition.
Dissolution
Dissolution refers to the dissolving of the metals composing the alloy into the solution in
contact with the metal. As mentioned, the majority of past brass corrosion research has focused
-------
on dezincification and unfortunately in nearly all of those cases metal leaching levels or dissolution
was not addressed. Information pertaining to metal dissolution from brass alloys is typically
general.
Samuels and Meringer30 evaluated short-term metal leaching from 8 kitchen faucets in 4
different types of water and aqueous fulvic acid. The study involved measuring metal
concentrations in standing water samples taken from inverted water faucets for two 24-hour stand
periods. Results showed that lead as well as copper, zinc, chromium, and cadmium leached in
varying amounts depending on the type of faucet used and the leach solution.
Nielsen31'32 found that lead could be picked up in water from household plumbing fixtures
composed of brass such as water meters and mixer fittings, and main and stop valves composed
of gunmetal (copper alloy containing 5% Pb).
Birden et al.33 found lead contamination in copper pipe loop systems constructed of no lead
containing parts other than brass compression fittings. Lead leaching was attributed to the lead
in the brass used to make the fittings.
Schock and Neff34 obtained data from a 2-year field and laboratory study that implicated
brass valves and fittings as,potentially significant sources of lead, copper, and zinc in drinking
water. The field study indicated that new chrome plated sampling faucets on pipe loops in
galvanized and copper systems were associated with 125 mL water samples that exceeded the lead
maximum contaminant level which was 0.05 mg Pb/L at the time of the study. As a result, they
conducted trace metal leaching experiments on six new sampling taps using an inverted faucet
technique. The tests were performed using deionized and Champaign (Illinois) tap water (3
faucets for each tap water). Samples following 24-hour dwell times were taken every 2 days for
2 weeks. The samples were analyzed for lead, cadmium, zinc, iron, and copper. The faucets
subjected to deionized water leached about 100 mg Pb/L and dropped off rapidly to less than 10
mg Pb/L at the end of the 2 weeks. Faucets subjected to Champaign tap water initially leached
approximately 1 mg Pb/L and dropped to less than 0.3 mg Pb/L at the end of 2 weeks.
Gardels and Sorg35 also evaluated metal leaching from faucets. They used a different metal
extraction approach than the fill and dump scenario implemented by the previous investigators.
They mounted 12 different faucets upright to a manifold system connected to a pressure activated
pump and water storage reservoir. In this position, the faucets were operated under pressure in
a similar fashion to how they would be used in a home. Leaching tests were conducted with
deionized and Cincinnati (Ohio) tap waters over a 9 month period. Standing water samples were
taken at a variety of standing times and sampling schemes. Samples were analyzed for lead,
copper, zinc, iron, chromium, and cadmium. Results indicated that lead leached from new cast
brass faucets could contribute lead to drinking water in excess of 10 ^g/L. They showed that as
much as 75% of the lead leached from common kitchen faucets could be collected in the first 125
mL of water from the faucet; more than 95% of the lead was collected in the first 200 to 250 mL.
-------
Dissolution controls
The contribution of brass to lead and other metal concentrations in drinking water has been
well established as discussed. However, the factors influencing the degree of preferential metal,
particularly lead, dissolution from brass and other alloys have not been well defined. Metal
solubility relationships will probably be poor predictors of the amount of lead, copper, and zinc
leached from brasses under the normally non-equilibrium conditions found in drinking water.
Other mechanisms will likely control the amount of metal leached from an alloy. Physical and
structural characteristics of the alloy and alloy's surface (e.g. microstructure, chemical
composition, finish, etc..), for example, are important factors to consider. Landolt36 points out
that the surface composition of alloys usually differs from the bulk material due to factors such
as spontaneous corrosion reaction with the atmosphere and surface treatment processes.
The role of lead in the alloy's structure may influence metal dissolution rates. Lead is
insoluble in brass alloy systems. The melting point of lead with respect to the alloy system is low
and therefore is last to freeze. The result is that during the cooling period, lead tends to be
squeezed toward the grain boundaries of the alloy in the form of globules. The pattern these
globules take at the alloy surface, which contacts water, likely influences the degree and speed of
lead leaching by increasing the available lead surface area. Further, cutting tools can smear the
lead globules over the surface. These effects may enhance the lead leaching characteristics of
alloys of seemingly low lead content.
Alloy surface area is an important driving force for the rate of metal dissolution. For
example, surface finishing techniques can increase surface area by creating grooves or etchings
in the surface. Polishing may increase lead surface area by spreading the soft lead globules over
the alloy's surface. Characteristics of brass production techniques will result in different surface
properties. The surface of cast brass, for example, is rough and presents greater surface area than
wrought brass, thus driving or increasing metal dissolution rates.
Interactions amongst the metals that comprise alloys may also control metal dissolution
rates. Some researchers theorize that dezincification of copper-zinc alloys can result in additional
lead surface sites below removed zinc and thus leach as much if not more than a brass containing
more lead and less zinc.6 On the other hand, under certain water quality conditions, zinc may
contribute to a protective passivating film over the alloy surface.
Alloy composition would seem to be a logical control on metal leaching levels. Paige and
Covino37 investigated selective metal leaching from 11 different copper based alloys in high purity
water of near neutral pH. The study specifically examined the effect of lead concentration in the
alloy, contact time, and water temperature on lead leaching from the alloy. Three sets of leaching
test runs were conducted. The first run evaluated leaching at three different temperatures: 25°C,
50°C, and 75°C in deionized water for two weeks. The second study used samples which were
pre-treated by an acetic acid process prior to being run for two weeks in deionized water at 25°C.
The third test run was conducted at 25°C in deionized water for 15 days. Their results indicated
-------
that the dissolution of lead increased with the percentage of lead for all of the alloys tested with
the exception of yellow brasses. They found that temperature generally had little effect on
increasing the amount of lead leached from the alloys, but may have slightly reduced the lead at
higher temperature. They also found that lead leached from the brass alloys decreased by a factor
of 2 to 200 times over 14 days of testing.
Jones38 used electrochemical polarization methods to study the galvanic corrosion of steel
coupled to brass. He found that alloy composition (copper and zinc) was important in determining
the anode and cathode. When the copper-zinc alloy contained more than 40% copper, the alloy
behaved electrochemically like pure copper in that the alloy acted as the cathode. But when the
copper content fell below the critical value of 40%, the alloy behaved as pure zinc, acting as a
sacrificial anode when coupled with steel.
The internal structure of brass products contribute to metal dissolution concentrations and
rates. Faucets, for example, are relatively complex in that bends, angles, and touching metal
components are often incorporated in their design. These areas represent locations for erosion
corrosion. Faucets and valves are also subject to physical wear associated with opening and
closing valves, which may increase metal levels by causing increased fresh surface exposure or
by contributing occasional particulate contamination.
Lead release assessment from alloys in drinking water
Several countries have developed metal extraction tests to evaluate the metal release from
alloy plumbing materials in contact with drinking water. Mattsson and Eistrat39 have presented
a European summary of metal extraction tests for some materials used in drinking water plumbing
systems. The "Nordtest" was the first, and probably most recognized, method used for assessing
the potential for lead, cadmium, and other metal release by materials used in drinking water
systems.31 The Nordtest method has been adopted by Scandinavian countries.
The Nordtest procedure is basically carried out as follows: The test specimen (e.g. fitting,
valve, or pipe) is degreased with methanol. Flowing tap water is then rinsed through the specimen
for one hour. Next, the outlets of the sample are capped with polyethylene plugs and the
specimen is filled with synthetic test water (composition shown in Table 1). The test water is
replaced 7 times over a 10-day test period (at 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 days). Water samples
are taken on the 9th and 10* days and analyzed for lead, cadmium, and other metal pick-up.
Noting the sample volumes and metal concentrations over the 2-day sample period, the metals
extracted from the specimen are calculated. The obtained values are believed to be representative
of maximum metal pick-up in a first draw sample in home installations and can therefore be
related to accepted drinking water standards.
The British Standard Institution (BSI) has also established set procedures and requirements
for the suitability of materials used in contact with drinking water.40 The test procedure is similar
to the Nordtest, but differs in the comparison against test limits. The BSI method uses separate
-------
evaluations for pipes and fittings. Lead extracted from pipe specimens should not exceed the limit
specified in the European Economic Community (EEC) Directive on water quality for human
consumption.41 For fittings, 5% of the determined amount shall not exceed this limit.
Recently in the United States, a voluntary standard was developed by the National
Sanitation Foundation International (NSF) located in Section 9 of ANSI/NSF Standard 61
(Drinking Water System Components- Health Effects)42 pertaining to the leaching of metals from
mechanical plumbing devices. The standard establishes an extraction protocol for assessing lead
and other metal leachability from plumbing products in contact with drinking water. The
procedure describes a protocol for washing and conditioning the components. The devices are
then exposed to the extraction water (pH=8, alkalinity=500 mg CaCO3/L, and C12=2 mg/L) for
19 days using a static "fill-and-dump" test protocol. Samples are collected after days 3, 4, 5, 10,
11, 12, 17, 18, and 19 following a 16-hour dwell time and analyzed for lead. The data is
normalized, taking into account factors such as water volume and surface area. In the case of
lead, the data is statistically manipulated and compared to a maximum allowable level of 11 jug
Pb/L. The comparisons serve as a means of accepting or rejecting plumbing products for
certification under this standard.
Alternatives to the use of leaded brass
A variety of potential alternatives to the use of leaded brass alloys exist. Products could
be redesigned to reduce internal surface area or alternative casting processes could be used. The
internal surface of the product could be coated with a lead-free material. Faucets constructed of
plastic or faucets with plastic water channels could be used.
Another potential solution is to reduce or eliminate the amount of lead used in brass
plumbing fixtures and faucets. Some researchers and manufacturers have marketed alternative
alloying materials that enhance the machining properties of an alloy as well as lead does. Others
have investigated processes to produce materials of lower lead content for construction of fixtures.
Initial work conducted at the Argonne National Laboratory supported by the U.S.
Department of Energy investigated the selective removal of lead from brass and bronze scrap
melt.43 A major source of cast brass is recycled copper base scrap (primarily old automobile
radiators) in the form of ingots. The production of cast products from recycled scrap material
provides founders with an energy conservative, cost-effective alternative material source to
primary ores. However, the scrap typically contains high amounts of lead (more than 7 to 8% Pb)
and requires the addition of virgin materials to meet lower lead standards. The researchers have
investigated vacuum distillation as a means to selectively "pull-off or remove lead from the
recycled melt. This process is based on vapor pressure differences among materials in the melt.
The process has shown promise under laboratory conditions, but cost effectiveness remains an
issue.
-------
"Pre-leaching" lead from the alloy has been considered. Prior to distribution, the brass
product would be exposed to an aggressive metal extraction solution; perhaps an acidic solution.
The solution would extract or dissolve the lead from the brass surface, therefore reducing lead the
amount of lead exposed to the water. The process, which could be described as an "aging"
technique, may eliminate initial high water lead levels from exposure to new brass products. This
solution, however, has considerable drawbacks including cost, and handling and disposal issues
associated with the production of a hazardous, lead-containing extraction solution.
Researchers at AT&T Bell Laboratories have been exploring properties of copper alloys
substituting bismuth for lead as a solution to lead contamination from leaded brasses.12 They have
found that copper alloyed with bismuth coupled with a ductility-enhancer such as phosphorous,
indium, or tin, machines as well as leaded alloys. These studies have been conducted at the
laboratory-scale and full-scale implementation issues remain unresolved.
Some manufacturers have been advertising nearly true "lead-free" (advertised to contain
trace amounts of lead as a contaminant) brass or bronze alloys as possible substitutes for the lead-
containing ones. Leadfree Faucets Inc.00 claims to have developed a method for producing faucets
from aluminum bronze (<0.05% Pb).44 Currently the company produces the faucets solely for
components of point-of-use devices. Another company, NIBCO^, has used a brass that contains
bismuth as a substitute for lead in their cast brass products.45 The bismuth-brass alloy was
patented and licenced by IMI Yorkshire Fittings Limited(c) of the United Kingdom. The alloy
contains 2.7% bismuth and < 0.25% lead.46 While these truly lead-free materials show promise,
introducing bismuth to drinking water in the distribution system remains an unexplored issue.
Currently, however, no faucets are being made from lead-free alloys on a large scale.
TEST APPARATUS DESIGN AND OPERATION
Test apparatus
The test apparatus consisted of a large water reservoir (100 gallon Nalgene® tank)
connected to 12 parallel test loops by 1/2" inside diameter (ID) Schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) pipe. Test water contained in the reservoir was recirculated in the tank by a PVC pipe
recirculation line and magnetic drive pump system. The water was fed to the loops by a separate
magnetic drive pump and line. All pump components in contact with the water were constructed
of metal-free materials. Water that had passed through the loops was discharged to a waste drain.
Each test loop was constructed of a variety of PVC Schedule 80 and high density
polyethylene (HOPE) valves, fittings, and pipe. The systems each contained a 3-way valve, a
w Leadfree Faucets, Inc., Chagrin Falls, OH.
w NIBCO, Inc., Elkhart, IN.
(c) IMI Yorkshire Fittings LTD., P.O. Box 166, Leeds, LSI 1RD, UK.
10
-------
sample holding cell, and tubing made of Teflon®. The holding cell was sized to tightly hold one
l"x2"xl/8" metal coupon(a) in order to maximize the ratio of coupon surface area to volume of
water in contact with the coupon. The coupon surface area was 4.75 in2 and the volume of water
was 26 mL, resulting in a surface area to volume ratio of 0.18 in2/mL. Figure 1 is a photograph
of the test system and Figure 2 is a schematic of an individual test loop.
Coupon material
Six differently composed brass coupons, plus, a pure copper, pure zinc, pure lead, and
60:40 Sn:Pb solder coupon were simultaneously tested. One brass and the lead coupon were
tested in duplicate to evaluate material and procedural variability. The brass coupon compositions
are given in Table 2. The brasses used were chosen because they represent common materials
used to manufacture brass faucets and other fixtures used in drinking water systems. Several
coupon finishes were available from the coupon supplier: 120 grit, milled, and glass bead finishes.
The 120-grit finished coupons were chosen for this study because it was the finest finish available
and was presumed to give the most consistent coupon surface.
The compositions of the brass coupons were reported by the coupon manufacturer as
percentage ranges. In many cases, relatively wide composition ranges, such as those given for
lead, overlapped among different brasses. The nature of the study, however, required more
definitive metal coupon compositions.
For the purposes of this study, the chemical composition of the coupons was assumed to
be relatively uniform for the batch, and throughout each coupon. Subsamples consisting of
approximately 0.1 grams of material cut from the corners of unused coupons from the same batch
were used for the chemical analysis. Microwave digestion procedures were used to digest pieces
of the lead coupons47, Sn:Pb solder coupons48'49, and copper, zinc, brass coupons50. The digestates
were analyzed for lead, copper, zinc, iron and tin by flame atomic absorption spectroscopy and
results have been included in Table 2.
Coupon and test system cleaning procedures
Problems with coupon contamination, lead to the development of a thorough coupon pre-
cleaning procedure.51 The cleaning procedure was, in part, a combination of two American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) coupon wash procedures: designations G31-7252 and
D2688-8353. The procedure used and recommended for cleaning new metal coupons to be exposed
to static leach testing was as follows:
(a) Metal Samples, Inc., Munford, AL.
11
-------
1. Clean milled specimens (Cu, Zn, solders, and brasses) by ultrasound in 0.5%
Triton X-100®00 surfactant for 5 minutes. Clean each coupon individually in a
small glass beaker (containing Triton X-100®) surrounded by water. Following 5
minutes of ultrasonic treatment, discard the cleaning solution and rinse the metal
coupon with distilled water. Repeat the ultrasonic cleaning procedure for an
additional 5 minutes after replacing Triton X-100® with distilled water.
2. Soak copper and brass coupons individually in 1:4 HC1 for 30 minutes at room
temperature. Rinse the coupons thoroughly with distilled water and dry with a
Kimwipe™.
3. If the lead coupons are covered with a dark coating, sand the surfaces clean
with fine emery cloth or sand paper (e.g. special emery grinding paper, grit O^,
designated for metallography). Polish with a paper towel. Ultrasonic cleaning in
distilled water may be used to remove any solid particles adhering to the coupon,
but it is probably unnecessary. If ultrasound is used, 30 seconds to 1 minute is
sufficient. Longer times result in attack of the Pb metal surface.
4. Finally, rinse the coupons in acetone and air dry. They may be used
immediately or stored in a desiccator for later use.
Prior to starting the study, the entire experimental system was cleaned with a 5% solution
of Contrad 70®°° detergent. The solution was recirculated through the feed tank and rinsed
through the loops for 10 to 20 minutes. The solution was then held in the cells (empty cells), as
if coupons were being tested, for 24 hours. Next, the entire system was drained and the procedure
was repeated. The system was thoroughly rinsed with Cincinnati tap water until the Contrad®
solution was satisfactorily removed. The preceding steps were repeated using 0.15% HNO3
solution in place of the detergent except that after 24 hours standing, the acid solution held in the
test cells was analyzed for metals (Pb, Cu, Zn, Fe, and Sn). The acid cleaning steps were
repeated until standing metal levels were consistent with background Cincinnati tap water metal
levels. The cleaning procedure was also used to clean the system before the start-up of new water
quality tests. Analysis of the acid cleaning solution showed that metals were adsorbed onto the
surface of the test loop components during a test run, and several acid rinses were required to
remove the contamination before re-starting.
Operating procedures
The daily operating procedure of the test system was as follows:
w Curtis Matheson Scientific, Inc., Houston, TX.
w Buehler LTD., Evanston, IL.
(c) Godax Laboratories, Inc., New York, NY.
12
-------
During the first three test runs, the Nalgene® tank was filled with approximately 30 gallons
of Cincinnati tap water. Water pH was chemically adjusted, if necessary, by adding 6 N HC1 or
8 N NaOH. The tank recirculation pump was in continuous operation during the make-up of the
feed water to assure complete mixing and dispersement of chemical additives. In the last two test
runs, the water was determined to be stable enough (i.e., did not significantly change chemically)
that the storage tank was filled to 80 gallons and that water was used over the following several
days. The free chlorine residual and pH was checked daily and chemically adjusted as necessary
to meet standards. Free chlorine residual was maintained by adding sodium hypochlorite solution
(4 to 6% available chlorine).
After the water was prepared, all valves in the loops were opened to the waste drain. The
feed pump was activated. Test water was flushed through the loops simultaneously at a flow rate
of approximately 0.15 L/min for a brief rinse period of 5 to 10 minutes for total flow of
approximately 10 gallons. The valves in the loops were then closed, holding the water in the cells
in contact with the metal coupons. The water was held in the cells for approximately 22 to 24
hours during weekdays (Monday thru Friday) and 72 hours over weekends (Friday thru Monday).
Next, the cells were sampled by opening the labcock above the cell to the air and then opening
the 3-way Teflon® stopcock below the cell while simultaneously holding a 60 mL Nalgene®
HDPE sample bottle below the stopcock sample port. Air admitted through the top stopcock,
allowed the leach water to drain by gravity into the sample bottle. The total sample volume was
only about 26 mL, most of which was contained in the Teflon® sample cell. The valves were then
closed and newly prepared source water was again flushed through the cells, as mentioned,
repeating the procedure. Initially, sampling from the cells was conducted daily. After several
weeks of operation, sampling was reduced to 3 times per week (two 24-hour samples and one 72-
hour sample). Water was flushed through the cells daily (Monday to Friday), even when sampling
was not done. Air was in contact with the metal coupons for a short period of time; however, the
coupon surface was not exposed long enough to completely dry.
Test runs were generally terminated after approximately 150 days. Termination was based
on apparent stabilization of metal leaching levels. At the end of each test run, the coupons were
removed from the cells, the system was cleaned as previously described, new coupons were
installed, and the study was repeated with a different extraction water.
Sampling
Water samples taken in 60 mL bottles from the sample cells, as mentioned, were preserved
in 0.15% ultrapure HNC^54 and analyzed for lead, copper, zinc, iron, and tin. Free chlorine, total
chlorine, and pH were measured daily and dissolved oxygen was measured weekly in the tank feed
water. These parameters were measured immediately, prior to fresh water being fed to the loops.
Additionally, three feed water samples were taken: a 250 mL 0.15% HNO3 preserved sample for
background metal analysis (Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Pb, and Zn); a 250 mL sample for
background wet chemistry analysis (alkalinity, Cl, NH3, NO3, PO4, SiO2, and SO4); and a 30 mL
sample for total inorganic carbon (TIC) analysis. All sample bottles, with the exception of the
13
-------
TIC bottle, were Nalgene® HDPE bottles. TIC samples were taken in 30 mL glass vials having
caps with conical polyethylene liners. Special care was taken to insure that no air or air bubbles
were trapped in the sample.
Analytical procedures
Unless otherwise specified, all chemicals used in this study were Analytical Reagent (AR)
grade. Deionized (DI) water was prepared by passing building distilled water through a Milli-Q
Plus® cartridge deionized water system00, having a resistivity >. 18.2 MQ.
Glassware (excluding pipets) used for the preparation of standards and solutions was
cleaned using a 5% solution of Contrad 70®. The glassware was thoroughly rinsed with deionized
water. Reused glassware was immediately cleaned by soaking in 10% (v/v) concentrated HNO3
and rinsed with DI H2O. Glass pipets were cleaned by at least an overnight soaking in 5%
Contrad® solution, followed by rinsing with dilute AR-grade HC1 in a plastic pipet washer. The
final rinse was a minimum of 8 total volumes of deionized water cycled through the pipet washer.
Air displacement micropipets with disposable tips were used for handling and transferring
solutions.
Ultrapure nitric acid, HNOj^ was used to preserve samples. 0. 15 % of the sample volume
was the volume of nitric acid added to the sample (1.5mL/L). 6 N HC1(C) and 8 N NaOH{d) were
used to chemically adjust feed water pH. Sodium phosphate (Na3PO4*H2O)(b) was used to adjust
the phosphate concentration in the feed water.
Instrimentation
Lead was analyzed with a Perkin Elmer Model 4000 Spectrophotometer(e) equipped with
a Model HGA 400 furnace programmer and AS 40 autosampler. Initially, all other metals were
analyzed with a Perkin Elmer Model 5000 Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer and an AS 50
autosampler. After August 1, 1993, these metals were analyzed with a new Thermo Jarrel Ash(0
61E® purged inductively coupled argon plasma spectrometer (ICAPS). The ICAPS was
implemented between test runs and improved detection limits of most metals analyzed (see Table
3). The change did not affect conclusions of the report since metals leached from the coupons
were well above the detection limits of both methodologies. Lead results, which did fall below
the detection limit, were not impacted because the method remained the same. The pH was
w Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA.
w Ultrex, J. T. Baker Chemical Company., Phillipsburg, NJ.
(c) MaUinckrodt, Inc., Paris, KY.
(d) Fisher Scientific, Failawn, NJ.
(c) Perkin Elmer Corp., Norwalk, CT.
(0 Thermo Jarrel Ash Corp., Franklin, MA.
14
-------
measured with a Orion Model EA 940 pH meter(a) and an Orion Ross Sure-Flo™ electrode. Free
and total chlorine were analyzed with a Hach DR/2000 spectrophotometer*'. TIC was analyzed
by a coulometric procedure on a UIC Model 5011 CO2 coulometer(c) with Model 50 acidification
module, operated under computer control. A complete list of analytes and analytical methods is
shown in Table 3.
Quality assurance and quality control
Laboratory quality assurance (QA) procedures for analytical precision and accuracy for all
samples followed procedures established by the Treatment Technology Evaluation Branch (TTEB)
for all research studies. QA practices include requirements for analysis of duplicates and spikes
of samples comprising more than 10% of the sample load, and verification of instrument
calibration and some interference checking through external certified reference standards at
multiple times during each analytical run. The exact location and frequency of different types of
quality control spikes, standards, blanks, and duplicates, along with accuracy requirements, are
specified in those documented procedures for each type of analysis. They cannot be generalized
because the precision and accuracy expectations vary with the type of instrument used and the
levels of the analyte encountered in the different experiments.
Quality control charts for the major analytes are given in Appendix Tables 39 to 41 for QA
samples analyzed during the study period. Duplicate difference, spike recovery, and standard
recovery information is presented for analyte concentration ranges.
Statistical data analysis and interpretation
Differences in metal leaching trends where determined using several statistical approaches.
Data normality was determined by the Kolmorogov-Smirnov Test. In most cases of this study ^
data distributions were not normal (at 95% confidence), suggesting the use of the following non-
parametric statistical data interpretation techniques. The Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) on Ranks was used to demonstrate differences in metal leaching trends from
coupons. The Kruskal-Wallis Test is necessary when (a) determining if three or more groups are
affected by a single factor (e.g. brass composition), and (b) samples are not normally distributed
or do not have equal variances.55 Since ANOVA statistics only indicate whether two or more
groups are different, the Student-Newman-Keuls method and the Dunn's method were used to
make multiple comparisons between all possible group pairs. The Student-Newman-Keuls test is
used when group sizes are equal and Dunn's test is used when group sizes are unequal. All
statistical comparison tests were made at 95% confidence (P=0.05), that is to say with 95%
confidence that the groups differ significantly. In the few cases were the data were normally
(a) Orion Research, Inc., Boston, MA.
w Hach Company, Loveland, CO.
(c)UICInc.,Joliet, IL.
15
-------
distributed, The Kruskal-Wallace one way ANOVA test on ranks was used to demonstrate
differences in leaching trends.56 All statistical calculations were made using Sigmastat™(a) (version
1.0) statistical software. Detailed and understandable statistical procedure descriptions can be
found in S.A. Glantz's Primer ofBiostatistics56 and W.W. Daniel's Biostatistics: A Foundation
for Analysis in the Health Sciences* or any other acceptable statistical reference.
Data outliers (data points that fell well beyond the majority of set measurements and
reasonable expectations) were occasionally encountered. The first approach used to treat data
outliers was to look for an assignable cause (e.g., a misidentified sample bottle or a leaking
coupon holder cell). Quality assurance data from analytical test runs, laboratory log books, and
bottle labels were examined for errors and documented problems. Where an explanation for a
suspected outlier could not be found, the data was tested statistically according to the United States
Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards58 for the case where the population mean
and standard deviation are known at a confidence level of 90% (P=0.10). Identified outliers were
recorded, however, were not included in statistical analysis and graphical representations.
RESULTS
Table 4 is a summary of the general water quality conditions and time periods of each "test
run" of the study for future reference. Test runs were continued until metal leaching "trends"
visually "leveled-off" or their slopes approached zero. The terminology "metal leaching trends"
is used in this report to describe the curve of metal concentration leached from a coupon over a
time frame (study period). Unless otherwise noted, the following results refer to samples collected
following approximately 22- to 24-hour stagnation times. Raw metal analysis and extraction water
quality data is compiled for all test runs in Appendix Tables 1 to 35. Values less than analytical
detection limits including negative numbers are presented in the tables. Since those values
represent real instrumental outputs, it has been recommended that they are retained for statistical
calculations.59 Tables 5a to 5e summarize the extraction water qualities used in each test run.
Test run #1
Extraction water quality
Non-chemically adjusted Cincinnati tap water was used in test run 1. As a result, larger
than desired pH fluctuations (0.18 pH units standard deviation) were observed throughout the test
run. The solubility of copper, in particular, is strongly impacted by pH60 and even small pH
fluctuations (0.1 pH units) have been shown to considerably influence copper solubility.51 The
mean sulfate concentration (116.3 mg SO4/L) was higher during this test run than in others.
Researchers60'61 have suggested that sulfate negatively impacts copper corrosion at pH values above
approximately 7.5 and may be beneficial at lower pHs in new systems. The mechanism(s),
(a) Jandel Scientific, San Rafael, CA.
16
-------
however, have not been established and clearly greater research efforts are required to understand
the role of sulfate. Free chlorine, a strong oxidizing agent and an influential parameter on metal
dissolution rates, averaged 2.0 mg/L which was more than 0.5 mg/L greater than values observed
in any other test run. Free chlorine has not been conclusively demonstrated to alter metal
equilibrium conditions. Perceived increases in metal levels associated with free chlorine increases
are often misinterpretations of increased oxidation rates. The increased sulfate and free chlorine
levels observed during this test run were likely related to seasonal water quality variations in the
Ohio River (main source of Cincinnati tap water). Dissolved oxygen and TIC were not directly
measured during this test run. TIC was calculated using WATEQX62, a computer FORTRAN 77
program, and source water quality values. The calculated value was 14.3 mg C/L with a standard
deviation of 1.2 mg C/L.
Lead leached from brass coupons
Figure 3 shows lead leaching trends from the brass coupons (C36000 was tested in
duplicate) and duplicate pure lead coupons during test run 1. The greatest amount of lead leached
from the brass coupons occurred during the first 7 days of the test run. During this time lead
levels dropped off sharply with time and trends were difficult to differentiate. Initial high values
were thought to be related to new, clean coupon surfaces and thinly dispersed lead globules
present on the coupon surfaces at the start-up. The concentration of lead leached during this period
varied amongst brasses by no more than approximately 80 //g/L and was generally a function of
the lead content of the brass; brasses with higher lead contents tended to leach higher amounts of
lead.
From approximately 7 to 15 days into the test run, lead concentrations gradually leveled
off and the variance between the magnitude in lead levels leached from the brasses narrowed.
During this time period, the relationship between the lead content of a brass and the amount of
lead leached from the brass became less apparent. Statistical comparisons between the lead
leaching trends during this time period showed that there was no significant difference between
most trends at 95% confidence.
After 15 days, the lead leaching trends appeared to split into two distinct groups. For
future reference, the groups will be labeled as the "low" group and the "high" group, in reference
to the relative magnitude of lead leached from the coupons. During the period between 15 to 60
days, the general trend of both groups continued to be a gradual downward one. The trends
visually appeared to level-off or stabilize after 60 to 70 days.
The "low" group consisted of the duplicate free-cutting brass (C36000) coupons and one
yellow brass (C85400) coupon. The amount of lead leached from these brasses was nearly
indistinguishable for the remainder of the run (after 60 days) as confirmed statistically in
Appendix Table 36. The similarity in lead leaching patterns was reflective of the similarity in
compositions of the two brasses (see Table 2). The quantity of lead in the two brasses overlapped
while free-cutting brass contained slightly more zinc and slightly less copper than the C85400
17
-------
coupon. As a group, the amount of lead leached at the completion of the study was approximately
8.5 //g/L. The brasses in this group were two of the three lowest lead containing brasses
evaluated. Lead levels dropped by approximately 90% over the remainder of the test run.
The "high" group consisted of the three red brasses: C83600, C84400, and C84500, and
yellow brass C85200. From 60 to 125 days, these brasses followed parallel lead leaching trends
but differed in magnitude by as much as 50 /ng/L. C85200 brass leached the least amount of lead
in the group over this time period. The average lead concentration leached from the brasses in
the group during the last 21 days of the study was approximately 28 Mg/L. Lead levels dropped
by approximately 80% over the study period. There was no statistical difference among brasses
in this group (Appendix Table 36)
With the exception of the C85200 brass, the magnitude of lead leached from the brasses
corresponded well to the lead composition of the brass alloy after 60 days of leaching. In other
words, brasses containing greater amounts of lead tended to leach greater amounts of lead than
brasses containing lower amounts of lead. C85200 brass is a yellow brass and has a similar
composition as brasses in the low group. Based upon the similarity, it was expected that the
amount of lead leached from C85200 brass would have been similar to the amount of lead leached
from brasses in the low group. The difference between the two brasses is C85200 brass contained
slightly more copper and slightly less zinc than C85400 brass.
A white precipitate formed on several of the brasses. Upon close visual examination, it
was noted that the density of the coating increased as the zinc composition of the brass increased.
A nearly identical appearing but denser solid formed on the pure zinc coupon. Based upon the
visual examination, water chemistry, zinc solubility chemistry, and findings by others63"66, the film
was believed to be basic zinc carbonate (hydrozincite). The film may have provided corrosion
protection by acting as a diffusion barrier and reducing the amount of lead leached from the
brasses. This observation could explain why more lead was leached from the lower zinc-
containing C85200 brass than expected.
Localized upward and downward patterns in the leaching trends were occasionally observed
in varying degrees throughout the test run. In most cases, the trends appeared to closely parallel
changes in water quality (pH and chlorine residual).
The pure lead coupons leached more lead than any of the brasses during all stages of this
test run. This observation demonstrated that the rate of lead dissolution from the brasses was
significantly hindered. Physical characteristics of the brass coupon surface such as exposed lead
surface area and the formation of corrosion deposits comprised of alloy materials other than lead
at the coupon surface were believed to be limiting factors.
Statistical comparisons of the lead leaching trends made over the entire test run and after
the lead trends appeared to stabilize (after 60 days) showed that the majority of trends were
significantly different (p<0.05) (Appendix Table 36). Good reproducibility between of lead
18
-------
leaching of duplicate free-cutting brass coupons was observed (i.e., no statistical difference was
observed).
Copper leached from brass coupons
Copper leaching trends were similar to those observed for lead in that two groups, a "high"
and a "low", were established (Figure 4). The major difference was that the division into trend
groups took place at the beginning of the test run.
The high group consisted of the three red brasses: C83600, C84400, and C84500. Unlike
lead leaching trends, a relatively constant amount of copper (approximately 0.22 mg/L) was
leached from the brasses in the high group throughout the entire test run (Appendix Table 37).
The leaching patterns and copper levels of the high group brasses were nearly identical throughout
the entire test run. These results showed that smaller differences in copper composition in similar
alloys did not translate into significant differences in copper leaching levels.
The low group of brasses consisted of C36000, C85200, and C85400 which were also the
brasses that contained the lowest percentage of copper. The copper leaching trends among these
brasses were also nearly identical. Copper levels gradually decreased over the first 20 to 40 days
followed by a leveling off trend at a concentration of approximately 0.03 mg/L. No statistical
differences between trends in this group were discovered (Appendix Table 37).
After approximately 120 days, the pure copper coupon leached nearly the same amount
of copper as the red brasses. This showed that there was a critical alloy composition in which the
brass alloy took on the leaching properties of pure copper.
A number of gradual concentration peaks and valleys were observed in the copper leaching
trends. The gradual change in copper levels was characteristic of a response to fluctuations in
extraction water quality rather than the collection of dislodged paniculate material which would
result in single random copper spikes. A review of the extraction water chemistry during periods
of peaks and valleys frequently showed a relationship between pH and copper concentration. For
example, in one instance over a 35-day period (from 95 to 130 days into the test run), the pH of
the extraction water gradually dropped from approximately 8.7 to'8.2 (Appendix Figure Fl). A
corresponding increase or inverse pattern was seen in copper levels. This was especially evident
with the high group brasses, where copper levels more than doubled during this time period.
Similar relationships were not always obvious or apparent as this particular case. A number of
factors such as coupon age and water quality probably impact the occurrence and degree of such
relationships.
In most cases, trends within groups were not statistically different from each other. Also,
duplicate copper (C36000) was not statistically different over the entire test run or after 60 days,'
which demonstrated good experimental reproducibility (Appendix Table 37).
19
-------
Zinc leached from brass coupons
Zinc leaching trends (shown in Figure 5) behaved differently from those observed for both
copper and lead in that there were not groups of distinct leaching trends. Zinc levels leached from
the brasses were a function of the percentage of zinc in the brass throughout the entire study. Zinc
concentrations appeared to slightly decrease over the first two weeks. They stabilized after about
60 days in the concentration range of about 0.05 to 0.30 mg/L. Zinc leachate concentrations
fluctuated slightly throughout the study. As was the case for copper, fluctuations often appeared
to correlate with changes in background water chemistry (i.e., pH and chlorine residual).
The pure zinc coupon leached as much as 11.3 mg/L at the start of the study, but dropped
rapidly to about 0.32 mg/L after 40 to 50 days. By the end of the study, the amount of zinc
leached from the pure zinc coupon was lower than the amount leached from the yellow brasses
and nearly the same as the red brasses. As was the case for copper, there appeared to be a zinc
content threshold where the alloy took the leaching qualities of pure zinc. The zinc composition
of the alloy was low relative to copper content and the pure zinc coupon. Despite this condition,
zinc dissolution rates were not hindered and in some cases appeared to even be slightly enhanced.
A simple explanation would be that the amount of zinc in the alloy and at the alloy surface in
contact with the water were sufficient to avoid kinetic limitations. A more complex theory would
be that the selective removal of zinc from the alloy, possibly enhanced by galvanic interactions
among other elements within the alloy, contributed to the observations. Of course these
explanations are speculative/thoughts made by the authors. Without a detailed scientific
investigation on the electrochemical interactions between the elements that make up brass and a
high degree of knowledge of the structure of brass alloys (which were well beyond the scope of
this project), a valid scientific explanation cannot be given.
Statistical analysis of zinc leaching data showed that nearly all case comparisons were
statistically different (Appendix Table 38). Zinc leaching trends observed after 60 days showed
that duplicate coupon (C36000) were not statistically different.
Test run #2
Extraction water quality
Table 5b summarizes the extraction water quality used during test run 2. The pH of the
tap water was strictly controlled at an average of 7.01 with a standard deviation of 0.05 by the
addition of HC1 and/or NaOH. Sulfate levels were lower during this test run than the first by
approximately 50 mg/L, averaging 68 mg SO4/L. Free chlorine was also lower during this test
run than the first, averaging 1.4 mg/L with a standard deviation of 0.28 mg/L. Measured TIC
and DO averaged 12.6 mg C/L and 8.9 mg O2/L, respectively.
20
-------
Lead leached from brass coupons
Figure 6 shows lead leaching trends from the six brass coupons (and one duplicate C36000
coupon) and duplicate pure lead coupons during this test run. The greatest amounts of lead leached
from the coupons during the first 14 days of the run, with levels dropping off rapidly during this
period. The relative amount of lead leached from the brass during this period was generally
dependent on the amount of lead in the brass. The magnitude of lead leached from the brasses
during the first 14 days differed by as much as 300 mg/L among the brasses.
From 14 to approximately 40 days, the lead leaching trends began to level off. During this
period, lead trends aligned themselves in the direction and order they would follow for the
remainder of the study. Alignment appeared haphazard initially, with trends overlapping and
following no distinct pattern. By 40 days, the patterns established a clear position and direction.
From 40 days to the end of the test run, the tendency of the majority of the lead leaching
trends was to slightly decrease. Yellow brass C85200 was the exception in that the decrease was
more apparent. Also, C85400 brass, oddly, exhibited a gradual increasing lead leaching trend
before finally leveling off. C85400 is a yellow brass containing the most zinc but the least lead
of the brasses tested. The most plausible explanation was the theory that zinc dissolution
subsequently lead to the exposure of additional lead surface sites resulting in increased corrosion
rates 6. However, for this theory to hold, similar observations should be observed with similarly
composed brasses which was not the case for C85200 brass.
A distinct set of trend groups like those observed in test run 1 did not develop during this
test run. In some cases, lead concentrations observed at the end of this test run were one order
of magnitude greater than levels observed for the same coupon during the test run 1 . By the end
study, trends tended to be evenly separated by roughly 10 to 50 //g/L. The percentage of lead
leached from brass was directly related to the amount of lead in the alloy (i.e., the more lead in
the alloy the more lead leached from the brass). As was the case in test run 1, the pure lead
coupons leached more lead than any of the brasses.
Statistical comparisons of the leaching trends made over the entire test run and following
the period after 60 days show that approximately half of the trends are significantly different at
the 95% confidence interval (Appendix Table 36). Trends that are not significantly different are
mostly of the same group or brass type, yellow or red brasses. The duplicate C36000 trends were
significantly different over the entire study and after 60 days were significantly different which
was, in part, probably due to the high lead levels leached from the coupons.
Copper leached from brass coupons
Copper leaching trends differed from lead leaching trends in that copper levels did not start
out extremely high, followed by a rapid drop and gradual leveling off (shown in Figure 7). With
the exception of C36000 brass, the trends gradually increased over the first 60 days of the test run
21
-------
to a plateau which they stayed at for the remainder of the study. This pattern was believed to be
due to the slow dissolution of an oxide film thought to have formed on the coupon surface during
coupon atmospheric storage prior to study initiation. The film provided some corrosion
protection to the coupons initially, however, with time dissolved and new films and equilibrium
conditions were established. The C36000 brass leaching trend decreased gradually during the first
60 days, after which the trend leveled off.
There was difficulty in accurately distinguishing or ranking leaching trends, with the
exception of the two C36000 brass coupons. The C36000 brass coupons stood out from the other
brasses in that significantly lower amounts of copper were leached from them. They contained
the least amount of copper of the brasses tested. The difficultly in detecting differences or ranking
copper leaching trends among the remaining brasses was due to the inconsistency or sporadicness
of the leaching trends despite strict control on pH leaching trends. This demonstrates that even
under well controlled laboratory conditions, a high degree of random variability occurred. The
cause (s) are difficult to determine since a number factors such as small water quality differences,
disturbance of the test apparatus, small stagnation time differences, and the dislodging of
particulate material could contribute to such behavior.
Copper levels generally remained between 1 to 2 mg/L of copper throughout the duration
of the study for the group of coupons. Similarly to test run 1, the amount of copper leached from
the pure copper coupon was initially higher than levels leached from brasses, however, rapidly
fell below those levels leached from the red brasses.
Trends were determined to be statistically different in most cases, leaching trends were
significantly different (P<0.05) (Appendix Table 37). However, leaching trends crossed over
each other frequently making it difficult to distinguish or rank trends. Good reproducibility of
copper leached from the duplicate free-cutting brass coupons was found.
Zinc leached from brass coupons
Zinc leaching patterns followed a slightly different trend than lead and copper (Figure 8).
In almost all cases, zinc levels gradually fell with time, in most cases leveling off by
approximately 60 days. The amount of zinc leached from the coupons was directly dependent
upon the amount of zinc in the alloy. C36000 leached the most zinc, leaching as much as 2 mg/L
more than the next closest alloy, and averaged about 4 to 5 mg/L by the end of the study. The
levels leached from C36000 were nearly the same as the levels observed with the pure zinc
coupon. C85400 and C85200 brasses were next in order of leaching. The two yellow brasses
contained the next greatest amount of zinc. Zinc leached from them appeared to be still
decreasing at the end of the study. Red brasses C84500 and C84400 were next, and very close,
averaging around 0.5 mg/L and C83600 leached at < 0.25 mg/L. In nearly all cases (after 60
days and over the entire study), zinc leaching trends were statistically different. Reproducibility
of zinc leached from the duplicate free-cutting brass coupons was good.
22
-------
Impact of pH on metal leached from coupons
Brass coupons
The influence of pH on metal dissolution from the alloys and pure metals was evaluated
by comparing metal levels leached from the coupons exposed during test runs 1 and 2 (Appendix
Figures F3 to F24). The results showed that the three red brasses all behaved similarly with
respect to the influence of pH on lead levels leached. As expected, the water considered to be
most corrosive towards lead, the lower pH water, leached the most lead from the red brass
coupons. This was particularly evident with C83600 and C84400 coupons, where a difference
between the two pH leach trends of approximately 100 //g Pb/L was maintained throughout the
duration of their respective studies. The influence of pH on lead leached from C84500 was not
as significant and at one stage, between 20 and 60 days, appeared to be insignificant. The most
notable difference was that C84500 brass contained the most zinc of the three red brasses tested.
As a group, the red brasses contain the most lead, nearly doubling the lead content of the yellow
brasses.
The two yellow brasses (C85200 and C85400) exhibited different lead leaching responses
to pH than the red brasses. Interestingly, lead leached from C85200 (Appendix Figure F8)
showed pH had no visual impact on lead concentration while the impact of pH on lead leached
from C85400 (Appendix Figure F9) brass was small (10 //g Pb/L) relative to the red brasses. The
major compositional differences between the red and yellow brasses are red brasses contain more
lead but far less zinc. These observations suggest that the dissolution of lead from brass was not
solubility controlled, otherwise lead levels would be higher at pH 7.0 due to higher lead solubility.
The differences between the amount of lead leached from C36000 (Appendix Figure F4)
at pH 7.0 and 8.5 fell between differences observed with yellow and red brasses. Lowering the
pH to 7.0 increased lead levels significantly (by approximately 30 n% Pb/L) but not to the degree
observed with the red brasses. Free-cutting brass contains the most zinc of all the brasses tested
and contains less lead than the red brasses and more lead than the yellow brasses.
Copper leaching levels were significantly higher at the lower pH for all brasses except
C36000 brass. The difference was greater amongst the red brasses, and (Appendix Figures Fll
to F15) with copper levels being more than 1.5 mg/L higher at pH 7.0. The difference between
copper leached from the coupons at pH 8.5 and 7.0 appeared to widen as the percentage of copper
in the alloy increased. Free-cutting brass leached the least copper and the differences between
copper leached at pH 7.0 and 8.5 was insignificant.
Zinc leaching levels were significantly higher at the lower pH for all brasses. As with
copper, the difference between zinc leached at pH 8.5 and 7.0 appeared to increase (Appendix
Figures F16 to F20) as the percentage of zinc in the alloy increased. The largest difference was
seen with the free-cutting brass (which contained the most zinc) and the smallest difference was
red brass C83600 which contained the least zinc.
23
-------
Lead coupons
The pH 7.0 test water was more corrosive towards lead than at pH 8.5 (Appendix Figure
F21). At pH 7.0, lead levels were highest at the start of the study and gradually dropped with
time. The lead levels never appeared to stabilize, even by the completion of the test run at 160
days. At pH 8.5, lead levels appeared to stabilize after only approximately 25 days. At the end
of the test runs, lead levels were more than 200 jtg/L higher than observed at pH 8.5. The results
show that pH clearly impacts lead solubility of pure lead.
Copper coupon
The pH 7.0 test water was also more corrosive toward copper (Appendix Figure F22).
The leaching pattern over time was unlike lead in that copper levels started low (approximately
1 mg Cu/L) but increased rapidly to a peak at approximately 4 mg/L by 40 days. This pattern was
similar to that observed with copper leached from the brass for the same reasons. The copper
leaching trend proceeded to drop gradually for the remainder of the study, falling back to the
original level of about 1 mg/L in 160 days. It appeared that at the termination of the test run, the
copper levels were still decreasing and further time would be required for copper levels to
stabilize. This showed that it took a greater amount of time for copper concentrations leached
from new copper surfaces to stabilize under exposure to corrosive conditions.
Increasing the pH from 7.0 to 8.5 had a much different effect on the copper leached from
pure copper. The copper levels were significantly lower under these conditions and the trends
followed a different pattern. Copper levels started out at about 0.5 mg/L and gradually dropped
to approximately 0.25 mg/L by 120 days. It appeared that by 80 days into the test run leaching
trend had leveled off. The leaching trend was also smooth in comparison to the lower pH trend.
Zinc coupons
The lowest pH (7.0) test water was also the most corrosive towards pure zinc (Appendix
Figure F23). At pH 7.0, zinc levels started high (approximately 9 mg/L) then dropped rapidly
to about 4 mg/L by 20 days. The levels increased slightly to about 4.5 mg/L after about 60 days,
then leveled off for the remainder of the test run at about 4.5 mg/L. Zinc values, however, were
not smooth, fluctuating randomly about 4.5 mg/L.
Lower zinc levels were observed at pH 8.5. The zinc levels started out quite high, but
decreased rapidly over the first 30 days, falling to a more gradual decreasing slope. The trend
appeared to level off at about 60 days, to a concentration of about 0.25 mg/L. The curve was
relatively smooth.
24
-------
60:40 tin:lead solder coupons
Solder coupons exhibited unexpected leaching trend results (Appendix Figure F24).
Initially, over the first week of the study, the coupon exposed to the pH 7.0 test water leached the
most lead. The lead levels dropped off rapidly, then leveled off and stabilized after about 70
days. High levels were also observed initially with the pH 8.5 test water, however, not to the
degree observed with the pH 7.0 water.
Impact of orthophosphate on the metal leached from coupons
Extraction water quality
Tables 5c to 5e summarize the quality of extraction water used in test runs 3, 4, and 5.
With the exception of sulfate in run 5 and phosphate, water qualities were generally similar in
composition. The pH was tightly maintained at 7.5 because orthophosphate is most effective at
reducing lead solubility in apH range of approximately 7.3 to 7.7. Orthophosphate averaged 2.8,
0.46, and <0.02 mg PO4/L in test runs 3, 4, and 5, respectively. A non-zinc containing
orthophosphate chemical was used to avoid potential questions, confusion, and interpretation
difficulty associated with separating the well-documented influence of orthophosphate and
potential impact of zinc, as suggested by some, on metal leached from the brasses.
Brass coupons
Figures 9 to 14 show the effect of orthophosphate on lead leached from the brass coupons.
The most notable impact of orthophosphate on lead levels was on the rate at which lead was
reduced. Orthophosphate reduced the time (days) for lead levels to stabilize. The highest
orthophosphate dose (2.8 mg/L) caused lead levels to drop rapidly and stabilize in all brasses.
The lead levels by the end of the test run were generally low (< 10 /ig/L) and in some cases less
than analytical detection limits (2 /*g/L). Reducing the orthophosphate concentration to 0.5 mg/L,
increased the time for lead levels to stabilize by as much as 50 days, but had little impact on final
lead concentrations. In most cases, lead levels leached from coupons exposed to the control water
(0.0 mg PO4/L) appeared to still be decreasing after 140 days. Interestingly, lead levels leached
from the yellow and free-machining brasses eventually dropped to approximately the same
stabilized lead levels observed in the test runs where orthophosphate was added (Figures 9, 13,
and 14). Although this observation did not quite hold true for all of the red brasses (Figures 10
to 12), their lead leaching trends were still decreasing at the termination of the test run. If the test
runs were carried out longer, lead levels may have eventually dropped to the stabilized levels
observed in the phosphate test runs. It was concluded that the biggest role of orthophosphate on
lead leached from brass was as an "aging accelerator".
The alloy composition also impacted the amount of time required for lead levels to
stabilize. Generally, the more lead in the alloy, the longer time required for lead levels to
25
-------
stabilize. Brass composition had little impact on final lead levels (levels observed at the
termination of the test runs) when orthophosphate was present at 0.46 and 2.8 mg/L.
Lead levels measured when phosphate was present were similar to those observed for the
same alloy at pH 8.5. Based on results of the control test run, the impact of pH (7.5 versus 8.5)
on lead levels leached from the brasses lessened relative to pH 7.0 test run results.
The impact of orthophosphate on pure lead was different than the brasses. Lead response
was more typical of that described by lead solubility relationships.14'67'68 Orthophosphate clearly
reduced lead levels leached from pure lead (Figure 15). The highest orthophosphate dose was
most effective in reducing lead concentration, lowering lead levels to near 100 jug/L by the end
of the test run. The 0.5 mg/L orthophosphate dose was also effective at reducing lead levels, but
to a lesser degree than the higher orthophosphate dose (final lead levels were about 200 ^g/L).
This result demonstrated the importance of sufficient orthophosphate dosing in obtaining optimal
lead control benefits. Without orthophosphate addition, lead levels were near 300 ftg/L at the end
of the test run (130 to 140 dasys). Orthophosphate concentration did not have the same impact
on stabilization time of the brasses. Orthophosphate had an immediate impact on lead reduction
and stabilization, while without orthophosphate lead levels started high and dropped to stabilized
levels by approximately 60 days.
Similar observations were made with lead leached from the 60:40 Sn:Pb solder coupon
(Figure 16). The final lead levels were not as high and the benefit of orthophosphate was not as
dramatic, but trends and patterns were nearly identical to the results of the pure lead test.
The impact of orthophosphate on copper leached from the brasses was more difficult to
interpret (Figures 17 to 22). Copper levels leached from red brass C83600 and C84400 were 0.2
to 0.4 mg/L lower when orthophosphate was present. Copper leached from similar copper
containing C84500 brass, however, was not impacted by orthophosphate. Copper leached from
the yellow brasses and the C36000 coupons was lower by as much as 0.1 mg/L when
orthophosphate was not present. Orthophosphate had little impact on copper leached from pure
copper (Figure 23). The results are confusing but do suggest that in some cases orthophosphate
(at pH 7.5) can provide some benefit in reducing copper dissolution from brass. Some insight into
the observations can be found in recent work suggesting that orthophosphate is most beneficial at
reducing copper levels at lower pH values (< 7.0) on new materials.60 The research shows that
minimal reduction in copper solubility at pH 7.5 is realized from the addition of orthophosphate.
The impact of orthophosphate on copper at pH 6.5 was briefly explored as an extension
to test run 5. After 142, days the pH was lowered from 7.5 to 6.5 for 23 days. Copper leached
from the pure copper coupon immediately increased to more than 1 mg/L and averaged 1.2 mg/L
over the period. At 182 days, 3.0 mg/L orthophosphate was added. The run was continued for
an additional 17 days. The copper levels were initially sporadic, jumping between 0.67 and 2.3
mg/L, but averaged only 0.36 mg/L for the last two sampling events. This brief investigation was
26
-------
not conclusive, but certainly suggests that more exploration into the impact of orthophosphate on
copper corrosion is needed.
The impact of orthophosphate on zinc leached from the brasses was also difficult to
interpret (Figures 24 to 29). Zinc leaching trends from brass coupons C36000, C83600, and
C84400 showed small reductions in zinc levels when orthophosphate was present, and the
remaining brasses exhibited no benefit. Red brasses did not benefit more from orthophosphate
than the yellow brasses. Orthophosphate appeared to extend the time for zinc levels to stabilize,
but did not impact final zinc concentrations (Figure 30).
Impact of stagnation time on metals leached
The effect of stand time on metal levels leached from the coupons was investigated by
comparing 24- to 72-hour standing samples. As a point of clarification, the same coupon was
used for both test times; 24-hour samples were taken on weekdays and 72-hour samples were
taken over the weekend. Rather than discussing the influence of stand time on metals leached
from each brass, one representative red (C84500) and yellow (C85400) brass will be used to
demonstrate the general trends of each brass type group.
At pH 7.0 and 8.5, lead leached from red brass, coupon C84500 appeared to be slightly
higher (10 to 25 ^g/L) after 72 hours while yellow brass was not affected by stand time (Figures
31 and 32). Lead leached from the pure lead coupons in pH 7.0 water were clearly impacted by
stand time, leaching as much as 100 /xg/L more lead after 72 hours standing than 24 hours (Figure
33). At pH 8.5, however, no difference between 24- and 72-hour standing samples was observed
(not graphically represented), suggesting water quality plays an important role on the rate of lead
dissolution.
At pH 7.0, copper leached from red brass was generally higher (by as much as 0.5 to 1.0
mg/L) after 72 hours (Figure 34). This trend was also observed with the pure copper coupon
(Figure 35). Yellow brass was affected by stand time in a completely unexpected way. Initially
copper levels were lower at 72-hour than 24-hour standing time, however after 125 days the trend
reversed (Figure 34). At pH 8.5, stand time had a small impact on copper levels. 72-hour
samples tended to be 0.01 to 0.05 mg Cu/L higher at 72 hours for both brasses (not graphically
represented). Once again, copper leached from the pure copper coupon after 72 hours followed
the same pattern as 24 hours.
%
At pH 7.0, zinc leached from red brass was significantly higher (by approximately 1.0
mg/L) after 72 hours, more than doubling the zinc concentration (shown in Figure 36). Yellow
brass was also effected by stand time in the same fashion but at a higher scale. By the end of the
study, zinc levels leached from the yellow brass in 72 hours were more than double the levels at
24 hours (approximately 2.0 mg/L to 4.0 to 4.5 mg/L). Very small differences between 24- and
72-hour zinc concentrations leached from pure zinc were observed (shown in Figure 37). During
the first 125 days, zinc was actually lower in 72 hours, however, the trend reversed thereafter.
27
-------
Differences in trends never exceeded 0.25 mg Zn/L. Figure 38 shows that at pH 7.0, yellow
brass leached the same amount of zinc as the pure zinc coupon at 72 hours (which is not different
from 24 hours). This suggested that the dissolution rate of zinc from brass was slowed by factors
such as surface area or alloy structure. At pH 8.5, stand time also had a significant impact on
zinc levels of coupon C85400 (shown in Figure 39) but at a lower magnitude than pH 7.0
(approximately 0.15 mg/L). The red brass did not appear to be significantly impacted by pH.
The pure zinc coupon was not affected by stand time at pH 8.5.
A preliminary study was conducted to further address the impact of stand time on the
metals leached from brass alloys. The study, operated identically to protocol previously
established, used test water described under the NSF faucet test protocol (pH= 8.19, DIC= 113.6
mg C/L, alkalinity= 501.7 mg CaCO/L, free chlorine= 1.9 mg/L, and sodium = 220.0 mg/L).
Two brasses, yeUow brass C85200 and red brass C84400 were each evaluated in duplicate.
Stagnation profiles were developed from samples taken following 30 minutes, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and
15 hours. Lead results suggested that stagnation profiles varied with alloy composition. Figure
40 shows that lead levels reached maximum levels as early as 30 minutes (following 2 months of
operation or "conditioning") for the yellow brass. This observation may have been associated with
the overall low amount of lead leached from the alloy. Figure 41 shows that lead leached from
red brass, however, was very much impacted by stagnation time. Lead levels appeared to still be
increasing up to 15 hours. These results suggest that the dissolution rate of lead is slowed down
by factors such as surface area or diffusion barrier films. These observations agree with
observations made between 24- and 72- hour standing samples.
Stagnation profiles for copper leached from both brasses (Figures 42 and 43) show that the
most rapid increase in copper levels occurred over the first 6 hours. The copper levels appeared
to still be slightly increasing after 15 hours. Similar observations were made with zinc stagnation
profiles, but continuing increases of zinc levels after 15 hours was not as apparent (Figures 44 and
45).
The results of this portion of the study showed that the dissolution rate of metals from
brass and pure metals is dependent on a combination of factors. Alloy characteristics and water
quality are clearly important. In terms of corrosion or dissolution rate, brasses likely will differ
from pure metals based on diffusion considerations. It is also reasonable to assume that for a
given corrosion rate, longer stand times would be required to reach higher metal levels in more
corrosive waters. But the question arises as to what happens to corrosion rates under changing
water qualities. For example, how does a change in pH, and subsequent distribution in chlorine
species, affect corrosion rates? Further, under typical drinking water conditions (and in this
study), two oxidants are present, dissolved oxygen and a disinfectant. How do the oxidants
interact and what happens to the corrosion rate when one is depleted? If both are depleted,
dissolution would cease. On the other hand, if an unlimited supply of oxidant and time were
available, metal levels leached from brass coupons would theoretically reach levels leached from
the pure coupons and chemical equilibrium. Unfortunately, it was impossible to determine
oxidant levels in the cells at the end of stagnation periods due to the small sample volumes used.
28
-------
But, one could theorize how the results would be affected if one or both oxidants were depleted.
Clearly the results pointed out the complexities of the role of stagnation time, and oxidant type
and levels on metal levels. Also, the results demonstrated the difficulty associated with comparing
metal levels measured in corrosion control studies and field samples under non-equilibrium
conditions to each other and solubility model predictions based on equilibrium conditions.
Evaluation of low-lead alloy
An evaluation of the lead and other composite metals leached from a low-lead containing
brass00 was made during test run 5 (pH=7.5). The nominal composition of the alloy as reported
by the manufacturer was 85% copper, 4% tin, 3% bismuth, and less than 0.2% lead. Figure 46
shows that despite low lead composition, significant amounts of lead leached from the coupon
initially. However, within a short period of time, lead levels dropped to near instrumental
detection limit (2 /ig/L). No detectable bismuth was leached from this coupon at any stage of the
test run. The instrumental detection limit for bismuth was 0.025 mg/L.
Impact of sulfate on copper dissolution
Although the impact of sulfate on copper corrosion was not stated as an objective of this
study, background sulfate levels, theoretical considerations, and observations made over the test
runs warrants brief discussion. Figure 47 (taken from Schock et al.60) shows copper levels (after
concentrations were considered stable) leached from the pure copper coupons during all 5 test runs
superimposed on a solubility diagram. The theoretical curves correspond to average DIG and
orthophosphate concentrations during the respective runs. The figure also includes the computed
solubility line for Cu4(OH)6SO4-H2O, which is in closer agreement to the experimental data at
higher pH values. Although this observation was not made under controlled experimental
conditions, it does suggest that sulfate may impact copper dissolution. Clearly more
experimentation needs to be done to clearly identify the role of sulfate on copper corrosion.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study showed that the amount of lead leached from brass was generally
dependent on the amount of lead in the brass from pH 7.0 to 8.5. The more lead in the alloy, the
greater amount of lead leached from the alloy. In nearly all cases, the highest lead levels leached
from the brasses during the first two weeks of exposure and decreased at the fastest rate during
this period. New coupon surfaces and a thin layer of excess lead smeared over the coupon surface
as a result of coupon machining were believed to contribute to this observation. At pH 8.5, the
concentration of lead leached from .the brasses "leveled off" after 60 to 70 days. Under more
corrosive conditions (pH 7.0), lead levels were still decreasing slightly at the end of the test run
(155 days). The pure lead coupon leached considerably more lead than the brasses which
(a)Nibco, Inc., Elkhart, IN.
29
-------
suggested that corrosion rates of brass were hindered. Slight fluctuations in leaching trends were
often associated with pH fluctuations in the extraction water.
The impact of pH on the amount of lead leached from brass was dependent on the amount
of lead in the brass. In higher lead containing red brasses, more lead leached from the brasses at
pH 7.0. This observation followed expected lead solubility response to pH and was also observed
with the pure lead coupon. As the amount of lead in the alloy decreased, however, the impact of
pH on the amount of lead leached from the alloy decreased to the point were there was little or
no impact on the yellow brasses.
Orthophosphate tended to act as an "aging accelerator" in that it's most significant role on
lead leached from brass was to reduce the time required for lead levels to stabilize. This was
clearly the case with the yellow brasses and was believed to eventually be the case for red brasses
given longer time or usage. Lead levels dropped and stabilized most rapidly with 3 mg/L
Orthophosphate followed by the 0.5 mg/L dose, and the 0 mg/L dose. The pure lead and solder
coupons responded to Orthophosphate more according to solubility predictions (Orthophosphate
reduced final lead levels). Lowest lead levels were observed at 3 mg/L, followed by 0.5 and 0
mg/L. The amount of lead in the alloy impacted the time required for lead levels to level off as
well. As the amount of lead increased, the trends shifted to the right or took longer to stabilize.
The role of alloy composition on final lead levels also decreased when Orthophosphate was
present.
The amount of copper leached from the brasses at pH 8.5 was also clearly related to alloy
composition. It appeared that red and yellow brasses acted as two groups. The red brasses
leached the most copper and by the end of the study were leaching as much copper as the pure
copper coupon. It was hypothesized that at some critical copper content, the alloy takes the
leaching properties of pure copper. Copper levels were relatively stable throughout the entire
study. At pH 7.0, copper levels were sporadic and difficult to order. Copper levels increased
over the first 60 days of the study and leveled off. Once again, some red brasses leached as much
copper as the pure copper coupon. The amount of copper leached from the alloys was strongly
influenced by relatively small fluctuations in pH.
The impact of pH on copper levels increased with increasing pH. Largest differences in
copper levels between pH 7.0 and 8.5 were observed with pure copper and the red brasses. The
difference decreased as the copper composition decreased. Lower copper levels were observed
at pH 8.5.
The impact of Orthophosphate was obvious. In some cases, copper levels leached from
some alloys when Orthophosphate was present were slightly lower, however the opposite
observation was made in other cases. It was believed that pH 7.5 was borderline to receive copper
benefits with Orthophosphate. Preliminary investigation suggested that Orthophosphate may
provide benefit to copper corrosion at pH 6.5.
30
-------
The amount of zinc leached from the brass coupons at pH 8.5 and 7.0 was dependent on
the amount of zinc in the alloy. The highest zinc levels were observed at the start of the study,
dropping slightly to approximately 60 days were leveled off. By the end of the test runs yellow
brasses leached more zinc than the pure zinc coupon. This suggested that critical zinc composition
exists when the brass takes on the leaching properties of pure zinc. Zinc levels were sensitive to
pH fluctuations.
The impact of pH on zinc levels increased with increasing pH. Largest differences in zinc
levels between pH 7.0 and 8.5 were observed with pure zinc and the yellow brasses. The
difference decreased as the zinc composition decreased. Lower zinc levels were observed at pH
8.5.
Orthophosphate did not appear to significantly impact zinc levels. In some cases, zinc
levels were slightly lower when Orthophosphate was present. However the opposite observation
was made in other cases.
The impact of stagnation time based upon 24- and 72-hour standing sample comparisons
showed that there was little impact on lead leached from red brasses and no visual impact on the
yellow brasses. There was, however, significantly more lead leached from the pure lead coupon
after 72 hours than at 24-hours at pH 7.0 only. In the case of copper, higher levels leached from
the red brasses and pure copper after 72 hours at pH 7.0. Stand time did not impact copper
leached from the yellow brasses. Little difference between copper levels leached from all of the
coupons was observed at pH 8.5. Zinc leached from the brass coupons was most strongly
impacted by stagnation time. The largest differences were observed at pH 7.0. The pure zinc
coupon was not impacted by stand time. The impact of stagnation time decreased at pH 8.5. The
results clearly showed that the impact of stagnation time was dependent on the alloy composition
and "corrosiveness" of the water. Stagnation profiles conducted over 15 hours also suggested that
the alloy composition can also influence profiles.
How does data collected in this study apply to the "real world"? The data suggest that
when all other variables remain constant, the amount of lead leached from brass plumbing
products such as faucets can be reduced by reducing the amount of lead in the alloy. Highest lead
contributions will occur when the brass devices are newly installed. Appropriate precautions can
be taken to limit the lead exposure during this time such as flushing the device before consuming
the water. Although lower-lead containing brasses are a benefit in that they leach less lead, zinc
and copper dissolution must also be considered. Of particular concern is susceptibility of higher
zinc-containing yellow brass alloys to dezincification and associated plumbing failures. In
addition casting and machining considerations which were not specifically addressed in this report
must be considered. Truly low-lead containing brass alternatives to leaded brass such as the
bismuth brass evaluated in this study may serve to eliminate the lead contribution by brass. Other
issues such a production cost and practicality, and the dissolution of bismuth are still issues to
resolve. Orthophosphate appears to be effective at reducing lead levels when brass materials are
relatively new. The benefit appears to decrease with age and as other mechanism become more
31
-------
predominant. The exposure time required to receive the greatest lead exposure from brass
depends on the alloy composition and water quality. In "corrosive" water and with red brasses,
highest lead levels may not be obtained until beyond 15 hours of stagnation. Lead and Copper
Rule requires at least 6 hours standing time, which does not necessarily represent the worst case
scenario. In addition poor metal level reproducibility in samples taken from the same location
could be attributed to differences in stagnation time.
It is important to stress that the conclusions of this study were based on tightly managed
laboratory experiments with identically machined coupons in several closely controlled waters
using consistent, reproducible operating procedures. Extrapolation of the results to field
conditions where alloys are subjected to the distribution system should be done with some caution.
For example, brass faucets encounter mechanical operation which may effect metal levels by
influencing leaching trends or physically dislodging protective films. Physical features of alloy
fixtures are also likely to play a role in the degree which metals leach from them in the
distribution system. While results of this study suggest that reducing the amount of lead in a brass
faucet or other plumbing fixture or valve will reduce the lead levels at the tap, the significance
of the reduction will likely depend on the role of these other parameters.
FUTURE NEEDS
More research is needed on exploring the degree variables other than metal solubility
influence the metals leached from alloys. Specifically, the variables that should be studied are:
alloy machining and finishing techniques; faucet structure; water flow pattern, velocity, and
pressure through faucet structures; mechanical operation; fixture age; and stagnation time. Kinetic
issues related to the impact of oxidants (type and concentration) on metal dissolution rates also
needs to be further addressed. This study focused on the impact of 24- and 72-hour stand times
on metal levels, but more work at lower stand times would be more relevant to home occurrence
of metals in tap water samples and the Lead and Copper Rule monitoring program.
32
-------
REFERENCES
1. Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. Final Rule; correction. Fed. Reg.
56:135:32112 (July 15, 1991).
2. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper. Final Rule. Fed. Reg. 56:110:26460 (June 7, 1991).
3. Drinking Water Regulations: Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. Final Rule; correcting amendments. Fed.
Reg. 57:125:28785 (June 29, 1992).
4. Public Law 99-339. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 (1986).
5. Oliphant, R. J. & Schock, M. R. "Copper Alloys and Solders". Ch. 6 In: Internal
Corrosion of Water Distribution Systems. AWWA Research Foundation/DVGW
Forschungsstelle, Denver, CO, (Seconded., 1996).
6. USEPA. "Seminar Publication: Control of Lead and Copper in Drinking Water", U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D C
EPA/625/R-93/001 (May, 1993).
7. Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. Bulletin #92-35, Lead and Copper Rule
Monitoring. (1992).
8. Water Policy Report. (1992).
9. News Release. National Resources Defense Council. "Faucet Settlement to Affect 90% of
U.S. Market". (1996).
10. News Release. Environmental Defense Fund and National Resources Defense Council.
"Many Pumps in Private Wells Pose Lead Threat; Env. Group. Attorney General File Suit"
(1994).
11. Copper Development Association (CDA). Standards Handbook-Cast Copper and Copper
Alloy Products, Pan 7- Alloy Data. CDA, New York, (1978).
12. Plewes, J. T. & Loiacono, D. N. "Free-Cutting Copper Alloys Contain No Lead".
Advanced Materials and Processes, 140:4:23(1991).
13. Uhlig, H. The Corrosion Handbook. John Wiley and Sons, New York, (1948).
33
-------
14. AWWARF. Lead Control Strategies. AWWA Research Foundation and AWWA, Denver,
CO, (1990).
15. Cohen, A. "Copper and Copper Alloys: Innovative Applications of Castings, Forgings,
and Extrusions". ASTM Standardization News (October 1992).
16. Turner, M. E. D. "The Influence of Water Composition on the Dezincification of Duplex
Brass Fittings". Proc. Soc. Water Treat. Examin., 10:162 (1961).
17. Jester, T. C. "Dezincification Update". Jour. AWWA, 77:10:67 (1985).
18. Trethewey, K. R. "New Aspects of the Dezincification of Duplex Brasses in Sea Water.
Part 1: Free-Machining Brasses". J.N.S., 13:1:26 (1987).
19. Lucey, V. F. "The Mechanism of Dezincification and the Effect of Arsenic". British
Corrosion Journal, 1:9 (1965).
20. Horton, R. M. "New Metallographic Evidence for Dezincification of Brass by
Redispositon of Copper". Corrosion-NACE, 26:6:160 (1970).
21. Langenegger, E. E. & Robinson, F. P. A. "A Study of the Mechanism of Dezincification
of Brasses". Corrosion-NACE, 25:2:59 (1969).
22. Heidersbach Jr., R. H. & Verink Jr., E. D. "The Dezincification of Alpha and Beta
Brasses". NACE Corros., 28:11:397 (1972).
23. Joseph, G. & Acre, M. T. "Contribution to the Study of Brass Dezincification".
Corrosion Science, 7:597 (1967).
24. Fink, F. W. "The Dezincification of Alpha Brass with Special Reference to Arsenic".
Trans. Electrochem. Soc., 75:441 (1939).
25. I^ngenegger, E. E. & Robinson, F. P. A. "The Role of Arsenic in Preventing the
Dezincification of Alpha Brass". Corrosion-NACE, 25:3:137 (1969).
26. National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE). Nace Basic Corrosion Course.
NACE, Houston, TX., (1979).
27. Turner, M. E. D. "Further Studies on the Influence of Water Composition on the
Dezincification of Duplex Brass Fittings". Proc. Soc. Water Treat. Examin., 14:81 (1965).
28. Tabor, L. E. "Effects of Softened Water on Equipment". Jour. AWWA, 48:3:239 (1956).
34
-------
29. Ingleson, H., Sage, A. M. & Wilkinson, R. "The Effect of the Chlorination of Drinking
Water on Brass Fittings". Journal of the Institute of Water Engineers and Scientists, 3-81
(1949).
30. Samuels, E. R. & Meranger, J. C. "Preliminary Studies on the Leaching of Some Trace
Metals from Kitchen Faucets". Water Research, 18:1:75 (1984).
31. Nielsen, K. Measurements and Test Procedure for Cadmium and Lead Pick up in the
Water from Drinking Water Installations. 7th Scandinavian Corrosion Conference, 1975.
32. Nielsen, K. "Control of Metal Contaminants in Drinking Water in Denmark" Aaua
4:173(1983). ' '
33. Birden, H. H., Calabrese, E. J. & Stoddard, A. "Lead Dissolution From Soldered Joints"
Jour. AWWA, 78:11:66 (1985).
34. Schock, M. R. & Neff, C. H. "Trace Metal Contamination from Brass Fittings" Jour
AWWA, 80:11:47(1988).
35. Gardels, M. C. & Sorg, T. J. "A Laboratory Study of the Leaching of Lead from Water
Faucets". Jour. AWWA, 81:7:101 (1989).
36. Landolt, D. "Contributions of Surface Analysis to Corrosion Science: Selective
Dissolution and Oxidation Phenomena in Alloy Corrosion". Surface and Interface Analysis
15:395 (1990). '
37. Paige, J. I. & Covino, B. D., Jr. Leachability of Lead from Selected Copper-Base Alloys
Used by the Plumbing Industry. NACE Corrosion/92, Nashville, TN, 1992.
38. Jones, D. A. "Polarization Studies of Brass-Steel Galvanic Couples". NACE Corrosion
40:4:185 (1984). '
39. Mattsson, E. & Eistrat, K. "Lead Release from Leaded Copper Alloys in Tap Water"
Swedish Corr. Inst. Report 1986-02-28, (1986).
40. Specification of Requirements for the Suitability of Materials for Use in Contact with
Water for Human Consumption with Regard to Their Effect on the Quality of Water Draft
for Development. DD 82! BSI:14 (1982).
41. Council directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption
(80/778/EEC). EC 1980:L229:11 (1980).
35
-------
42. National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). Drinking Water System Componants- Health
Effects. NSF International Standard Number 61, Section 9, 1994.
43. Dudek, F., J. Phone conversation with Frederick!. Dudek, University of
Chicago/Argonne National Laboratory. (1993).
44. Wright, W. Phone conversation with Walter Wright, President, Lead Free Faucets Inc.
(1993).
45. Showman, R. Experiences with Lead-Free Brass in the Manufacture of Cast Valves and
Fittings. Proc. American Water Works Association Annual Conference, New York, New
York, June 19-23, 1994.
46. Stevens, J. W. Letter from Mr. J.W. Stevens of the World Health Organization Center for
Drinking Water and Water Pollution Control to Michael R. Schock, USEPA, NRMRL,
WSWRD, TTEB. (1993).
47. Anonymous. Microwave Digestion of Lead Turnings. Application Note NM-5 (Metals
and Mining) CEM Corp., P.O. Box 200, Matthews, NC. 28106 (1990).
48. Anonymous. Microwave Digestion ofPb:Sn Solders. Application Note NM-4 (Metals and
Mining) CEM Corp., P.O. Box 200, Matthews, NC. 28106 (1990).
49. Rains, T. Personal communication. ACS Spectroscopy Short Course, Pittsburgh
Conference, New Orleans, LA. (1991).
50. Oilman, L. Microwave Sample Preparation Manual. Table 8, Acid Selection Guide,
Aqua Regia. Application Note NM-4 (Metals and Mining) CEM Corp., P.O. Box 200,
Matthews, NC 28106 (1989).
51. Lytie, D. A., Schock, M. R. & Tackett, S. Metal Corrosion Coupon Study
Contamination, Design, and Interpretation Problems. Proc. AWWA Water Quality Technology
Conference, Toronto, ON, Nov. 15-19, 1992.
52. ASTM Standard G31-72. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1983).
53. ASTM Method 2688-83 Method B, Coupon Test. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). (1983).
54. USEPA. "Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater
Laboratories", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, EPA-600/4-79-0019 (1979).
36
-------
55. Jandel Scientific. Sigmastat User's Manual. Jandel Scientific, San Rafael, CA, (1992).
56. Glantz, S. A. Primer of Biostatistics. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, (Third ed., 1992).
57. Daniel, W. W. Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, (Fourth ed., 1987).
58. Natrella, M. G. Experimental Statistics. National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91,
United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., (1963).
59. ASTM Designation: D4210-83; Standard Practice for Intralaboratory Quality Control
Procedures and a Discussion on Reporting Low-Level Data. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). (1983).
60. Schock, M. R., Lytle, D. A. & Clement, J. A. "Effect of pH, DIG, Orthophosphate and
Sulfate on Drinking Water Cuprosolvency", Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH, EPA/600/R-95/085 (1995).
61. Edwards, M., Meyer, T. & Rehring, J. Effect of Various Anions on Copper Corrosion
Rates. Proc. AWWA Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, June 6-10, 1993.
62. van Gaans, P. F. M. "WATEQX - A Restructured, Generalized, and Extended
FORTRAN 77 Computer Code and Database Format for the WATEQ Aqueous Chemical
Model for Tlement Speciation and Mineral Saturation, for Use on Personal Computers or
Mainframes". Computers & Geosciences, 15:6:843 (1989).
63. Trussell, R. R. & Wagner, I. "Corrosion of Galvinized Pipe". Ch. 3 In: Internal
Corrosion of Water Distribution Systems. AWWA Research Foundation/DVGW
Forschungsstelle, Denver, CO, (Second ed., 1996).
64. Pourbaix, M. Atlas of Electrochemical Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, England, (1966).
65. Paulson, A., Benjamin, M. & Ferguson, J. "Zn Solubility in Low Carbonate Solutions".
Wat. Res., 23:1563 (1989).
66. Pisigan, R. A. J. & Singley, J. E. "Effects of Water Quality Parameters on the Corrosion
of Galvanized Steel". Jour. AWWA, 77:11:75 (1985).
67. Schock, M. R. & Wagner, I. "The Corrosion and Solubility of Lead in Drinking Water".
Ch. 4 In: Internal Corrosion of Water. Distribution Systems. AWWA Research
Foundation/DVGW Forschungsstelle, Denver, CO, (1985).
37
-------
68. Schock, M. R. Treatment or Water Quality Adjustment to Attain MCL's in Metallic
Potable Water Plumbing Systems. Plumbing Materials and Drinking Water Quality:
Proceedings of a Seminar, Cincinnati, OH, May 16-17, 1984, (1985).
38
-------
Table 1. Extraction water used in the Nordtest39
Method 1:
Reagent
Weight added*
NaCl
Na2SO4
CaCO3
CO2 gas
Air
Method 2:
Reagent
50 mg
50 mg
50 mg
until CaCO3 is dissolved;
then until pH=7.0 (+/-0.1)
Weight added
NaCl
Na2SO4
Ca(OH)2
CO2 gas
Air
50 mg
50 mg
37 mg
until pH < 5; then
until pH=7.0 (+/-0.1)
weight dissolved in 1 liter of test water
39
-------
t
c75
•a
«
.g
• ^-1
"8
U}
a
5
CO
1
P-i
OOOOrHOCSOOOOrH
OOOOOOOOOOOO
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +i +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
voc-^oc^cScNONcocscocovo
rHrHrHrHCSVOrHOOOOO
oooooooooooo
ON
cs
00
in
cocovqoNcocorHO
oooorHOOo
+l +l +l +i +i +l +i +l
COOOVOrHl--OOONrH
r^ rH O
ON ON O
vo in
q >n
+l cs
C~ CS
•«*
s~*
^
3
/^
&•»
""H
U
ON
CO
+1
VO
in
CO
r-
co
rH
+1
ON
§
cs
rH
+1
OO
CO
CO
*^-
rH
^
+1
VO
cs
rH
VO
^i"
CO
+1
0
in
c--
co
+l
vo
oo
in
co
+1
rH
VO
O
rH
CO
VO
rH
+1
in
cs
fs^»
^«^
CO
rH
rH
+1
rH
rH
rH
VO
CS
cs'
+1
CO
CO
f-
^«.
oi
o
vq
in
_
vo
co
o
+1
o
CO
ON
VO
CM
VO
+1
VO
rH
(~f
CO
in
co
+1
cs
CO
vo
in
CO
o
+1
o
o
C5
CO
ON
CS
+1
•^J.
m
0^
VO
in
o
in
o
0
o
CO
cs
+1
o
cs
o
CO
""•f
o
+1
o
o
0
ON
CO
o
+1
VO
VO
ON
ON
j
CvJ
a
•-
&
<4->
O
O
a
e
6
CO
1
en ±2 £!
oo w w w CQ CQ
c3 i.w -w
U< Ul l-l
CQ
CQCQCQj §
N
-------
Table 3. Analytical Methods Used for Chemical Analysis of Water Samples
Analysis
Metals
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Manganese
Silicon (as SiOj)
Sulfur (as SO4-)
Aluminum
Iron
Anions
Chloride
Fluoride
Orthophosphate
Total Phosphate
Nitrate-N
Silicate
Sulfate
Total Alkalinity
Others
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia
Total Inorganic
Carbon
Total Chlorine
Free Chlorine
PH
Method
AA-Flame
AA-Flame
AA-Flame
AA-Flame
AA-Flame
AA-Flame
GFAAS
AA-Flame
AA-Flame
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
Automated Potentiometric
Titration
Automated Standard
Additions
Potentiometric ISE
Automated Colorimetric
Automated Colorimetric
Automated Colorimetric
Automated Colorimetric
Automated Turbidimetric
Automated Potentiometric
Titration to Equivalence Point
Winkler (Azide Modification)
-
Automated Colorimetric
Coulometric Titration
DPD Colorimetric
DPD Colorimetric
Closed-System Electrometric
Method Number
7140
7450
7770
7610
7380
7210
7421
7950
7460
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
4500-C1- D.
—
340.2
1-2601-85
1-2600-85
A303-5 173-00
A303-5220-13
A303-5220
9038
2320 B.4.6.
4500-0 D.
-
350.1
D5 13-92
8167
8021
--
Reference
EPA1
EPA1
EPA1
EPA1
EPA1
EPA1
EPA1
EPA1
EPA1
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
EPA6
Std. Methods7
Orion4
EPA5
USGS2
USGS2
Alpkem3
Alpkem3
Alpkem3
EPA1
Std. Methods7
Std. Methods7
—
EPA5
ASTM8
Ilach9
Ilach9
EPA(DWKD)10
Detection
Limit (mg/L)
0.1
2.0
3.0
0.25
0.05
0.02
0.002
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.025
0.025
2.0
0.003
0.02
0.001
0.0004
0.053
0.045
0.025
0.002
1.0
<0.1
0.10
0.02 (as P04)
0.05 (as PO4)
0.02 (asN)
0.4 (asSiOj)
-6.0 (as SO4)
-0.3 (as CaCO3)
—
0.50
—
0.03
<0.5
0.02
0.02
-
1USEPA, OSWER, SW846, Sept. 1986.
2 Modified from methods for Determination of Inorganic Substances in Water & Fluvial Sediments, U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report, (85-495) 1985.
3 Alpkem Research, Inc., Clackamas, OR.
4 Orion Research, Inc., Boston, MA.
5 USEPA, "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," EPA-60014-79-020 (1983).
6 USEPA, "Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples," EPA-60014-91-010 (1994).
7 "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," IS* Edition (1992).
8 "1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards," section 11, volume 11.01 Water (I).
9 Hach Company, Loveland, Co.
10 Drinking Water Research Division, USEPA, Internal Method. References: Journal AWWA 72:5:304(1980);
Schock & Lytle, Proc. AWWA WQTC(1994).
41 '
-------
Table 4. Test run conditions
Test Run # Date
~"~s :=
1 8/14/91-1/6/92 146
2 2/25/92-7/29/92 155
3 8/11/92-12/17/92 128
4 2/18/93-6/24/93 127
5 8/11/93-2/25/94 199
Conditions
Cincinnati tap water;
Cincinnati tap water;
Cincinnati tap water;
and PO4"3 adjusted to
Cincinnati tap water;
and PO4'3 adjusted to
Cincinnati tap water;
no chemical adjustment
adjusted to pH of 7.0 with 6 N HC1
adjusted to pH of 7.5 with 6 N HC1
3.0 mg/L* with sodium phosphate
adjusted to pH of 7.5 with 6 N HC1
0.5 mg/L* with sodium phosphate
adjusted to pH of 7.5 with 6 N HC1
42
-------
Table 5. Extraction water quality.
(a) Test run #1
s s *"
AiiaMe .•
Lead, jug/L
Calcium, mg/L
Copper, mg/L
Iron, mg/L
Potassium, mg/L
Magnesium, mg/L
Manganese, mg/L
Sodium, mg/L
Zinc, mg/L
Alkalinity, mg CaCOs/L
Sulfate, mg SC>4/L
Chloride, mg/L
Silica, mg SiC>2/L
Nitrate, mg N/L
Ammonia, mg NHs/L
Phosphate, mg PO^/L
Dissolved oxygen, mg/L
Total inorganic carbon, mg C/L
Free chlorine, mg C12/L
pH, pH units
(b)Testrun«2
% ** ' %-- v. "- ,. i.\ J ,.-
Artalvfe '" .. . ,
Lead, /4/L
Chloride, mg/L
Silica, mg SiC>2/L
Nitrate, mg N/L
Ammonia, mg NEkj/L
Phosphate, mg PO^/L
Dissolved oxygen, mg/L
Total inorganic carbon, mg C/L
Free chlorine, mg C\2/L
pH, pH units
'":^V
70
64
54
57
54
64
43
64
58
60
46
32
5
54
54
25
na
na
68
67
,,__"« % '•" .''
N
93
91
90
89
91
91
87
91
89
92
92
82
88
70
• 83
76
41
23
92
93
<0.002
34.7
<0.02
<0.05
2.3
9.1
<0.01
14.8
<0.01
43.5
104.0
39.0
2.4
<0.02
<0.03
<0.02
na
na
0.65
8.04
'("
Mm
<0.002
25.6
<0.02
<0.05
1.6
6.0
<0.01
3.8
<0.01
21.7
52.8
21.4
4.3
<0.02
<0.03
<0.02
6.0
10.9
1.0
6.9
43
11.9
54.8
0.03
0.07
4.4
16.6
0.03
44.5
0.39
74.1
130.0
43.8
2.8
1.1
<0.03
0.37
na
na
3.1
8.79
Max
14.1
51.2
2.3
0.66
3.2
12.8
0.03
53.9
0.07
52.2
108.9
46.0
7.7
2.0
<0.03
0.31
10.2
14.1
• 2.2
7.1
1.4
42.4
0.00
<0.05
3.5
13.5
<0.01
33.4
0.03
60.2
116.3
40.3
2.6
0.77
<0.03
<0.02
na
na
2.0
8.53
Run #2
Mean
0.68
33.5
0.1
<0.05
2.0
8.1
<0.01
15.7
<0.01
34.9
68.2
29.6
6.0
1.1
<0.03
0.02
8.9
12.5
1.4
7.0
2.4
4.6
<0.02
<0.05
0.5
1.8
0.01
6.8
0.06
5.6
7.9
1.2
0.2
0.17
0.00
0.08
na
na
0.56
0.18
Std. Dev.
2.12
6.3
0.4
0.13
0.4
1.7
0.02
7.4
0.03
6.4
10.7
5.6
0.7
0.3
0.11
0.05
0.7
1.2
0.3
0.1
0.7
1.2
<0.02
<0.05
0.5
0.5
0.01
1.8
0.02
1.4
2.3
0.4
0.3
0.04
0
0.08
na
na
0.14
0.04
95% CI
0.44
1.3
0.1
<0.05
0.1
0.4
0.17
1.6
0.01
1.3
2.2
1.2
0.7
0.1
0.11
0.01
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.0
Median
0.5
40.9
<0.02
<0.05
3.6
13.5
<0.01
34.7
0.01
60.4
115.0
39.9
2.8
0.73
<0.03
<0.02
na
na
2.0
8.54
0.50
33.3
<0.02
<0.05
2.0
8.1
<0.01
14.0
<0.01
33.9
66.2
28.0
6.1
1.2
<0.03
<0.02
9.0
12.4
1.3
7.0
-------
Table 5 (continued)
iv;i jicat luuir.? „„_ «.*-. ^ vw
A-a- ^A***M^MM!*^t.ii^^i^ WliiWV f^X 'VhViXfc. X"*- ^ •"• **
A^yte ^' ^t
Calcium, mg/L
Copper, mg/L
Iron, mg/L
Potassium, mg/L
Magnesium, mg/L
Manganese, mg/L
Sodium, mg/L
Zinc, mg/L
Alkalinity, mg CaCO3/L
Sulfate, mg SOq/L
Chloride, mg/L
Silica, mg SiC>2/L
Nitrate, mg N/L
Ammonia, mg NHs/L
Phosphate, mg PC-4/L
Dissolved oxygen, mg/L
Total inorganic carbon, mg C/L
Free chlorine, mg Cl£/L
pH, pH units
$) Test run #t ,_, ..v, _,,,,^_
"t s , \V' •*«£•"?•? ?>••, ^
•a s •, ,- ^ *« V ssS>
Lead,/«» •..,., M
1 -X H
54
59
59
60
58
58
56
58
60
60
59
60
59
59
40
59
na
57
53
53
'• * f "••"-:••
<0.002
34.5
<0.003
<0.002
<2.00
<0.025
<0.0004
16.3
<0.001
43.1
64.6
0.0
3.7
<0002
<0.03
2.5
5.5
11.2
0.7
7.4
*«,- , - ,
Min
<0.002
27.7
<0.003
<0.002
1.6
7.1
<0.0004
8.8
<0.001
32.1
54.1
15.0
4.6
0.79
<0.03
0.30
na
8.2
1.0
7.4
'* •" ' "
2.00
44.5
0.02
0.17
3.4
11.1
0.01
26.2
0.01
58.4
93.6
36.5
8.5
1.14
<0.03
3.3
10.8
14.8
2.3
7.6
.Max
1.3
39.6
0.01
0.03
2.4
10.7
0.01
19.8
0.01
56.2
79.6
28.3
10.2
1.8
0.09
0.54
na
14.4
1.5
7.7
&uE"$3*
Mean. .. i
0.29
40.0
0.00
0.01
3.0
9.7
<0.0004
21.3
<0.001
52.2
78.6
30.8
6.1
0.85
<0.03
2.8
8.7
13.7
1.4
7.5
"Rtin?4
0.13
34.3
0.00
0.01
2.1
9.0
<0.0004
13.8
0.002
45.6
67.3
21.1
6.5
1.2
<0.03
0.46
na
11.2
1.3
7.5
' ".."<«.
sk t>ev<
0.49
2.6
0.01
0.03
0.42
1.4
<0.0004
4.4
<0.001
3.0
7.5
5.0
1.1
0.33
<0.03
0.16
0.76
0.76
0.49
0.05
-
Std,.Bcy.,..
0.40
3.0
0.00
0.01
0.3
0.9
<0.0004
2.5
0.003
6.7
5.8
4.1
0.1
0.3
0.03
0.05
na
1.9
0.11
0.07
••' ?> t
§&<%> CI-
0.12
0.6
<0.003
0.01
0.11
0.36
<0.0004
1.1
<0.001
0.8
2.0
1.3
0.3
0.10
<0.03
1.3
0.21
0.28
0.12
0.01
'
.SiSMCI...
0
0.9
0.008
0.003
0.1
0.4
<0.0004
0.8
0.008
1.9
2.6
1.1
0.4
0.1
<0.03
<0.02
na
8.0
1.3
0.07
.Median. ,
0.10
40.3
<0.003
0.01
3.1
9.9
<0.0004
22.8
<0.001
52.6
78.8
31.7
5/-
.6
0.96
<0.03
2.8
8.8
13.7
1.2
7.5
,s~
Median...
0.10
34.7
<0.003
0.004
2.1
9.0
<0.0004
13.3
<0.001
44.9
67.1
22.2
6.7
1r\
.0
<0.03
0.47
na
11.1
1/^
.2
7.5
44
-------
Table 5 (continued)
(e) Test run #5
Aaalvte '' ' ' ",^ .' '/"
Lead, /
-------
Figure 1. Photograph of test system.
46
-------
LJ
• Upper Manifold
Nipple, 1/2 " HDPE
•Check Valve
-Nipple, 1/2" HDPE
- Reducer Coupling, l/2"Xl/4", PVC
- Labcock, 1/4", PVC, MPT X MPT
- Labcock, 1/4", MPT
- Tee, 1/4", PVC
Coupling, 1/4" MPT to 1/4" Tubing
-SampleCell, Teflon
-Tubing, Teflon, 1/4"
-Stopcock, Teflon, 3-Way
-Tubing, Teflon, 1/4"
Rotameter, 1/4" Couplings
-Tubing, Teflon, 1/4"
-Connector, 1/4" FPT to 1/4" Tubing
- Reducing Nipple, 1/2" X1/4", HDPE
- Needle Valve, 1/2", PVC
Nipple, 1/2" HDPE
Bottom Manifold
Figure 2. Schematic of individual test loop (not to scale).
47
-------
1000 r
100
-o
CO
10
C36000
C36000
C83600
C84400
C84500
C85200
C85400
Pure lead
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 3. Lead leached from brass and pure
lead coupons during test run #1, pH =8.5.
48
-------
20
40 60 80 100 120
Elapsed Time, days
140 160
C36000
C36000
C83600
C84400
C84500
C85200
C85400
Pure copper
Figure 4. Copper leached from brass and pure
copper coupons during test run #1, pH =8.5.
49
-------
10
a
*»—»
si
0.1 -
0.01
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
C36000
C36000
C83600
C84400
C84500
C85200
C85400
Pure zinc
Figure 5. Zinc leached levels from brass and pure
zinc coupons during test run #1, pH =8.5.
50
-------
1000 r
100 r
10 r
1 i < . i . i . i , i . i , i , i
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
C36000
C36000
C83600
C84400
C84500
C85200
C85400
Pure lead
Figure 6. Lead leached from brass and pure
lead coupons during test run #2, pH =7.0.
51
-------
CD
CL.
d,
O
O
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
C36000
C36000
C83600
C84400
C84500
C85200
C85400
Pure copper
Figure 7. Copper leached from brass and pure
copper coupons during test run #2, pH =7.0.
52
-------
.s
N
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
C36000
C36000
C83600
C84400
C84500
C85200
C85400
Pure zinc
Figure 8. Zinc leached from brass and pure
zinc coupons during test run #2, pH =7.0.
53
-------
•o
CO
3.0mgPO4/L
0.5 mg PO4/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 9. Effect of phosphate on lead leached from
C36000 (free-machining brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
54
-------
400
350
300
_j 250
5 200
150
100
50
0
3.0 mg PO4/L
0.5 mg PO4/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 10. Effect of phosphate on lead leached from
C83600 (red brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
55
-------
3.0mgPO4/L
0.5 mg PO /L
0.0 mg PO4/L
40 60 80 100
Elapsed Time, days
140
Figure 11. Effect of phosphate on lead leached from
C84400 (red brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
56
-------
3.0mgPO4/L
0.5 mg PO4/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 12. Effect of phosphate on lead leached from
C84500 (red brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
57
-------
200
3.0mgP04/L
0.5mgP04/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
0
40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 13. Effect of phosphate on lead leached from
C85200 (yellow brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
58
-------
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 14. Effect of phosphate on lead leached from
C85400 (yellow brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
59
-------
800
700
600
J 5°°
•5 40°
8
^ 300
200
100
0
o
3.0mgP04/L
0.5 mg P04/L
0.0 mg PO /L -
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 15. Effect of phosphate on lead leached from
pure lead at pH 7.5.
60
-------
3.0mgPO4/L
0.5 ~~ "
• 0.5 mg PO^/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 16. Effect of phosphate on lead leached from
60:40 SnrPb solder coupon at pH 7.5.
61
-------
3.0mgPO4/L
0.5 mg PO4/L
0.0 mg PO7L
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 17. Effect of phosphate on copper leached from
C36000 (free-machining brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
62
-------
3.0mgPO4/L_
0.5 mg PO4/L
0.0 mg PO4/L _
40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 18. Effect of phosphate on copper leached from
C83600 (red brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
63
-------
1.
0.
0.
0.
^ 0
bJO u<
s
* 0.
-------
3.0 mg PO /L _
• 0.5 mg PO4/L
0.0 mg PO4/L _|
20
40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 20. Effect of phosphate on copper leached from
C84500 (red brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
65
-------
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
^ 0.60
s
uT 0.50
u
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
3.0 mg PO4/L _
0.5 mg P04/L .
0.0 mg PO4/L _
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Elapsed Time, days
140
Figure 21 . Effect of phosphate on copper leached from
C85200 (yellow brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
66
-------
3.0 mg PO4/L
0.5 mg PO./L
0.0 mg PO4/L
20
40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 22. Effect of phosphate on copper leached from
C85400 (yellow brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
67
-------
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
I?
ex,
ex
3 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
3.0 mg PO4/L
0.5 mg PO4/L
O.OmgPO4/L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 23. Effect of phosphate on copper leached
from C122 (pure copper) coupon at pH 7.5.
68
-------
1?
«\
o
a
mg PO4/L
mg PO /L
mg PO /L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 24. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from
C36000 (free-machining brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
69
-------
o 3.0 mg PO4/L
0.5mgP04/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
0.0 6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 25. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from
C83600 (red brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
70
-------
1.6
1.4
1.2
4 L°
2P
3, 0.8
N
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
o
I I I
3.0mgPO4/L
0.5 mg PO4/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 26. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from
C84400 (red brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
71
-------
2.0
1.5
t-1
^5b
. i.o
J
N
0.5
0.0
3.0mgPO4/L
0.5 mg P04/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 27. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from
C84500 (red brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
72
-------
3.0 mg PO4/L
0.5 mg PO /L
0.0 mg PO4/L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 28. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from
C85200 (yellow brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
73
-------
3.0mgPO4/L
0.5mgPO/L
0.0 mg PO4/L
1 3.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 29. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from
C85400 (yellow brass) coupon at pH 7.5.
74
-------
I?
N
3.0mgPO /L
0.5 mg PO /L
0.0 mg PO /L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 30. Effect of phosphate on zinc leached from
pure zinc coupon at pH 7.5.
75
-------
tuo
500
400
300
200
100
0
• C84500 (red brass)
v C85400 (yellow brass)
_24 hour stagnation
72 hour stagnation
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 31. Influence of stagnation time on lead
leached from a red and yellow brass coupons during
test run 2: pH=7.0.
76
-------
1 '—1—'—1
C84500 (red brass)
C85400 (yellow brass
4 hour stagnation
72 hour stagnation
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 32. Influence of stagnation time on lead
leached from a red and yellow brass coupons during
test run 1: pH = 8.5.
77
-------
I—'—I—'—I—'—I
• 24 hour stagnation
72 hour stagnation
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 33. Influence of stagnation time on lead
leached from pure lead coupons during test run
2: pH=7.0.
78
-------
a
s-T
o
U
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
• C84500 (red brass)
v C85400 (yellow brasjs)
— 24 hour stagnation
72 hour stagnation
_. L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 34. Influence of stagnation time on copper
leached from a red and yellow brass coupons during
test run 2: pH=7.0.
79
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
-------
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
i ' i
- v-v'
,-V ,
i ' i • i ' r
C84500 (red brass)
C85400 (yellow bras^)
24 hour stagnation
72 hour stagnation
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 36. Influence of stagnation time on zinc
leached from a red and yellow brass coupons during
test run 2: pH=7.0.
81
-------
12.0
10.0
i—'—i ' i • i •"
• 24 hour stagnation
o 72 hour stagnation
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 37. Influence of stagnation time on zinc
leached from pure zinc coupons during test run
2: pH=7.0.
82
-------
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Elapsed Time, days
• C84500 (red brass)
* C85400 (yellow brass)
T Pure zinc
24 hour stagnation
72 hour stagnation
Figure 38. Influence of stagnation time on zinc
leached from a red and yellow brass, and pure
zinc coupons during test run 2: pH=7.0.
83
-------
C84500 (red brass)\
* C85400 (yellow bf
24 hour stagnation /
72 hour stagnation /
ej
f
N 0.3 h
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed Time, days
Figure 39. Influence of stagnation time on zinc
leached from a red and yellow brass coupons during
test run 1: pH=8.5.
84
-------
V.UIU
0.014
0.012
j 0.010
•^
?
1 0.008
3
•*
3 0.006
0.004
0.002
n nnn
-
;
\\x
s
#1
#2
-
-
(X
\^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
X
i — i
X
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
[\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
IX
\
\
\
\
X
X
\
\
X
X
X
X
x
\
\
\
x
X
\
\
X
X
X
X
\
X
\
\
\
\
\
\
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 15.0
Standtime, hours
Figure 40. Lead stagnation profile for yellow brass
C85200.
85
-------
U.1U
OS\f\
.09
0.08
0.07
J 0.06
W)
^ 0.05
«j
j 0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
n nn
-
-
-
-
I
1
x\x
X
\
\
#1
— i 1 1 1 1
#2
N
\
\
"vl
V— 1
VI
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
X
X
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
—
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
X
X
\
\
X
X
\
\
X
\
\
\
\
X
X
\
X
\
X
\
\
\
x
\
\
\
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
—
-
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 15.0
Standtime, hours
Figure 41. Lead stagnation profile for red brass
C84400.
86
-------
0.9
0.8
0.7
_3
ib °-6
a
vT 0.5
(D
a,
§ °'4
0.3
0.2
0.1
on
-
-
-
-
-
X
k
\
\
k
k
k
k
kx
s
#1
#2
r\
k
k
k
\
\
k
k
k
\
\
k
\
\
\
\
k
\
\
\
\
k
k
k
k
\
\
\
\
ik
\
k
k
\
\
k
k
\
\
\
\
k
\
\
\
\
k
k
k
k
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
k
k
k
\
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
\
k
k
k
k
[k
k
\
\
k
k
k
\
\
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k,
IX
k
k
* \
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
\
\
k
k
k
\
-
-
-
_
_
J
-
-
-
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Standtime, hours
15.0
Figure 42. Copper stagnation profile for yellow
brass C85200.
87
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
^ 0.6
S
fc °-5
R1
o 0.4
U
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
\
#1
#2
N
\
\
\
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 15.0
Standtime, hours
Figure 43. Copper stagnation profile for red
brass C84400.
88
-------
0.5
0.4
0.3
N 0.2
0.1
0.0
i i i i i i r
#1
#2
N
N
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 15.0
Standtime, hours
Figure 44. Zinc stagnation profile for yellow brass
C85200.
89
-------
\J.1\J
0.09
0.08
0.07
tJ 0.06
* 0.05
N 0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
n no
iii i
-
\\X
#1
- #2
•
-
-
-
i
k — i
\
X
X
x
\
%
\
X
\
\
x
. X
r\
x
X
x
\
x
X
\
X
X
x
X
\
X
r\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
x
\
\
X
\
\
X
X
X
\
\
X
\
\
X
-
(X
\
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
\
\
X
X
\
X
X
X
X
X
X
\
\
X
X
X
x
X
X
\
\
x
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
^\
—
-
-
-
-
—
0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Standtime, hours
15.0
Figure 45. Zinc stagnation profile for red brass
C84400.
90
-------
200
150
100
!
50
0 -
0
50 100
Elapsed Time, days
150
Figure 46. Lead leached from "lead-free" brass during
test run 5: pH=7.5.
91
-------
O
10.0000
1.0000 -
0.1000 -
0.0100
Theoretical Solubility
Run 1 (DIC=14, pH=8.5)
Run 2 (DIC=13, pH=7.0)
Run 3 (DIC=14, o-PO4=2.8, pH=7.5)
Run 4 (DIC=11, o-PO4=0.5, pH=7.5)
Run5(DIC=18, pH=7.5)
Experimental Data
• Runl
• Run 2
O Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
7
8
9
pH
Figure 47. Comparison of theoretical and observed copper levels for coupon study.
92
-------
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Pb
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/14/91
08/15/91
08/16/91
08/20/91
08/21/91
08/22/91
08/23/91
08/27/91
08/28/91
08/29/91
08/30/91
09/03/91
09/04/91
09/05/91
09/06/91
09/10/91
09/11/91
09/12/91
09/13/91
09/17/91
09/18/91
09/19/91
09/20/91
09/24/91
09/25/91
09/26/91
09/27/91
10/01/91
10/02/91
10/03/91
10/04/91
10/08/91
10/09/91
10/10/91
10/11/91
10/15/91
10/17/91
10/23/91
10/25/91
10/30/91
11/01/91
11/06/91
11/08/91
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
24
28
29
30
31
35
36
37
38
42
43
44
45
49
50
51
52
56
57
58
59
63
65
71
73
78
80
85
87
300.7
148.8
98.0
73.1
58.5
55.0
39.1
44.3
28.1
34.4
28.2
39.5
25.9
24.2
21.2
15.2
16.4
12.8
8.5
12.4
11.5
10.4
10.1
9.7
9.6
9.0
8.5
6.7
5.8
5.5
5.7
7.3
6.6
5.3
5.8
10.3
5.3
22.5
5.7
4.1
4.4
6.0
4.6
356.2
175.0
126.5
90.7
77.0
67.5
55.2
53.1
36.5
31.8
32.0
46.9
28.8
26.7
23.2
17.0
17.8
13.5
9.6
12.7
11.4
11.0
10.6
10.2
9.4
9.0
8.2
6.8
5.5
5.8
5.5
6.5
7.0
5.5
5.4
8.8
5.0
5.1
6.1
27.2
4.3
5.4
3.4
399.2
244.0
138.1
89.1
66.7
66.7
56.0
80.9
57.4
52.8
61.1
77.3
73.6
89.1
80.3
69.2
71.7
59.4
31.6
58.8
57.0
46.5
45.6
47.1
48.4
42.5
44.0
40.5
36.1
33.7
36.8
46.5
46.6
41.0
49.9
55.6
38.0
71.0
36.5
32.3
35.0
32.6
27.5
376.7
258.5
176.7
123.4
94.0
86.9
82.2
95.8
66.1
64.1
68.8
80.5
84.2
97.0
84.4
113.0
96.2
75.2
63.3
67.9
71.2
59.3
57.5
72.3
63.9
61.6
62.3
57.4
53.6
53.2
59.9
73.6
74.0
65.5
73.1
88.2
57.4
80.1
50.6
49.5
51.5
49.6
41.0
335.1
200.0
155.1
113.5
93.2
72.7
66.8
96.0
68.9
62.1
70.8
87.9
100.3
131.1
111.7
106.9
117.0
89.6
75.7
81.S
74.9
62.5
60.0
72.9
69.8
57.4
62.5
66.2
60.5
55.2
58.5
79.3
82.4
71.7
77.9
88.4
58.7
61.5
48.4
70.7
47.5
42.4
34.6
642.2
257.7
149.8
107.2
83.8
74.3
69.2
90.3
65.1
60.1
65.8
85.3
75.9
84.9
77.3
73.3
78.0
59.6
51.9
59.1
55.8
49.0
51.3
55.2
52.4
41.7
44.9
47.8
37.2
33.0
34.4
43.5
40.0
35.4
40.3
55.7
29.0
57.3
25.9
21.7
21.0
23.2
17.4
400.5
153.6
93.9
70.5
52.8
44.3
36.1
36.0
29.6
27.2
26.0
38.2
28.3
30.2
28.2
. 22.4
21.7
13.3
13.2
14.7
12.5
11.6
11.5
12.1
12.3
7.1
9.6
11.5
7.7
6.8
7.9
9.1
9.7
9.5
9.6
16.5
8.4
11.0
31.2
5.4
5.9
6.1
4.3
2.6
0.9
1.3
0.7
0.3
-0.4
-0.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.7
0.6
-0.0
0.2
-0.5
-0.4
-0.2
-0.2
-1.0
-0.9
-1.3
-2.2
1.3
0.1
-0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
-0.1
-0.2
-0.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
-0.6
0.7
0.7
721.2
929.2
864.9
199.4
646.3
177.1
186.5
201.1
181.2
176.9
191.0
188.4
230.5
260.6
241.0
236.7
251.4
177.6
177.5
213.6
179.4
169.5
173.8
174.5
159.6
160.2
186.0
156.9
151.3
151.8
153.3
190.7
187.9
181.4
210.5
237.2
164.1
196.6
199.6
217.4
188.6
159.7
145.7
753.9
1026.5
1189.9
151.1
201.8
172.7
192.3
219.4
197.7
191.8
195.2
197.1
236.8
274.2
260.0
220.7
254.9
179.8
181.7
215.8
187.4
181.7
182.7
174.3
180.1
168.8
176.2
153.0
150.1
150.4
154.1
192.2
183.8
183.0
215.9
257.2
180.0
190.0
173.3
181.5
192.9
159.6
148.7
2.5
1.6
1.3
-0.1
0.1
-0.8
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.6
13.4
0.4
1.8
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
-0.6
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-1.2
-2.0
-1.4
-1.9
1.5
-0.2
-0.1
0.2
-0.2
0.3
-0.2
0.5
-0.3
0.0
-0.8
30.0
0.3
-0.8
-0.2
0.5
0.7
489.5
336.0
304.5
244.3
244.4
224.5
221.9
243.0
219.6
208.5
251.9
300.5
317.1
449.8
427.8
409.9
469.6
157.9
306.3
350.2
395.7
343.1
323.8
310.3
353.0
311.0
259.1
197.3
194.7
178.1
168.2
243.6
239.8
212.1
247.4
311.6
123.7
178.6
153.7
161.8
142.6
116.7
157.4
93
-------
Table A-l.
Sludy=Coupon
AnalytcsPb
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5, 24 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Su
11/13/91
11/20/91
11/22/91
11/27/91
12/04/91
12/06/91
12/08/91
12/11/91
12/18/91
12/20/91
12/22/91
01/06/92
92
99
101
106
113
115
117
120
127
129
131
146
6.0
7.4
5.1
8.5
7.6
83
11.2
8.7
7.1
8.5
8.2
10.8
5.8
5.8
4.1
7.0
6.2
7.0
8.0
9.0
6.1
7.0
6.7
8.1
35.3
38.5
31.2
42.7
41.3
36.9
48.0
36.3
29.5
31.8
24.4
23.8
55.4
57.0
48.2
48.8
62.7
51.1
69.2
51.8
31.6
35.6
31.3
32.7
45.9
52.3
43.5
45.1
57.0
46.0
59.9
46.9
29.2
34.2
, 28.9
30.8
23.7
26.1
18.5
19.1
22.5
20.6
30.5
20.2
20.8
20.6
24.1
28.6
7.1
8.3
5.1
7.2
8.5
8.6
11.7
8.7
8.0
7.7
8.4
8.8
1.3
0.8
-0.2
3.0
2.7
3.2
2.5
2.7
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.1
200.5
219.4
78.3
198.6
257.5
182.1
229.3
222.0
195.1
194.6
211.0
251.0
201.5
217.5
78.7
201.1
244.4
205.8
316.8
252.6
191.6
218.2
233,5
262.1
0.7
-0.0
-0.0
2.7
2.6
3.4
2.5
2.9
3.3
2.4
2.4
2.0
138.0
108.7
43.5
100.9
170.0
143.9
321.7
222.8
204.8
222.8
598.1
206.9
94
-------
Run 2,: Cincinnati tap -water, pH=7.0, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Pb
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
22
23
24
25
30
31
32
36
37
38
39
43
44
45
50
51
52
53
59
60
64
65
66
67
71
72
73
78
80
15.9
17.2
1090.9
333.6
—
175.9
109.4
106.1
133.0
179.7
186.8
179.6
175.6
179.3
241.8
200.3
197.1
192.5
231.7
185.3
258.4
225.9
183.8
197.5
195.3
191.6
159.2
151.5
120.4
112.7
106.3
109.5
107.0
103.5
96.5
85.2
75.1
92.8
85.5
72.5
84.0
101.8
92.9
11.3
2.6
762.1
238.0
188.9
128.4
129.9
83.9
96.0
118.1
115.8
100.5
91.9
99.5
161.4
121.5
129.5
133.6
183.6
149.6
245.1
232.3
197.2
230.1
222.9
219.2
204.0
205.9
188.4
177.6
180.1
195.2
211.1
220.5
208.4
203.1
176.1
200.1
207.7
183.1
179.3
200.0
173.3
15.3
5.9
3647.2
2682.1
2003.8
1168.7
566.9
387.4
362.7
412.3
256.2
209.0
195.5
202.0
198.3
162.8
183.4
181.3
176.6
159.1
259.7
170.3
146.5
176.6
163.2
138.4
131.7
117.2
114.8
107.3
117.5
123.0
169.5
122.4
107.7
122.2
98.2
124.5
124.9
113.8
108.5
135.7
115.3
10.2
5.9
4075.1
2052.4
1408.0
803.3
470.4
343.4
318.6
367.1
280.7
228.9
199.5
209.3
236.2
179.6
190.7
193.3
192.9
191.1
275.1
185.7
159.2
194.6
188.7
170.9
159.3
142.2
164.8
141.4
135.7
141.9
198.6
165.5
153.6
146.2
117.3
130.5
155.7
116.6
125.9
179.7
135.7
15.7
5.2
4927.6
2345.5
1487.7.
973.6
536.9
384.1
356.4
391.8
247.9
180.6
184.7
183.0
162.1
150.6
142.0
138.0
128.6
107.3
181.8
114.4
98.2
125.2
122.8
96.9
90.4
85.6
91.4
87.4
83.6
89.3
128.8
103.8
94.4
90.8
77.0
89.2
112.3
92.0
91.3
158.9
106.9
11.1
4.5
985.8
338.4
311.5
222.4
129.8
104.0
96.9
106.7
78.3
75.5
73.3
85.9
99.4
90.5
96.4
96.0
113.5
94.2
135.1
104.1
91.0
107.8
98.2
72.8
72.4
64.2
56.4
53.3
49.7
50.1
49.8
42.3
37.4
38.1
33.0
34.0
34.5
29.3
29.0
33.7
27.9
16.9
4.0
1901.4
577.6
319.9
207.7
112.5
73.6
76.2
78.9
55.4
50.5
50.6
54.6
52.3
41.8
43.7
48.1
39.1
35.9 -
49.6
35.3
35.1
40.7
41.6
33.6
30.0
34.0
30.7
29.8
32.0
34.0
33.7
35.3
36.6
35.7
33.2
38.4
41.3
39.9
39.3
49.3
44.3
10.6
2.1
20.4
4.6
3.4
2.3
3.2
3.0
3.5
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.6
2.9
0.1
-0.5
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.6
1.5
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.8
1.1
1.2
0.7
1.1
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
-0.1
24.1
6.9
1217.5
999.2
985.0
894.5
991.8
829.7
911.3
948.7
—
711.4
806.0
888.0
1011.0
814.3
752.1
873.9
824.6
759.0
1372.1
843.5
759.5
975.5
863.3
632.6
661.9
586.3
562.9
560.9
587.4
597.2
930.9
552.3
470.7
521.5
482.3
585.5
587.4
529.2
543.7
616.1
540.0
25.6
4.0
1630.4
915.5
1083.7
918.1
943.8
792.8
813.6
896.1
859.1
727.2
762.8
829.3
908.4
763.6
746.4 -
843.1
817.4 -
773.6
1427.4
865.5
781.6
989.4
875.5
663.8
682.7
605.6
575.1
557.9
594.1 -
611.9
926.5
575.0
473.9
541.7
485.6
561.9
602.6
539.6 --
541.8
623.8
546.9 -
7.6
2.3
18.5
2.7
2.3
36.5
2.5
2.7
2.7
3.0
3.5
3.5
2.1
1.9
-0.8
-0.9
0.5
0.3
-0.1
0.5
0.5
1.4
0.4
-0.2
-0.3
1.0
1.1
2.0
1.0
0.5
-0.5
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.1
-0.2
0.9
43.4
39.7
4023.5
1500.6
1116.7
857.3
632.6
459.6
471.4
467.0
563.4
362.1
419.0
447.9
410.5
370.4
397.7
358.4
321.1
321.7
412.0
236.3
205.9
236.2
220.7
197.7
192.4
161.9
193.0
188.5
187.5
193.8
410.5
175.2
176.9
178.4
145.4
169.2
196.8
128.6
127.4
205.8
144.4
95
-------
Table A-2.
Run 2: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.0,24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analytc=Pb
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
05/19/92
05/21/92
05/27/92
05/29/92
06/03/92
06/04/92
06/09/92
06/11/92
06/16/92
06/17/92
06/18/92
06/23/92
06/24/92
06/25/92
06/30/92
07/01/92
07/02/92
07/07/92
07/08/92
07/14/92
07/15/92
07/16/92
07/22/92
07/23/92
07/28/92
07/29/92
85
87
93
95
100
101
106-
108
113
114
115
120 ~
121
122
127
128
129
134
135
141
142
143
149-
150
155
156
95.4
95.9
101.9
77.5
90.5
80.4
52.8
58.4
59.3
59.4
54.3
57.5 -
58.0
59.1
54.1
40.5
41.6
36.5
31.0
30.7
26.1
30.1
29.9
158.6
175.7
171.5
137.7
174.2
144.1
132.4
92.7
95.6
119.5
116.0
121.5
100.0
112.2
109.0
90.7
72.4
61.4
57.3
45.7
45.2
40.0
39.4
47.1
45.3
102.9
116.6
115.6
97.0
141.7
108.9
104.3
85.4
107.7
104.4
91.3
100.7
83.4 -
89.0
96.6
99.2
81.7
77.2
71.6
70.7
65.3
67.5
58.9
58.9
89.7
97.2
137.6
138.4
165.9
120.0
174.4
129.9
135.9
100.9
144.0
132.0
116.5
157.3 -
-
141.4 -
148.9 -
147.4
122.8
122.7
119.1
115.9
102.9
105.1
92.6
103.2
142.2
131.4
114.5
124.4
124.2
99.8
131.4
102.9
119.6
77.0
139.9 -
135.7
103.3
124.1
106.3
93.7
92.6
88.4
84.3
81.1
70.2
79.7
113.0
90.5
28.6
27.7
24.0
30.3
34.8
26.1
25.7
14.3
27.1
24.1
26.2
22.1
24.9
24.7
26.1
24.1
18.5
19.7
21.1
17.5
17.9
14.5
16.8
20.2
19.5
44.6
43.1
53.1
45.6
54.1
44.7
46.1
34.1
44.5
42.7
40.0
46.9
39.0
40.9
40.1
51.5
45.3
38.3
38.1
38.1
31.1
30.9
26.6
26.8
30.7
30.4
1.4
1.1
0.6
0.8
1.9
0.2
0.7
-0.9
0.3
0.8
1.1
0.2
0.4
1.6
-0.1
1.4
1.7
0.5
-0.2
-0.4
0.6
0.4
0.7
' 0.8
0.6
0.7
475.6
611.4
587.0
559.4
777.5
503.4
480.8
357.2
599.7
612.2
519.9
575.8
459.1
559.3
606.1
594.5
436.0
369.0
426.7
378.2
365.0
425.8
500.6
410.7
468.0
463.0
526.3
596.6
576.6
545.6
832.4
481.7 -
484.0
367.5
594.3
609.1
501.3
580.0
449.5
560.0
583.2
591.1
443.9
397.2
422.0
381.4
358.5
374.6
356.2
406.4
449.9
455.3
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
-0.9
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.1
1.3
2.0
1.4
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.1
1.4
0.5
176.9
177.6
196.6
161.9
224.8
-
180.3
111.6
214.8
184.7
163.0
208.2
133.3
112.0
171.4
145.3
74.3
120.4
139.8
117.1
92.7
116.6
210.2
103.7
152.8
116.3
96
-------
Run. 3: Cincinnati tap -water, pH=7.5, 3 mg PO4/L, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Pb
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C852QO C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/07/92
08/10/92
08/11/92
08/12/92
08/13/92
08/14/92
08/19/92
08/20/92
08/21/92
08/25/92
08/26/92
08/27/92
09/01/92
09/02/92
09/03/92
09/09/92
09/10/92 .
09/16/92
09/29/92
09/30/92
10/01/92
10/06/92
10/08/92
10/14/92
10/16/92
10/21/92
10/22/92
10/27/92
10/29/92
11/03/92
11/10/92
11/13/92
11/17/92
11/19/92
11/25/92
12/01/92
12/03/92
12/08/92
12/10/92
12/15/92
12/17/92
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
15
16
17
22
23
24
30
31
37
50
51
52
57
59
65
67
72
73
78
80
85
92
95
99
101
107
113
115
120
122
127
129
313.2
203.6
19.0
44.0
5.7
1.1
1.0 -
1.0 ~
1.0
1.1
1.0
2.0
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.8
2.0
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.5
-0.3
-0.8
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.6
127.3
63.0
15.0
4.0
1.9
75.2
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.5
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.8
2.1
1.9
1.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
1.2
0.8
0.2
0.6
-0.3
-0.9
-0.3
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
190.1
75.5
535.0
415.0
79.9
48.0
43.0
26.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
15.0
13.1
11.0
8.6
11.1
10.2
10.5
16.0
16.5
14.2
17.4
13.9
20.0
18.8
26.3
20.2
24.8
22.9
23.1
29.2
27.6
23.8
33.8
23.1
24.8
22.6
20.6
19.8
27.3
19.8
292.9
78.8
1251.0
428.0
72.3
67.2
23.0
16.0
13.0
11.3
10.0
10.0
8.6
7.1
6.0
7.5
6.4
6.8
8.5
8.5
6.6
7.7
5.2
7.6
7.9
9.6
8.1
7.9
7.4
7.7
10.2
10.2
8.1
5.6
8.5
9.2
9.0
8.1
6.9
9.5
7.1
290.9
78.5
581.0
650.0
79.9
—
35.0
26.0
17.0
12.4
12.0
11.0
10.4
10.2
5.7
7.0
2.3
5.1
6.1
6.9
5.5
7.9
5.0
-0.4
6.2
8.6
6.5
7.7
8.1
11.2
9.5
10.4
8.8
6.8
8.7
10.3
8.7
9.2
8.1
10.7
8.5
84.2
36.4
246.0
33.0
7.3
6.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.6
2.4
2.1
2.3
7.7
2.8
3.1
4.8
2.5
2.7
1.6
-0.4
2.0
2.9
2.4
1.8
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.7
1.5
0.7
1.7
2.1
1.8
2.4
1.9
4.4
2.3
74.8
38.0
47.0
8.0
3.2
2.0
1.0 -
1.0
0.7
1.0 -
1.0 -
1.0
1.1
0.5
1.0
0.6 --
0.9
0.5
1.4
1.4
0.9
1.1
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.2
1.9
0.1
0.1
0.9
2.0
-0.2
0.1
-0.1
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.5
4.1
12.0
2.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
0.1
1.2
0.4
0.1
1.0
0.3
0.3
1.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
-0.1
0.7
0.1
0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0.7
-0.3
-0.5
0.9
0.5
-0.3
-0.1
-0.5
0.4
0.6
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
1773.0
192.0
2636.0
781.0
478.4
611.0
643.0
388.0
456.7
283.0
287.0
373.9
272.5
207.7
198.5
233.1
204.0
149.6
146.2
119.4
104.0
135.5
86.1
86.2
94.1
98.5
84.9
11.1
105.3
92.2
118.7
133.5
95.2
78.1
92.1
88.5
86.9
100.5
81.1
108.2
88.8
6075.0
619.0
422.0
453.0
362.7
405.0 -
355.0 -
305.0 -
320.4 -
„
291.0 -
343.9
259.8
221.0
211.9
236.8
250.2
200.9
312.2
210.9
149.7
177.7
119.4
124.5
118.3
128.3
19.1
13.8
114.6
0.0
139.0
138.2
99.4
78.5
82.9
79.4
77.3
96.4
79.1
100.5
88.8
12.5
40.0
2.0
1.0
0.3
0.9
0.2
-0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.7
0.1
-0.2
-0.4
0.6
-0.3
-0.5
0.1
0.6
-0.5
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.4
-0.3
-0.2
592.0
234.0
109.0
61.8
44.5
91.0
133.0
171.0
147.9
70.0
123.0
87.1
125.0
65.3
56.4
57.9
72.5
54.3
69.9
60.1
51.4
76.1
51.6
71.9
58.5
69.0
57.5
37.0
57.3
58.8
64.7
70.8
57.9
42.9
58.4
78.5
62.2
70.7
62.4
83.4
59.7
97
-------
Table A-4.
Study=Coupon
Analyte»Pb
Run 4: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 0.5 mg POqfL, 24 hour stand time
Cute
. davs C36000 C360QO C83600 C84400 CS4500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
02/05/93
02/08/93
02/10/93
02/18/93
02/19/93
02/23/93
02/24/93
02/25/93
03/01/93
03/02/93
03/03/93
03/04/93
03/05/93
03/09/93
03/10/93
03/11/93
03/16/93
03/17/93
03/18/93
03/23/93
03/24/93
03/25/93
03/30/93
03/31/93
04/01/93
04/06/93
04/08/93
04/15/93
04/20/93
04/22/93
04/27/93
04/28/93
05/04/93
05/05/93
05/11/93
05/13/93
05/19/93
05/20/93
05/25/93
05/27/93
06/01/93
06/02/93
06/03/93
06/08/93
06/10/93
06/15/93
06/17/93
06/22/93
06/24/93
1
2
6
7
8
12
13-
14
15
16
20
21
22
27
28
29
34
35
36
41
42
43
48
50
57
62
64-
69-
70
76
77
83
85
91
92
97
99
104
105
106
111
113
118-
120
125
127
70.7
5.4
5.6
107.5
38.1
27.0
29.2
15.9
19.2
11.0
11.5
12.6
12.1
9.5
8.8
10.0
8.3
7.1
7.5
7.6
7.1
9.7
7.5
7.7
9.8
5.7
9.7
8.5
7.5
8.8
6.6
9.1
7.5
8.7
7.5
113
9.1
17.4
22.2
28.6
41.8
37.2
21.7
23.5
18.0
39.8
5.6
6.6
137.0
38.5
29.3
33.0
19.2
24.4
14.1
13.0
12.9
13.8
15.3
10.9
9.2
8.4
9.1
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.4
8.2
5.7
6.0
8.2
4.7
9.3
9.3
—
—
8.5
11.6
8.9
10.9
7.9
10.8
_
16.6
17.6
26.5
28.7
30.3
29.9
24.6
—
17.8
17.6
15.2
2544.2
100.1
31.4
1250.5
313.4
138.9
101.3
72.5
76.1
56.3
43.1
36.9
32.7
38.5
27.3
26.6
29.5
25.5
21.0
16.3
18.9
15.7
16.8
15.7
12.7
12.7
7.6
11.5
7.1
-
—
5.3
6.7
4.7
6.8
4.0
4.6
4.4
6.4
6.0
7.5
7.3
7.8
7.5
7.3
—
5.0
6.9
9.8
1691.0
38.6
11.9
959.1
760.9
188.8
143.5
96.2
105.2
81.0
77.3
76.9
81.2
77.9
60.6
49.2
52.9
39.2
32.1
25.2
27.2
23.2
25.7
16.8
18.9
17.4
8.8
11.3
9.1
-
—
7.7
8.5
6.8
8.0
7.1
7.6
7.0
8.9
8.1
10.4
10.6
10.2
18.1
9.0
8.4
7.3
9.1
8.2
1615.2
75.0
14.4
1075.7
348.4
108.4
77.7
54.8
55.5
45.9
40.5
36.9
31.9
37.3
27.2
24.6
25.5
21.3
19.5
16.6
17.3
15.4
17.7
12.2
12.5
10.4
7.5
8.1
5.6
-
—
5.1
5.5
4.5
4.7
4.4
4.5
4.1
5.8
4.7
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.3
5.7
4.8
4.5
4.7
4.6
33.5
5.9
6.1
549.2
194.2
67.2
68.1
42.3
43.2 -
84.9
20.4
16.3
14.9
13.2
9.0
9.2
9.5
8.6
7.1
6.8
6.7
6.6
7.4
5.0
5.1
4.7
3.1
5.6
4.2
..
..
3.3
3.8
3.1
3.7
2.6
2.8
3.1
4.1
3.5
4.9
4.7
4.7
5.2
5.1
4.4
2.7
4.3
4.4
16.0
5.2
6.2
182.9
48.8
14.2
16.8
10.7
8.6
6.4
6.4
6.3
5.8
4.8
4.9
5.4
5.4
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.7
3.5
2.7
3.2
3.1
1.9
2.6
1.9
—
—
1.7
2.1
1.5
2.1
1.5
1.6
2.0
3.1
2.2
3.5
2.6
2.8
3.3
0.0
2.1
1.8
1.7
2.5
14.8 2733.8
5.0 208.7
5.6
7.8
3.2
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.3
-0.1
-0.1
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
-0.3
0.6
-0.5
-0.1
-0.1
-0.6
-0.5
0.2
0.1
0.4
-0.5
—
—
0.5
0.5
0.4
-0.2 -
-0.1
-0.4 --
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
-0.3
-0.5
0.8
38.9
14.4
7.4
4.1
4.7
2.8
2.6
1.5
0.7
1.3
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6
1.7
0.6
-0.1
0.9
0.5
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.3
-0.1
-0.5
0.6
1615.2
163.2
32.6
274.6
281.3
231.3
284.8
207.2
165.5
170.5
231.1
192.9
223.8
258.6
174.8
257.0
185.5
186.8 -
182.8
197.9
211.3
181.8 -
246.9
228.8
273.7
218.4
192.6
209.8
168.1
—
—
165.2
187.3
170.9 -
173.0
163.5
175.3
167.3
174.3
176.0
251.9
220.8
192.8
176.6
183.7
190.0
178.2
181.5
177.4
12.7
5.9
5.3
1.6
0.4
-0.3
0.4
0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.1
1.4
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
0.5
-0.6
0.1
0.2
-0.2
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
-0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.9
0.1
-0.2
0.7
0.5
1198.1
75.5
26.3
886.5
499.5
365.3
367.9
295.9
328.1
214.5
239.9
205.0
221.8
258.6
187.7
232.6
207.1
190.5
213.1
183.6
171.9
148.2
172.7
173.3
145.1
137.1
97.6
117.0
115.3
—
—
89.9
107.9
91.2
108.2
82.2
104.6
94.7
113.4
89.7
218.8
143.5
98.7
124.6
93.2
137.3
124.2
137.2
—
98
-------
Run 5: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Aiialyte=Pb
Date Time, days C36000 Pb free C83600 C84400 C8450Q C85200 C85400 Conner Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/02/93
08/03/93
08/11/93
08/12/93
08/13/93
08/17/93
08/18/93
08/19/93
08/20/93
08/24/93
08/25/93
08/26/93
OS/27/93
08/31/93
09/01/93
09/02/93
09/08/93
09/09/93
09/10/93
09/15/93
09/16/93
09/21/93
09/23/93
09/24/93
09/29/93
09/30/93
10/05/93
10/07/93
10/12/93
10/14/93
10/19/93
10/21/93
10/22/93
10/26/93
10/28/93
11/02/93
11/04/93
11/05/93
11/09/93
11/16/93
11/18/93
11/19/93
11/23/93
12/02/93
12/03/93
12/06/93
12/07/93
12/09/93
12/13/93
12/14/93
12/16/93
rinse
rinse
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
29
30
31
36
37
42
44
45
50
51
56
58
63
65
70
72
73
77
79
84
86
87
91
98
100
101
105
114
115
118
119
121
125
126
128
—
5.4
396.5
246.0
208.2
176.4
48.0
114.2
101.3
62.7
49.4
42.2
39.4
38.7
33.7
33.0
37.7
27.6
24.4
34.1
21.2
21.4
19.2
19.3
20.6
18.4
20.9
17.7
19.1
14.6
13.8
15.8
12.6
11.7
10.9
12.1
11.1
10.0
11.1
11.1
10.7
9.6
13.3
11.9
12.0
21.0
15.6
13.7
22.9
16.1
12.8
5.1
0.2
189.3
84.9
44.1
27.0
21.3
18.0 -
18.2
16.4
11.4
9.7
9.9
9.9
7.8-
7.7 --
8.6
5.3
4.4
21.8
4.0
4.1
3.0
2.5
3.6
2.8
4.2
3.1
5.2
3.3
2.8
3.5
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.8
1.8
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.6
3.7
1.4
2.2
2.6
2.6
3.6
1.7
0.8
9.7
11.0
708.3
303.5
215.4
214.5
210.6
229.5
192.4
183.1
176.4
203.2
185.7
187.6
151.6
137.1
151.4
136.6
130.3
118.4
109.2
4.0
105.3
111.4
110.5
147.1
94.2
82.0
89.8
72.5
68.7
59.0
65.7
51.5
47.0
69.2
51.6
36.6
37.4
40.2
30.9
29.7
45.2
32.8
27.5
44.8
30.4
20.6
10.2
13.9
816.7
328.1
215.4
188.9
186.9
186.5
203.0
171.1
192.9
169.6
187.0
162.2
153.5
150.4
168.4
135.5
125.6
142.6
114.8
113.5
107.9
107.4
4.0
98.5
105.1
105.5
137.1
90.8
78.9
92.9
75.2
65.0
65.3
75.4
60.1
52.4
69.9
66.3
45.9
41.9
48.2
47.3
45.2
67.0
49.5
42.3
67.8
42.6
34.9
8.8
9.3
444.5
418.4
343.2
319.0
315.0
325.9
316.1
240.5
229.8
244.7
261.0
217.2
207.6
187.4
190.7
157.5
147.7
154.3
137.5
139.3
120.7
116.3
113.4
116.0
106.0
133.3
37.3
92.2
73.3
99.7
74.4
62.2
62.2
66.9
52.4
45.8
53.4
59.6
40.6
36.6
44.8
34.3
33.1
54.7
38.3
29.2
55.5
33.7
21.7
99
8.6
2.6
424.3
168.2
133.4
113.5
121.3
129.4
122.9
91.9
76.2
72.4
71.4
58.0
48.6
42.5
50.2
36.1
29.9
32.3
22.8
25.2
17.8
16.9
18.7
15.7
17.8
14.1
27.0
15.4
14.0
15.1
11.8
11.0
9.7
10.7
9.2
8.0
8.8
11.5
7.8
7.6
7.4
6.9
6.1
10.0
7.4
6.3
10.2
6.0
4.1
2.9
0.4
436.3
205.2
173.9
171.7
163.9
153.7
142.8
102.9
97.7
94.2
104.2
84.2
75.9
65.0
70.0
54.0
50.8
56.5
40.8
46.4
33.4
31.7
2.0
30.5
34.2
28.3
50.7
28.0
26.3
28.1
23.5
19.6
15.8
18.7
14.9
13.2
13.4
14.3
9.9
8.6
11.2
9.0
8.7
13.7
10.0
7.7
14.1
7.7
5.7
1.7
0.4
4.4
1.1
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.5
-0.7
0.1
1.1
-0.1
-0.6
0.8
0.2
0.3
-0.1
-0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.6
-0.2
-0.1
0.2
0.5
-0.2
0.6
0.9
0.1
-1.7
0.3
-0.5
-0.1
-0.7
0.4
0.3
-0.6
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
-0.4
3.2
0.0
623.0
426.8
340.8
267.7
279.6
320.6
317.4
274.6
278.2
297.0
330.1
312.0
302.3
308.7
324.2
290.5
338.7
340.3
302.1
335.3
348.4
345.0
350.4
353.8
349.7
347.9
445.3
355.5
295.8
361.5
309.7
292.3
293.7
289.3
298.5
272.3
311.5
298.2
284.3
270.1
286.6
325.7
357.5
406.5
305.1
343.2
484.7
302.8
298.7
167.6
14.6
944.7
614.2
377.9
281.5
340.6
364.0
346.5
327.5
316.7
301.6
361.9
335.0
327.9
322.5
346.2
317.0
341.3
359.8
325.7
327.4
340.2
332.4
329.7
338.5
348.3
338.1
482.4
325.0
296.5
354.3
303.8
267.4
304.6
283.1
285.3
268.5
307.5
280.1
262.1
266.8
276.6
311.0
298.7
397.9
286.6
332.3
498.9
302.2
194.4
2.2
0.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
0.8
0.2
-0.5
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.1
-0.1
0.4
-0.9
0.3
0.5
-0.3
-0.7
22.3 -
-0.6
0.6
-0.3
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.3
-0.2
0.2
-0.1
-0.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.4
-0.1
0.3
0.3
-2.2
1.1 -
0.6
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
0.3
-0.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
-0.3
-0.2
38.6
43.9
783.6
798.3
580.3
472.4
485.9
360.7
349.9
380.6
226.9
330.1
370.2
281.8
274.6
260.2
403.9
251.9
267.6
248.2
271.6
263.0
256.5
256.4
263.5
248.4
267.7
350.1
241.9
206.5
242.2
0.0
197.5
184.9
173.4
179.3
174.2
185.7
154.1
149.2
162.9
178.8
175.9
254.6
162.4
168.9
291.9
154.5
152.6
-------
Table A-5.
Run 5: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5,24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analytc=Pb
Dale Tune»_daY5-
12/20/93
12/21/93
12/29/93
12/30/93
LOWER pH to
01/11/94
01/13/94
01/19/94
01/20/94
01/25/94
01/27/94
01/28/94
02/01/94
02/03/94
132
133
141
142
6.5
154
156
162
163
168
170
171
175
177
C36000 Pbfree
20.5
21.0
21.9
17.1
99.9
109.3
119.0
111.5
107.3
98.3
98.1
109.8
113.4
2.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
6.2
4.4
7.7
6.0
6.4
5.1
5.4
8.0
8.6
C83600
0.0
60.5
38.3
32.4
138.8
89.8
124.9
107.1
97.2
75.9
174.1
102.4
115.3
C84400
49.6
60.5
52.9
45.1
238.3
—
232.6
209.4
204.5
159.1
141.1
199.2
206.7
C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb
37.2
40.3
37.7
29.5
134.2
84.8
130.1
110.7
111.4
79.4
71.9
112.3
130.4
6.9
7.8
9.1
7.0
36.1
23.8
34.1
29.5
31.6
23.3
21.5
31.3
31.0
10.8
9.9
11.2
9.1
37.1 -
28.5
35.6
32.8
35.8
31.2
27.7
38.2
38.5
0.5 456.2
1.2 379.3
1.7 322.3
0.5 328.9
1356.8
-0.4 1346.0
-0.2 1862.6
-0.5 1890.4
-0.2 1563.5
0.8 1676.3
0.5 1595.4
0.6 1562.3
0.2 1674.8
Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
446.9
355.6
304.5
312.8
1377.4
1359.3 --
1988.4
1977.3
1600.1
1683.2
1625.6
1621.9
1792.5
0.7 252.9
1.2 177.0
0.1 152.7
0.5 0.0
-0.9 530.4
514.8
-0.3 769.4
1.9 731.9
0.3 526.1
-0.1 551.3
0.8 517.2
0.8 569.6
0.6 695.7
ADD PHOSPHATE=3.0 xng/L
02/08/94
02/11/94
02/15/94
02/17/94
02/24/94
02/25/94
182
185
189
191
198
199
_ _
„
..
—
15.8
14.1
2.3
1.3
—
—
—
—
7.8
5.8
233.4
—
—
—
9.4
7.0
„
„
..
—
7.8
6.0
-
-
—
3.9
4.0
3.4
-
-
-
4.7
5.3
4.1
1708.8
945.9
1159.1
-0.2 -
0.5 375.5
-0.8 337.3
1763.3 --
907.2 -
1683.5 -
-
364.6
352.0
750.7
-
370.1
2.8 79.9
0.2 72.4
-0.1 55.1
100
-------
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5, 24 hour stand time
5tudy=Coupon
\naly te=Cu
Date Time, days C36000 C360QO C836QO C84400 C845Q C8520Q C854QQ_CQBper PurePb Pure Ph Pure Zn Pb/Sn
1 0.098
2 0.061
3 0.069
7 0.030
8 0.027
9 0.035
10 0.036
14 0.015
15 0.020
16 0.010
17 0.030
21 0.010
22 0.020
23 0.010
24 0.020
28 0.020
29 -
30-
31 -
35 -
36 0.010
37 -0.010
38-
42-
43 -
44-
45 -
49-
50 -
51 0.010
52 0.010
56 -0.020
57 -0.010
58-
59-
0.075
0.046
0.045
0.030
0.021
0.031
0.033
0.016
0.003
0.020
0.030
0.010
-
0.010
-
0.020
—
0.010
0.020
-
-
-0.010
-
-
-
—
—
—
—
0.010
-
-0.020
-0.010
-
63 -0.010 -
65 -0.010 -
71 -
73 -
78 0.010 -
80 -
85 -
-
0.010
87 -0.010 -
92 -0.010
-0.010
99 -0.010 -
101 0.030
106 0.020
113 0.010
115 0.030
117 0.020
120 0.010
0.020
0.030
-0.023
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.220
0.254
0.274
0.262
0.233
0.229
0.225
0.269
0.221
0.216
0.220
0.230
0.320
0.320
0.270
0.270
0.330
0.240
0.240
0.220
0.240
0.170
0.180
0.180
0.210
0.180
0.190
0.170
0.180
0.170
0.170
0.210
0.240
0.200
0.220
0.230
0.190
0.180
0.190
0.170
0.200
0.140
0.150
0.170
0.190
0.200
0.230
0.260
0.190
0.320
0.360
0.101
0.143
0.198
0.168
0.160
0.162
0.166
0.180
0.169
0.145
0.170
0.160
0.200
0.240
0.200
0.220
0.270
0.190
0.240
0.190
0.200
0.150
0.160
0.200
0.180
0.160
0.170
0.160
0.180
0.170
0.170
0.180
0.210
0.180
0.180
0.220
0.190
0.190
0.170
0.160
0.180
0.150
0.330
0.150
0.180
0.1SO
0.220
0.260
0.200
0.340
0.370
0.221
0.231
0.199
0.185
0.163
0.178
0.155
0.200
0.158
0.158
0.090
0.160
0.210
0.250
0.220
0.220
0.270
0.190
0.200
0.190
0.190
0.150
0.180
0.180
0.200
0.180
0.190
0.160
0.150
0.140
0.160
0.190
0.230
0.180
0.200
0.220
0.220
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.200
0.120
0.140
0.170
0.200
0.180
0.220
0.240
0.210
0.310
0.350
0.118
0.096
0.073
0.057
0.039
0.054
0.050
0.039
0.030
0.039
0.050
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.020
0.040
0.040
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.020
-0.010
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.040
0.040
0.020
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.127
0.122
0.086
0.058
0.061
0.069
0.052
0.060
0.056
0.040
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.030
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.060
0.100
0.070
0.486
0.452
0.421
0.418
0.354
0.331
0.361
0.404
0.370
0.380
0.430
0.420
0.410
0.410
0.370
0.390
0.430
0.440
0.460
0.290
0.300
0.220
0.300
0.320
0.320
0.350
0.330
0.210
0.190
0.220
0.230
0.260
0.280
0.270
0.280
0.290
0.230
0.280
0.230
0.250
0.270
0.009
0.005
0.011
0.008
0.010
0.018
0.005
-0.006
0.005
0.010
0.020
0.010
-0.010
—
0.020
0.010
..
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.010
-0.010
_,_
0.000
0.000
__
-0.010
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.001
0.007
-0.004
«
-0.007
0.030
0.010
„
0.010
__
0.010
0.010
0.010
-0.010
..
_
0.000
0.000
0.010
—
-_
__
-0.010
-0.020
0.010
0.010
-0.006
0.006
0.004
0.008
-0.003
0.009
-0.010
-0.003
0.002
-0.006
0.010
_
„
„
__
0.020
«
-0.010
0.010
-0.010
0.000
0.000
-0.010
-0.010
0.010
-0.030
0.010
0.011
-0.002
0.005
0.009
0.005
0.006
0.004
-0.001
0.011
-0.004
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.010
-0.010
-0.010
-0.010
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.010
-0.010
-0.020
0.010
0.010 -
-0.010 -
-0.010 -
-0.010
-0.010
0.010
-0.010
-0.010 -
-0.010
-0.010 -
0.010 -
0.010
0.010
0.200 -
0.240
0.200
0.230
0.200
0.220
0.250
0.250
0.410
0.450
-0.010
-0.010
0.010
0.010
-0.010 -
-0.010
-0.010 -
-0.010
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.010 -
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.010
-0.010
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.010
101
-------
Table A-6.
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5,24 hour stand time
StudysCoupon
AnalytcsCu
Date Time, davs C36000 C36000 C836QQ C844QO C8450 C852QO C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure ZnPJa/Sn.
12/18/91
12/20/91
12/22/91
01/02/92
01/03/92
127
129
131
142
143
0.020
0.010
-0.020
-0.030
0.010
0.020
0.010
-0.020
-0.030
0.160
0.260
0.170
0.190
0.180
0.180
0.270
0.190
0.200
0.200
0.170
0.270
0.160
0.180
0.190
0.040
0.040
0.020
0.010
0.002
0.050
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.210 0.010
0.320 ~
0.180 -0.004
0.260 -0.020
0.260 -0.005
0.010
0.010
0.004
-0.030
-0.010
0.010 0.010
0.010 0.002
0.005 -
-0.020 -0.020
-0.020 -0.020
102
-------
Run 2: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.0, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Cu
Date Time, davs
02/20/92
02/21/92
02/25/92
02/26/92
02/27/92
02/28/92
03/03/92
03/04/92
03/05/92
03/06/92
03/10/92
03/11/92
03/12/92
03/13/92
03/17/92
03/18/92
03/19/92
03/20/92
03/25/92
03/26/92
03/27/92
03/31/92
04/01/92
04/02/92
04/03/92
04/07/92
04/08/92
04/09/92
04/14/92
04/15/92
04/16/92
04/17/92
04/23/92
04/24/92
04/28/92
04/29/92
04/30/92
05/01/92
05/05/92
05/06/92
05/07/92
05/12/92
05/14/92
05/19/92
05/21/92
05/27/92
05/29/92
06/03/92
06/04/92
06/09/92
06/11/92
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
22
23
24
25
30
31
32
36
37
38
39
43
44
45
50
51
52
53
59
60
64
65
66
67
71
72
73
78
80
85
87
93
95
100
101
106
108
C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C8450
0.012
0.006
0.501
0.352
—
0.367
0.103
0.125
0.149
0.215
0.203
0.244
0.254
0.241
0.228
0.277
0.209
0.239
0.202
0.236
0.398
0.262
0.438
0.389
0.380
0.194
0.165
0.225
0.144
0.187
0.210
0.260
0.110
0.118
0.089
0.127
0.153
0.114
0.073
0.167
0.207
0.080
1.448
0.095
0.110
0.052
0.100
0.115
0.096
-0.020
0.102
-0.001
-0.014
0.572
0.388
0.376
0.375
0.367
0.319
0.317
0.356
0.319
0.326
0.317
0.324
0.309
0.306
0.236
0.241
0.268
0.244
0.468
0.400
0.413
0.444
0.439
0.223
0.194
0.244
0.182
0.218
0.234
0.249
0.077
0.121
0.192
0.214
0.153
0.118
0.073
0.225
0.245
0.225
0.048
0.175
0.210
0.064
0.212
0.216
0.192
0.047
0.102
0.035
0.008
0.428
1.176
1.331
1.197
1.600
1.365
1.618
1.741
1.844
1.674
1.731
1.826
2.266
1.823
1.812
1.923
1.876
1.872
2.914
2.262
2.346
2.456
2.571
1.794
1.780
1.394
1.680
1.610
1.570
2.748
2.644
1.624
1.385
1.921
1.253
1.315
1.677
1.331
1.319
1.331
0.019
1.316
1.392
1.350
1.186
1.588
1.154
1.116
1.016
0.036
-0.005
0.991
1.832
2.167
1.975
2.019
1.523
1.643
1.872
1.876
1.705
1.762
1.725
2.295
1.798
1.813
1.847
1.849
1.818
2.921
2.427
2.401
2.621
2.314
1.952
1.809
1.457
1.880
1.710
1.730
2.684
2.761
1.826
1.553
1.672
1.436
1.508
1.928
1.500
1.523
1.500
0.057
1.434
1.741
1.675
1.406
1.917
1.346
1.484
1.321
0.016
-0.001
0.387
1.179
0.970
0.939
1.044
0.874
0.876
0.991
1.191
1.180
1.331
1.332
2.012
1.642
1.657
1.722
1.852
1.887
2.867
2.565
2.086
2.756
2.609
2.058
1.905
1.486
1.980
1.810
1.800
2.900
2.730
1.862
1.623
2.584
1.528
1.669
2.025
1.570
1.561
1.570
0.061
1.447
1.749
1.679
1.410
1.986
1.346
1.454
1.321
C85200 C85400 Copper
-0.004
-0.006
0.111
0.131
0.205
0.313
0.349
0.394
0.441
0.478
0.495
0.654
0.716
0.750
0.921
1.013
1.031
1.147
1.300
1.278
2.400
1.775
2.035
1.942
1.933
1.341
1.368
2.782
1.270
1.300
1.260
1.957
1.212
1.233
1.070
1.255
1.070
1.139
1.317
1.138
1.131
1.138
0.065
0.959
1.188
1.042'
0.983
1.405
0.962
0.882
0.847
103
0.004
-0.008
1.007
0.808
0.854
0.803
0.556
0.509
0.557
0.600
0.543
0.623
0.631
0.652
0.508
0.541
0.491
0.590
0.501
0.514
0.889
0.719
1.058
0.966
1.099
0.728
0.841
0.840
0.834
0.973
1.009
1.717
0.611
0.970
1.008
1.251
1.665
1.174
1.042
1.241
1.135
1.241
0.080
0.963
1.424
1.260
1.104
1.612
1.154
0.954
1.016
-0.002
0.015
0.669
0.698
0.882
1.013
1.186
1.262
1.310
0.221
0.946
3.029
3.200
3.042
3.766
3.141
3.170
3.301
3.043
2.497
3.950
3.468
4.473
3.587
3.283
2.530
2.031
0.738
2.020
1.890
1.940
3.021
3.144
1.837
1.570
1.643
1.445
1.523
1.788
1.444
1.448
1.444
0.083
1.270
1.516
1.486
1.108
1.519
1.026
1.059
0.881
Pure Pb
0.006
-0.018
0.006
0.010
0.006
0.004
0.012
0.016
0.036
0.008
—
-_
0.014
0.050
0.020
-0.008
-0.056
-0.118
-0.133
-0.026
0.042
0.025
0.004
-0.035
0.047
-0.037
0.012
0.009
-0.010
0.003
0.001
0.007
0.085
-0.048
-0.066
-0.012
-0.031
-0.075
-0.034
0.043
0.048
0.043
2.832
-0.013
-0.059
-0.005
0.008
0.025
..
-0.021
-
Pure Pb
-0.017
0.008
0.004
-0.007
-0.012
0.005
0.026
0.020
0.011
0.005
0.018
0.009
0.079
-0.049
-0.059
-0.080
0.005
-0.067
-0.111
0.017
0.004
0.006
-0.033
0.105
-0.079
0.006
0.010
-0.005
-0.000
0.004
0.048
0.054
-0.042
-0.062
-0.017
-0.031
-0.039
0.000
0.045
0.019
0.045
3.034
-0.009
-0.053
0.008
0.013
-0.003
__
-0.051
-
Pure Zn
-0.010
-0.015
-0.003
-0.008
0.002
-0.002
-0.001
0.019
0.031
-0.006
0.001
0.002
-0.003
0.030
0.007
-0.058
-0.069
0.008
-0.064
-0.103
-0.009
0.036
-0.014
-0.057
0.059
-0.024
-0.001
-0.003
-0.021
0.003
-0.000
0.053
-0.013
-0.026
-0.025
-0.021
-0.063
-0.059
0.004
0.048
0.057
0.048
2.873
0.008
-0.010
0.012
0.053
0.001
_.
-0.047
-
Pb/Sn
-0.009
-0.013
-0.009
-0.005
-0.004
-0.001
0.027
0.012
0.032
-0.009
0.010
-0.003
-0.002
0.007
-0.016
-0.057
-0.089
0.011
-0.091
-0.065
-0.035
0.015
-0.012
-0.055
-0.041
-0.021
0.007
-0.002
-0.016
0.000
-0.004
0.093
-0.008
-0.020
-0.054
-0.031
-0.031
-0.055
0.039
0.056
0.061
0.056
2.182
-0.022
-0.042
0.017
0.057
0.005
-0.032
-0.043
-
-------
Table A-7.
Sludy=Coupon
Analytc=Cu
Run 2: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.0,24 hour stand time
Date Time, davs C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C8450 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn_
06/16/92
0(5/17/92
06/18/92
06/23/92
06/24/92
06/25/92
06/30/92
07/01/92
07/02/92
07/07/92
07/08/92
07/09/92
07/14/92
07/15/92
07/16/92
07/21/92
07/22/92
07/23/92
07/28/92
07/29/92
113
114
115
120
121
122
127
128
129
134
135
136
141
142
143
148
149
150
155
156
0.075
0.048
0.070
-0.038
-0.001
0.079
0.046
0.089
-0.033
0.001
-0.061
0.031
0.027
0.120
0.026
0.009
0.034
0.063
0.072
0.024
0.070
0.125
0.097
0.055
0.059
0.046
0.079
0.186
0.084
-0.005
-0.102
0.033
0.070
0.122
0.169
0.082
0.071
0.068
0.152
0.066
1.492
1.271
1.131
1.504
1.138
1.240
1.325
1.652
0.919
1.032
0.992
1.423
1.257
1.844
1.348
1.305
1.153
1.822
2.039
1.464
1.759
1.562
1.422
1.531
-
1.634
1.654
2.171
1.178
1.293
1.229
1.532
1.538
1.954
1.554
1.489
1.370
2.436
2.834
1.657
1.759
1.505
1.527
2.186
—
1.601
1.620
1.917
1.206
1.218
1.189
1.533
1.506
1.993
1.443
1.454
1.300
1.378
2.462
1.586
—
1.074
0.942
1.253
0.870
0.939
0.965
1.031
0.742
0.679
0.627
0.909
0.883
1.136
0.832
0.812
0.691
0.901
1.751
0.875
1.171
1.180
1.021
1.313
0.972
1.104
1.030
0.338
0.840
0.708
0.656
0.980
0.886
1.211
0.900
0.778
0.728
0.983
1.604
0.729
1.251
1.088
0.728
1.340
0.939
0.840
0.735
1.191
0.482
0.737
0.512
0.947
0.923
1.178
0.861
0.815
0.622
0.837
1.119
0.697
-0.009
-0.039
-0.040
-0.060
-0.020
-0.020
-0.052
-0.013
-0.003
-0.020
0.013
0.009
0.011
0.007
0.021
0.012
0.007
0.024
-0.001
-0.003
-0.010
-0.069
-0.037
-0.008
-0.020
-0.022
-0.020
-0.014
-0.005
-0.008
-
-0.006
0.005
0.007
0.013
0.006
0.015
0.025
0.017
0.013
-0.022
-0.072
-0.009
-0.015
-0.053
-0.027
-0.020
-0.044
-0.102
-0.113
0.003
-0.027
-0.008
0.081
0.029
-0.043
0.083
0.019
0.012
-0.033
-0.025
-0.049
-0.008
-0.021
-0.053
-0.032
0.035
-0.087
-0.109
-0.084
0.006
-0.059
-0.069
0.010
0.012
0.006
0.018
0.022
-0.004
-0.006
104
-------
Fable A-8.
tstudy=Coupon
Run 3: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 3.0 ing PC>4/L, 24 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C8450 C85200 C85400 Copier Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
4
9
10
11
15
16
17
22
23
24
30
31
37
50
51
52
57
59
65
67
72
73
78
80
85
87
92
95
99
101
106
107
113
115
120
-
0.093
0.209
0.209
0.078
0.088
0.133
0.083
0.078
0.080
0.115
0.077
0.061
0.067
0.067
0.058
0.048
0.039
0.043
0.039
0.049
0.034
0.042
0.022
0.036
0.031
0.036
0.037
0.030
0.019
0.030
0.022
0.036
0.024
0.046
~
0.093
0.093
0.093
0.078
0.088
0.133
0.083
0.078
0.056
0.077
0.077
0.045
0.052
0.044
0.060
0.048
0.032
0.028
0.025
0.034
0.034
0.028
0.022
0.037
0.032
0.024
0.037
0.031
0.019
0.017
0.016
0.037
0.024
0.039
0.556
0.440
0.441
0.441
0.265
0.280
0.413
0.333
0.328
0.301
0.385
0.344
0.273
0.317
0.228
0.214
0.233
0.165
0.175
0.143
0.169
0.137
0.144
0.084
0.078
0.092
0.135
0.121
0.102
0.086
0.096
0.094
0.103
0.090
0.112
0.556
0.440
0.441
0.441
0.354
0.383
0.531
0.403
0.369
0.328
0.423
0.370
0.318
0.409
0.290
0.262
0.270
0.202
0.219
0.181
0.231
0.178
0.184
0.105
0.127
0.132
0.188
0.174
0.150
0.116
0.135
0.133
0.170
0.134
0.157
0.440
0.557
0.557
0.519
0.369
0.398
0.542
0.375
0.356
0.330
0.421
0.268
0.341
0.433
0.308
0.246
0.271
0.188
0.197
0.166
0.218
0.178
0.184
0.107
0.121
0.132
0.183
0.174
0.150
0.132
0.135
0.133
0.148
0.130
0.172
0.324
0.325
0.325
0.325
0.265
0.280
0.333
0.250
0.244
0.216
0.306
0.383
0.273
0.319
0.233
0.201
0.205
0.159
0.146
0.138
0.171
0.138
0.123
0.088
0.088
0.093
0.125
0.115
0.104
0.088
0.083
0.094
0.097
0.086
0.106
0.208
0.209
0.209
0.286
0.177
0.221
0.250
0.203
0.203
0.182
0.191
0.191
0.182
0.250
0.211
0.179
0.161
0.122
0.131
0.116
0.151
0.132
0.144
0.089
0.088
0.113
0.145
0.134
0.128
0.096
0.096
0.094
0.112
0.108
0.114
0.903
0.789
0.441
0.673
0.501
0.575
0.667
0.494
0.494
0.457
0.517
0.472
0.432
0.570
0.395
0.312
0.294
0.211
0.241
0.183
0.232
0.200
0.205
0.123
0.141
0.153
0.211
0.193
0.176
0.133
0.156
0.152
0.156
0.138
0.180
0.019
0.011
0.019
0.011
—
—
—
0.004
0.018
0.016
—
0.001
—
-0.002
0.007
0.002
0.007
-0.002
-0.001
0.007
0.009
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.019
-0.003
0.011
0.001
-0.001
-0.004
0.001
-0.003
0.004
0.003
0.019
0.011
0.011
._
._
—
0.004
0.011
0.016
—
0.003
—
-0.002
0.008
0.003
0.007
-0.002
-0.001
0.009
0.003
-0.001
0.001
-0.004
0.004
-0.005
0.012
-0.003
0.005
0.002
0.001
-0.004
0.001
-0.003
0.005
-0.046
-0.046
-0.046
-0.115
—
—
—
-0.028
-0.028
-0.022
—
0.032
—
-0.015
0.090
0.003
0.008
-0.009
-0.001
-0.005
-0.010
-0.000
0.001
0.004
0.004
-0.005
-0.001
-0.003
0.014
0.003
0.002
-0.004
0.001
-0.003
0.006
-0.005
0.019
-0.005
-0.004
..
„
..
0.011
-0.003
0.018
„
0.004
..
-0.002
0.010
0.003
0.008
-0.009
-0.001
0.003
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.005
0.005
-0.004
0.013
-0.003
0.014
0.003
-0.010
-0.004
0.001
-0.003
0.006
105
-------
Table A-9.
Study=Coupon
Analytc=Cu
Run 4: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 0.5 ing PO4/L, 24 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C852QQ C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
02/05/93
02/08/93
02/10/93
02/18/93
02/19/93
02/23/93
02/24/93
02/25/93
03/01/93
03/02/93
03/03/93
03/04/93
03/05/93
03/09/93
03/10/93
03/11/93
03/15/93
03/16/93
03/17/93
03/18/93
03/23/93
03/24/93
03/25/93
03/30/93
03/31/93
04/01/93
04/06/93
04/08/93
04/15/93
04/20/93
04/22/93
04/27/93
04/28/93
05/04/93
05/05/93
05/11/93
05/13/93
05/19/93
05/20/93
05/25/93
"05/27/93
06/01/93
06/02/93
06/03/93
06/08/93
06/10/93
06/14/93
06/15/93
06/17/93
06/22/93
06/24/93
1
2
6
7
8
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
26
27
28
29
34
35
36
41
42
43
48
50
57
62
64
69
70
76
77
83
85
91
92
97
99
104
105
106
111
113
117
118
120
125
127
0.263
0.088
0.110
0.193
0.164
0.177
0.196
0.117
0.057
0.056
0.081
0.085
0.093
0.096
0.073
0.076
0.030
0.056
0.063
0.056
0.043
0.053
0.046
0.042
0.040
0.074
0.045
0.045
0.047
0.034
0.051
—
0.037
0.031
0.041
0.042
0.056
0.020
0.038
0.012
0.034
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.014
0.001
—
_
-0.00
0.003
0.003
0.241
0.103
0.110
0.193
0.193
0.216
0.229
0.156
0.057
0.057
0.101
0.085
0.113
0.096
0.072
0.089
0.031
0.056
0.077
0.056
0.043
0.053
0.053
0.042
0.047
0.060
0.045
0.045
0.047
0.035
0.036
0.035
0.037
0.024
0.034
0.042
0.042
0.027
0.024
0.012
0.012
0.032
0.018
0.032
-0.00
-0.00
0.002
—
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.475
0.132
0.118
0.518
0.569
0.623
0.728
0.489
0.496
0.369
0.501
0.473
0.557
0.577
0.407
0.560
0.666
0.483
0.463
0.422
0.413
0.401
0.340
0.367
0.386
0.406
—
0.343
0.372
0.346
0.293
0.292
0.286
0.273
0.25
0.256
0.263
0.208
0.192
0.162
0.205
0.266
0.202
0.188
0.189
0.218
0.238
—
0.186
0.160
0.101
0.373
0.132
0.110
0.193
0.238
0.472
0.590
0.436
0.575
0.316
0.401
0.386
0.437
0.450
0.318
0.437
0.482
0.341
0.321
0.300
0.310
0.319
0.278
0.340
0.304
0.365
—
0.263
0.286
0.282
0.234
0.247
0.230
0.231
0.208
0.229
0.208
0.181
0.171
0.148
0.183
0.245
0.181
0.169
0.175
0.196
0.224
0.201
0.188
0.179
0.121
0.839
0.176
0.118
0.294
0.326
0.656
0.767
0.515
0.569
0.361
0.441
0.400
0.437
0.410
0.276
0.376
0.353
0.341
0.341
0.300
0.310
0.319
0.278
0.367
0.325
0.386
—
0.284
0.322
0.305
0.257
0.270
0.243
0.252
0.229
0.25
0.243
0.216
0.192
0.162
0.183
0.223
0.202
0.197
0.204
0.211
0.239
0.224
0.210
0.218
0.154
0.365
0.088
0.110
0.070
0.081
0.137
0.276
0.216
0.117 --
0.128
0.181
0.208
0.263
0.296
0.194
0.315
0.217
0.239
0.239
0.215
0.208
0.217
0.176
0.245
0.223
0.284
0.244
.0.197
0.221
0.195
0.167
0.180
0.180
0.182
0.159
0.167
0.180
0.147
0.137
0.119
0.181
0.160
0.160
0.155
0.142
0.151
0.153
0.146
0.147
0.153
0.088
0.329
0.096
0.110
0.171
0.241
0.452
0.535 -
0.336
-
0.201
0.281
0.268
0.316
0.356
0.235
0.336
0.319 -
0.287
0.266
0.249
0.249
0.251
0.196
0.258
0.223
0.277
0.244
0.190
0.199
0.196
0.167
0.165
0.166
0.167
0.145
0.167
0.153
0.133
0.131
0.105
0.160
0.188
0.160
0.134
0.121
0.128
0.168
0.139
0.147
0.153
0.104
0.314
0.183
0.110
0.367
0.631
1.423
0.914
0.601
0.721
0.669
0.744
0.838
0.576
0.794
0.700
0.626
0.536
0.551
0.524
0.435
0.584
0.487
0.569
0.576
0.415
0.466
0.441
0.350
0.347
0.324
0.375
0.305
0.332
0.332
0.293
0.256
0.226
0.308
0.372
0,308
0.287
0.276
0.270
0.304
0.297
0.262
0.277
0.195
0.088
0.067
0.110
0.143
0.177
0.282
0.336
0.276
0.376
0.461
0.561
0.570
0.637
0.677'
0.467
0.623
0.771
0.531
0.483
0.393
0.422
0.401
0.340
0.448
0.406
0.474
0.458
0.350
0.394
0.375
0.321
0.312
0.303
0.326
0.270
0.291
0.291
0.259
0.231
0.198
0.287
0.287
0.266
0.266
0.242
0.251
0.262
0.269
0.234
0.244
0.183
0.088
0.074
0.110
-0.00
-0.00
-
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.001
0.002
0.011
-0.00
0.002
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
0.002
-0.00
0.002
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.001
-
-
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.004
-0.00
-
-0.00
0.000
-
0.001
0.001
0.002
-0.00
-0.00
0.032
0.011
0.011
0.009
-0.00
0.001
0.005
0.005
-0.00
-0.00
0.001
0.110
0.074
0.099
-0.00
0.005
-
-0.00
-0.00
-0.02
0.001
0.004
0.011
-0.00
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.002
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.001
-
-
-0.00
0.001
0.004
0.004
0.005
-
-0.00
0.000
-
0.001
-
0.003
-0.00
-0.00
0.032
0.011
0.011
0.009
0.000
0.002
-0.00
-0.00
0.101
-0.00
-0.00
0.103
0.088
0.106
-0.00
0.005
-
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.001
0.004
0.005
-0.00
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.002
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.001
-
-
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.005
0.005
—
-0.00
-
-
0.015
~
0.003
-0.00
-0.00
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.009
0.007
0.002
-
-
-0.02
-0.00
-0.01
106
-------
Run 5; Cincinnati tap water, pH=7,5,24 hour stand time
3tudy=Coupon
^nalyte=Cu
Date Time, days C36000 Pb free C83600 C84400 C84500 C8S200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
35
36
37
41
42
44
45
50
51
55
56
58
63
65
69
70
72
73
76
77
79
83
84
86
87
90
91
97
98
100
101
104
105
112
114
115
118
119
121
0.014
0.072
0.052
0.045
0.037
0.015
0.033
0.042
0.023
0.019
0.019
0.014
0.014
0.016
0.013
0.007
0.012
0.011
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.008
0.005
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.003
0.006
0.003
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.008
0.006
0.005
0.008
0.006
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.005
0.005 -
0.003
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.013
0.008
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.001
0.202
0.298
0.378
0.902
0.944
0.947
0.949
0.813
0.717
0.699
0.633
0.612
0.513
0.435
0.807
0.505
0.421
0.368
0.725
0.337
0.298
0.557
0.358
0.287
0.271
0.310
0.279
0.477
0.300
0.246
0.452
0.245
0.417
0.177
0.259
0.180
0.280
0.157
0.134
0.290
0.160
0.126
0.125
0.208
0.139
0.139
0.113
0.105
0.182
0.124
0.156
0.142
0.117
0.205
0.116
0.107
0.096
0.360
0.361
0.415
0.509
0.482
—
0.530
0.529
0.531
0.545
0.512
0.510
—
—
0.584
0.439
0.391
0.352
0.592
0.384
0.338
0.500
0.403
0.355
0.331
0.399
0.362
0.544
0.425
0.452
0.594
0.398
0.599
0.310
0.436
0.328
0.452
0.293
0.276
0.494
0.345
0.290
0.278
0.402
0.355
0.538
0.324
0.256
0.241
0.370
0.311
0.406
0.354
0.329
0.467
0.298
0.292
0.054
0.342
0.288
0.275
0.401
0.440
0.511
0.551
0.570
0.581
0.631
0.612
0.657
0.554
0.493
0.813
0.568
0.477
0.416
0.837
0.501
0.424
0.721
0.539
0.449
0.430
0.464
0.409
0.638
0.471
0.510
0.709
0.466
0.780
0.379
0.567
0.417
0.608
0.392
0.355
0.657
0.442
0.372
0.351
0.553
0.436
0.710
0.405
0.327
0.313
0.465
0.395
0.512
0.439
0.420
0.625
0.386
0.394
0.084
0.125
0.290
0.423
0.683
0.732
0.774
0.805
0.660
0.639
0.653
0.627
0.624
0.576
0.515
0.756
0.574
0.495
0.427
0.780
0.449
0.377
0.618
0.436
0.357
0.337
0.396
0.349
0.573
0.388
0.351
0.549
0.313
0.496
0.234
0.321
0.234
0.325
0.205
0.171
0.330
0.202
0.160
0.144
0.238
0.172
0.308
0.164
0.135
0.115
0.182
0.152
0.199
0.142
0.141
0.206
0.130
0.124
0.026
0.067
0.067
0.085
0.100
0.109
0.121
0.139
0.161
0.161
0.206
0.205
0.198
0.187
0.165
0.234
0.134
0.131
0.114
0.200
0.092
0.081
0.158
0.085
0.073
0.070
0.079
0.072
0.141
0.077
0.074
0.136
0.060
0.126
0.054
0.071
0.053
0.087
0.049
0.045
0.101
0.053
0.043
0.041
0.079
0.049
0.110
0.049
0.044
0.042
0.065
0.051
0.063
0.050
0.049
0.086
0.051
0.048
107
0.014
0.123
0.116
0.110
0.096
0.111
0.104
0.104
0.070
0.091
0.081
0.086
0.081
0.080
0.073
0.156
0.091
0.082
0.070
0.175
0.092
0.080
0.162
0.093
0.071
0.069
0.093
0.084
0.148
0.084
0.071
0.126
0.060
0.129
0.063
0.094
0.065
0.107
0.058
0.043
0.111
0.068
0.052
0.048
0.097
0.060
0.130
0.059
0.049
0.038
0.069
0.057
0.076
0.056
0.061
0.104
0.055 -
0.057
0.114
0.857
1.097
1.333
1.491
1.357
1.304
1.216
0.903
0.785
0.742
0.656
0.604
0.492
0.401
0.935
0.493
0.402
0.348
0.788
0.400
0.312
0.660
0.406
0.325
0.309
0.386
0.340
0.644
0.388
0.368
0.647
0.324
0.605
0.279
0.383
0.273
0.400
0.242
0.202
0.418
0.287
0.220
0.204
0.349
0.265
0.489
0.250
0.193
0.176
0.297
0.232
0.326
0.266
0.262
0.389
0.231
0.013
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.011
0.010
0.008
0.008
0.010
0.052
0.006
0.010
0.010
0.008
0.009
0.015
0.013
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.004
0.002
0.009
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.004
0.011
0.228
0.004
0.006
0.007
0.005
0.008
0.004
0.006
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.005
-0.001
-0.001
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.006
0.013
0.007
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.006
-0.001
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.006
0.003
0.013
0.028
0.006
0.007
0.002
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.001
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.008
0.001
0.003
-0.001
0.000
-0.001
-0.002
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.004
-0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.002
-0.005
-0.003
0.001
0.001
0.002
-0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.003
—
0.005
—
—
0.001
—
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.008
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.001
-0.000
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
-0.001
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.004
-0.001
0.003
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.004
~
0.003
0.002
0.004
-0.004
-0.001
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.004
-0.000
—
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.011
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.004
-0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
-------
Table A-10.
Run 5: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 24 hour stand time
StudysCoupon
Analyto=Cu
Date Time, davs C36QOO Pb free
12/13/93
12/14/93
12/16/93
12/20/93
12/21/93
12/29/93
12/30/93
LOWER pH to
01/11/94
01/13/94
01/19/94
01/20/94
01/25/94
01/27/94
01/28/94
02/01/94
02/03/94
125
126
128
132
133
141
142
6.5
154
156
162
163
168
170
171
175
177
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.005
0.032
0.008
0.008
0.031
0.037
0.029
0.030
0.030
0.039
0.033
0.040
0.041
0.251
0.127
0.102
0.210
0.146
0.180
0.129
0.435
0.383
0.620
0.504
0.459
0.431
0.430
0.577
0.745
C83600
0.545
0.337
0.270
—
0.408
0.427
0.392
1.488
1.269
1.728
1.457
1.330
1.232
1.168
1.510
1.783
C84400
0.691
0.418
0.366
0.590
0.507
0.534
0.451
1.623
1.379
1.916
1.586
1.379
1.316
1.225
1.585
1.871
C84500
0.244
0.143
0.115
0.203
0.166
0.173
0.147
0.578
0.481
0.737
0.576
0.542
0.484
0.429
0.601
0.735
C85200
0.110
0.060
0.044
0.097
0.069
0.078
0.065
0.426
0.358
0.521
0.452
0.422
0.367
0.341
0.475
0.531
C85400
0.134
0.068
0.055
0.114
0.086
0.110
0.074
0.436
0.375
0.422
0.380
0.346
0.340
0.304
0.369
0.404
Copoer
0.463
0.252
0.189
0.392
0.320
0.338
0.263
1.177
0.960
1.475
1.152
1.165
1.087
1.007
1.331
1.688
PurePb
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.015
0.007
0.008
0.003
0.008
0.004
0.007
0.003
0.004
-0.001
-0.001
0.005
0.006
Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
0.004 0.002 0.003
0.003 0.001 0.003
0.001 0.002 0.002
0.007 0.003 -
0.002 0.006 0.005
0.002 0.009 0.009
0.006 0.003 -
0.006 0.003 0.003
0.005 0.002 0.002
0.007 0.001 0.001
0:002 -o.ooi -o.ooi
0.005 0.001 0.002
-0.001 -0.003 -0.005
-0.003 -0.005 -0.006
0.005 0.004 0.003
0.006 0.002 0.002
ADD PHOSPHATE=3.0 mg/L
02/08/94
02/11/94
02/15/94
02/17/94
02/24/94
02/25/94
182
185
189
191
198
199
0.027
0.017
0.036
0.021
0.015
0.014
1.2SO
0.366
0.722
0.252
0.214
0.184
2.302
0.721
1.479
-
0.361
0.318
2.362
0.824
1.562
—
0.373
0.339
1.128
0.398
0.804
—
0.188
0.157
0.726
0.226
0.544
-
0.143
0.118
0.398
0.184
--
-
0.132
0.119
2.349
0.673
1.633
-
0.387
0.343
0.007
0.002
0.003
-
0.004
0.004
0.007 0.002 0.003
0.001 -0.000 -0.001
0.006 0.001 0.000
..
0.007 0.002 0.003
0.004 0.000 0.004
108
-------
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupou
Analyte=Zn
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C852QO C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zii Pb/Sn
08/14/91
08/15/91
08/16/91
08/20/91
08/21/91
08/22/91
08/23/91
08/27/91
08/28/91
08/29/91
08/30/91
09/03/91
09/04/91
09/05/91
09/06/91
09/10/91
09/11/91
09/12/91
09/13/91
09/17/91
09/18/91
09/19/91
09/20/91
09/24/91
09/25/91
09/26/91
09/27/91
10/01/91
10/02/91
10/03/91
10/04/91
10/08/91
10/09/91
10/10/91
10/11/91
10/17/91
10/23/91
10/25/91
10/30/91
11/01/91
11/06/91
11/08/91
11/13/91
1
2
3
7
8
9 .
10
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
24
28
29
30
31
35
36
37
38
42
43
44
45
49
50
51
52
56
57
58
59
65
71
73
78
80
85
87
92
0.64
0.61
0.61
0.51
0.43
0.38
0.35
0.31
0.22
0.41
0.36
0.35
0.48
0.49
0.45
0.27
0.41
0.23
0.27
0.20
0.26
0.23
0.29
0.17
0.21
0.22
0.24
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.31
0.33
0.26
0.26
0.20
0.23
0.21
0.20
0.26
0.12
0.11
0.18
0.65
0.55
0.66
0.46
0.42
0.35
0.31
0.31
0.22
0.29
0.35
0.57
0.50
0.53
0.46
0.34
0.43
0.27
0.31
0.25
0.27
0.32
0.34
0.20
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.18
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.30
0.33
0.25
0.27
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.21
0.26
0.11
0.11
0.19
0.04
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.28
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.09
0.25
0.29
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.22
0.25
0.19
0.23
0.23
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.17
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.05
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.22
0.27
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.16
0.15
0.10
0.11
0.04
0.10
0.24
0.30
0.59
0.20
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.10
1.27
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.23
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.89
0.61
0.55
0.48
0.41
0.38
0.34
0.31
0.26
0.33
0.25
0.35
0.41
0.46
0.36
0.33
0.57
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.20
0.26
0.23
0.34
0.25
0.19
0.17
0.34
0.31
0.23
0.25
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.14
0.17
0.10
0.09
0.13
0.46
0.44
0.52
0.40
0.32
0.30
0.27
0.30 -
0.18 -
0.23
0.23 -
0.26
0.40
0.45 -
0.46
1.52
0.43
0.21
0.20
0.22
0.21
0.15
0.17
0.16
0.21
0.20
0.17 -
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.15
0.27
0.36
0.26
0.28
0.23
0.23
0.20
0.18
0.21
0.08 -
0.08
0.13 --
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
—
0.01 -
—
0.01 --
0.01
-
0.02
0.08
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.02 -
0.01 -
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
-
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
--
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.00
0.00
-0.00 -
0.00
-0.00
-
~
—
~
0.01
~
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.01
-
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
-
o.oi •
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00 -
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.32
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.01
11.25
8.31
6.08
3.38
2.73
2.56
1.94
1.89
1.86
3.08
1.74
1.57
1.37
0.93
0.79
0.49
0.52
0.42
0.40
0.39
0.41
0.30
0.28
0.85
0.25
0.29
0.32
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.35
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.14
0.22
0.11
0.10
0.14
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.27
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01,
0.02
0.15
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
109
-------
Table A-ll.
Study=Coupon
Analytc=Zn
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5,24 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C845QO C85200 C854QO Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
11/20/91
11/22/91
11/27/91
12/04/91
12/06/91
12/11/91
12/18/91
12/20/91
12/22/91
01/02/92
01/03/92
99
101
106
113
115
120
127
129
131
142
143
0.23
0.17
0.25
0.33
0.25
0.60
0.21
0.39
0.28
033
034
0.24
0.16
0.22
0.31
0.22
0.57
0.22
039
0.27
0.33
0.32
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.09
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.11
0.07
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.24
0.08
0.16
0.10
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.14
0.18
0.11
0.28
0.09
0.19
0.09
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.12
0.14
0.18
0.14
0.27
0.15
0.23
0.19
0.25
0.21
0.19
0.13
0.16
0.20
0.17
0.37
0.19
0.29
0.25
0.32
0.24
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01 -
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.16
0.13
0.18
0.24
0.20
0.41
0.22
0.31
0.19 -
0.16
0.20
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
110
-------
Run 2: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.0, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Zn
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
1
2
3 -
4
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
22
23
24
25
30
31
32
36
37
38
39
43
44
45
50
51
52
53
59
60
64
65
66
67
71
72
73
78
80
0.22
0.06
4.56
3.89
2.43
5.98
5.33
5.76
5.90
5.31
4.98
5.06
4.93
4.95
4.42
4.54
4.43
4.47
4.52
5.87
5.26
4.28
5.56
4.97
4.81
4.79
4.15
4.75
4.34
4.36
4.56 -
8.56
4.67
4.21
4.55
4.10
4.43
4.88
3.69
4.03
4.96
4.04
0.13
0.16
4.70
4.80
4.36
3.74
3.53
3.21
3.67
3.32
3.54
3.34
3.42
3.42
3.56
3.39
3.70
3.69
3.89
3.99
4.93
4.49
3.99
5.18
4.65
4.65
4.36
3.67
4.55
4.38
4.60
6.15
4.82
4.45
5.15
4.71
5.12
5.07
4.22
4.51
5.02
4.43
0.01
0.17
0.38
0.79
0.70
0.60
0.51
0.45
0.50
0.51
0.44
0.40
0.39
0.40
0.32
0.35
0.36
0.35
0.29
0.28
0.31
0.27
0.25
0.31
0.29
0.22 ;
0.24
0.22
0.17
0.20
0.21
0.15
0.37
0.13
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.09
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.02
-0.03
0.60
1.18
1.26
1.06
0.92
0.83
0.89
0.86
0.75
0.72
0.76
0.75
0.72
0.73
0.79
0.80
0.68
0.74
0.91
0.70
0.65
0.84
0.79
0.61
0.67
0.62
0.53
0.56
0.60
0.53
1.26
0.50
0.41
0.50
0.46
0.51
0.55
0.33
0.41
0.46
0.41
0.02
-0.01
0.20
0.99
0.89
0.73
0.65
0.72
0.95
0.76
0.81
0.75
0.78
0.76
0.80
0.78
0.86
0.80
0.78
0.83
1.13
0.83
0.68
1.02
0.91
0.73
0.78
0.72
0.61
0.71
0.73
0.68
1.47
0.58
0.48
0.58
0.58
0.63
0.63
0.42
0.53
0.57
0.51
0.01
0.03
9.84
8.23
8.34
7.56
6.20
5.17
5.08
5.79
5.02
4.38
4.45
4.30
4.21
3.50
3.29
3.25
2.65
2.71
3.52
2.24
2.02
2.60
2.31
1.87
1.93
1.78
1.78
1.62
1.71
1.68
3.64
1.76
1.48
1.56
1.43
1.61
2.01
1.24
1.51
1.96
1.45
111
0.02
0.01
3.21
2.90
2.60
2.09
2.92
2.76
2.93
3.15
3.61
3.34
3.41
3.64
4.71
4.19
4.44
4.59
4.60
4.57
6.53
5.34
4.79
6.02
4.92
4.69
4.14
3.83
2.32
3.79
3.88
3.90
5.96
3.80
3.20
3.29
2.97
3.45
3.68
2.68
2.93
3.57
2.68
0.00
-0.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
-0.03
0.01
-0.02
0.03
0.02
-0.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.05
-0.04
-0.01
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.07
-0.03
-0.03
-0.06
-0.04
-0.05
0.08
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
-0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
-0.03
-0.03
0.01
0.01
-0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.04
-0.05
-0.05
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.06
-0.03
-0.02
-0.06
-0.05
-0.03
0.00
-0.01
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
-0.01
-0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
-0.05
0.01
-0.00
-0.03
-0.02
0.02
0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
0.05
-0.01
-0.07
-0.05
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.07
-0.03
0.65
0.09
8.66
7.37
6.44
7.00
5.12
5.46
4.85
5.83
3.68
3.83
-0.03
3.67
4.45
4.14
4.16
4.47
4.49
4.32
6.42
5.34
4.98
6.25
5.06
4.77
4.76
4.13
4.58
4.61
4.63
4.92
5.04
4.67
4.49
5.02
4.62
4.99
4.68
4.88
4.67
5.17
4.68
0.00
-0.00
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
-0.01
-0.01
0.02
-0.02
0.01
-0.03
0.03
0.01
-0.01
-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.06
-0.06
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.06
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
0.03
-------
Table A-12.
Study=Coupon
AnalytcsZn
Run 2: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.0,24 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
05/19/92
05/21/92
05/27/92
05/29/92
06/03/92
06/04/92
06/09/92
06/11/92
06/16/92
06/17/92
06/18/92
06/23/92
06/24/92
06/25/92
06/30/92
07/01/92
07/02/92
07/07/92
07/08/92
07/09/92
07/14/92
07/15/92
07/16/92
07/21/92
07/22/92
07/23/92
07/28/92
07/29/92
85
87
93
95
100
101
106
108
113
114
115
120
121
122
127
128
129
134
135
136
141
142
143
148
149
150
155
156
3.81
4.21
4.21
3.69
4.78
3.78
4.17
3.75
4.90
3.91
0.13
4.50
3.62
4.02
4.25
3.60
3.59
3.55
3.55
4.06 -
4.25
4.08
0.85
4.47
4.34
3.95
5.14
4.58
3.70
4.68
4.20
3.87
5.06
3.84
3.89
3.79
5.39
4.48
4.03
4.22
3.56
3.76
3.91
3.57
3.25
3.25
3.25
—
3.98
3.65
3.82
4.28
4.09
4.01
4.90
4.55
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.07 -
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.12
—
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.15
0.16
0.37
0.45
0.43
0.40
0.47
0.39
0.40
0.37
0.40
0.3S
0.39
0.41
--
0.48
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.38
0.38
-
0.47
0.42
0.42
0.47
0.41
0.40
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.61
0.51
0.49
0.58
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.49 -
0.50
0.50
0.47
0.56
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.43
0.43
--
0.52
0.48
0.47
0.61
0.46
0.48
0.65
0.48
1.65
1.51
1.79
2.17
1.53
1.20
1.45
1.17
1.89
1.36
1.44
1.12
1.13
1.31
1.13
1.00
1.12
1.00
--
1.32
1.03
1.08
1.27
1.05
1.07
1.32
1.29
2.78
2.81
3.01
2.45
2.87
2.43
2.54
2.18
2.80
2.34
2.27
2.55
2.00
2.19
2.45
0.39
1.81
2.06
1.74
--
2.14
1.66
1.79
1.94
1.61
1.60
2.48
1.77 -
-0.03
-0.05
-0.05
-0.03
-0.07
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.05
-0.05
0.09
-0.06
-0.04
-0.05
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-
-0.02
0.01
-0.03 -
0.01
-0.03
-0.01 -
-0.02
0.01
-0.06
-0.06
-0.04
-0.07
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.05
-0.06
-0.06
-0.05
0.01
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
-0.05
-0.04
-0.06
-0.04
-0.07
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.02
-0.05
-0.06
-0.03
-0.05
0.00
0.00
0.01
-0.01
-
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
4.44
5.41
4.89
4.55
6.36
4.73
4.52
4.46
5.62
5.08
4.70
5.38
4.73
5.29
5.13
5.04
4.46
4.25
5.45
—
5.03
4.62
5.18
5.06
4.77
4.44
4.81
5.06
-0.04
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.05
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.04
-0.06
-0.05
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.01
-0.04
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
112
-------
Run 3: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO^L, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Zn
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zu Pb/Sn
08/07/92
08/10/92
08/11/92
08/12/92
08/13/92
08/14/92
08/19/92
08/20/92
08/21/92
08/25/92
08/26/92
08/27/92
09/01/92
09/02/92
09/03/92
09/09/92
09/10/92
09/16/92
09/29/92
09/30/92
10/01/92
10/06/92
10/08/92
10/14/92
10/16/92
10/21/92
10/22/92
10/27/92
10/29/92
11/03/92
11/05/92
11/10/92
11/13/92
11/17/92
11/19/92
11/24/92
11/25/92
12/01/92
12/03/92
12/08/92
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
15
16
17
22
23
24
30
31
37
50
51
52
57
59
65
67
72
73
78
80
85
87
92
95
99
101
106
107
113
115
120
4.58
4.54
1.99
4.66
2.90
2.03
2.74
2.22
1.90
1.06
1.11
1.64
1.07
1.05
0.98
1.12
0.99
0.99
1.54
1.07
1.04
0.84
0.74
0.75
0.64
0.75
0.63
0.63
0.51
0.48
0.57
0.76
0.75
0.68
0.69
0.66
0.59
0.69
0.61
0.70
3.49
0.99
1.72
2.06
1.43
1.93
1.95
1.38
1.49
1.04
1.43
1.72
1.16
1.10
1.04
1.26
1.12
1.06
1.75
1.21
1.14
0.98
0.81
0.83
0.70
0.83
0.71
0.71
0.50
0.52
0.68
0.87
0.86
0.78
0.74
0.73
0.66
0.68
0.62
0.72
0.17
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.33
0.16
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.27
0.18
0.12
0.11
0.17
0.13
0.10
0.12
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.24
0.07
0.09
0.31
0.41
0.39
0.65
0.35
0.38
0.26
0.23
0.31
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.30
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.60
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.18
0.33
0.59
0.40
0.31
0.21
0.21
0.30
0.23
0.20
0.18
0.25
0.58
0.19
0.32
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.18
0.10
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.07
1.94
0.47
1.74
1.79
1.15
1.24
1.17
0.77
0.82
0.61
0.68
0.89
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.68
0.20
0.55
0.75
0.54
0.48
0.36
0.27
0.31
0.19
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.12
3.11
0.27
1.98
2.21
1.70
1.72
1.85
1.46
1.21
0.72
0.89 -
1.10
0.84
0.78
0.71
0.87 -
0.79
0.74
1.16
0.81
0.76
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.36
0.43
0.36
0.36
0.24
0.26
0.33
0.44
0.40
0.38
0.34
0.35
0.32
0.32
0.27 -
0.32
-0.02
-0.04
0.05
-0.02
-0.00
-0.05
-0.01
0.03
-0.01
-0.03
0.02
-0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00 -
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00 -
0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 -
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.00 -
-0.01
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
—
-0.01
0.00
0.01
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
24.81
0.84
11.69
8.73
7.19
7.49
10.37
9.79
7.38
5.22
4.57
3.58
2.72
2.80
2.76
2.53
2.57
2.23
3.02
2.31
1.84
2.43
1.98
2.05
1.92
2.02
1.70
1.82
1.13
1.37
1.48
1.86
1.75
1.60
1.38
1.60
1.58
1.71
1.64
1.69
-0.01
0.02
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.01
-0.00
0.01
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.06
-0.00
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.04
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
113
-------
Table A-14.
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Zn
Run 4: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 0.5 mg POq/L, 24 hour stand time
Dntc
ne. davs C36000 C36000 C83600 CS4400 C84500 C85200 C8S400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
02/05/93
02/08/93
02/10/93
02/18/93
02/19/93
02/23/93
02/24/93
02/25/93
03/01/93
03/02/93
03/03/93
03/04/93
03/05/93
03/09/93
03/10/93
03/11/93
03/15/93
03/16/93
03/17/93
03/18/93
03/23/93
03/24/93
03/25/93
03/30/93
03/31/93
04/01/93
04/06/93
04/08/93
04/15/93
04/20/93
04/22/93
04/27/93
04/28/93
05/04/93
05/05/93
05/11/93
05/13/93
05/19/93
05/20/93
05/25/93
05/27/93
06/01/93
06/02/93
06/03/93
06/08/93
06/10/93
06/14/93
06/15/93
06/17/93
06/22/93
06/24/93
1
2
6
7
8
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
26
27
28
29
34-
35
36
41
42
43
48
50
57
62
64
69 -
70
76
77
83
85
91
92
97
99
104
105
106
111
113
117-
118-
120
125
127
0.72
0.29
0.06
3.95
3.48
3.67
4.14
2.26
2.66
1.34
1.91
1.84
2.00
2.22
1.50
2.22
2.63
1.68
1.56
1.50
1.48 -
1.24
1.56
1.44
1.87
1.48
1.32
1.37
1.28
1.07
1.14
1.20
0.89
0.94
1.00
0.91
0.78
0.68
0.97
0.79
1.19
1.22
1.23
1.39
—
1.34
1.65
1.07
0.76
0.22
0.04
3.62
3.34
3.51
3.91
4.11
2.59
1.29
1.79
1.75
1.98
2.11
1.45
2.15
2.58
1.53
1.53
1.37
1.35
1.19
1.54
1.40
1.85
1.44-
1.24
1.35
1.28
1.09
0.95
1.19
1.24
0.96
0.95
1.10
1.01
0.90
0.80
1.21
0.81
1.35
1.39
1.42
1.50
1.23
—
1.42
1.57
1.09
0.13
0.03
0.03
0.22
0.30
0.34
0.33
0.23
0.58
0.16
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.20
O.OS
0.08
O.OS
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.07
—
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.14
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.17
0.32
0.33
0.22
0.36
0.13
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.15
0.18
0.36
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.13
0.12
0.14
—
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.09
O.OS
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.10
O.OS
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.26
0.06
0.03
0.15
0.45
0.33
0.37
0.24
0.54
0.21
0.27
0.25
0.28
0.38
0.33
0.41
0.89
0.35
0.31
0.27
0.23
0.23
0.19
0.21
0.19
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.15
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.10
O.OS
0.29
0.02
0.02
5.59
3.52
2.66
2.52
1.33
2.25 -
0.93
1.13
0.91
0.97
1.13
0.74
1.02
1.S7
0.82
0.75
0.67
0.66
0.68
0.55
0.72
0.63
0.74
0.65
0.57
0.56
0.51
0.46
0.44
0.46
0.46
0.3S
0.41
0.39
0.40
0.35
0.31
0.37
0.63
0.37
0.35
0.37
0.36
0.4S
0.41
0.32
0.35
0.24
0.44
0.11
0.04
3.69
2.83
2.46
2.62
1.42
0.92
1.21
1.14
1.22
1.29
0.90
1.26
2.22
0.92
O.SS
0.78
0.71
0.75
0.61
0.76
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.63
0.55
0.50
0.47
0.50
0.50
0.43
0.46
0.45
0.46
0.42
0.37
0.45
0.84
0.46
0.44
0.46
0.44
0.67
0.51
0.40
0.47
0.34
0.12
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.01
0.00
-0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
-0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.01
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
-0.00
0.07
0.02
0.02
2.35
1.69
1.58
1.74
0.98
1.70
0.45
0.41
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.16
0.21
0.35
0.17
0.16
0.13
0.14
0.14 -
0.11
0.14
0.13
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.06
O.OS
0.09
O.OS
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.01
0.00
0.02
-0.00
0.00
1.43
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.01
-0.00
-0.01
0.00
22.51
1.68
0.69
8.90
7.68
6.86
7.23
8.18
7.35
7.17
6.62
6.89
7.45
7.25
6.57
7.43
—
6.08
6.85
6.84
5.23
6.15
5.56
4.49
5.13
5.23
4.48
4.61
4.02
3.41
3.12
—
2.38
2.27
1.92
1.48
1.72
1.31
1.24
1.05
1.43
1.13
1.41
1.48
1.37
1.58
1.19
1.60
1.50
1.70
1.39
0.15
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
1.51
-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
—
-
-0.01
0.01
0.00
114
-------
Run 5: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 24 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Zn
Date Time, davs C36000 Pb free C83600 C84400 C84500 C852QO C8540Q Conner Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/03/93
08/11/93
08/12/93
08/13/93
08/17/93
08/18/93
08/19/93
08/20/93
08/24/93
08/25/93
08/26/93
08/27/93
08/31/93
09/01/93
09/02/93
09/07/93
09/08/93
09/09/93
09/10/93
09/14/93
09/15/93
09/16/93
09/20/93
09/21/93
09/23/93
09/24/93
09/29/93
09/30/93
10/04/93
10/05/93
10/07/93
10/12/93
10/14/93
10/18/93
10/19/93
10/21/93
10/22/93
10/25/93
10/26/93
10/28/93
11/01/93
11/02/93
11/04/93
11/05/93
11/08/93
11/09/93
11/15/93
11/16/93
11/18/93
11/19/93
11/22/93
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
35
36
37
41
42
44
45
50
51
55
56
58
63
65
69
70
72
73
76
77
79
83
84
86
87
90
91
97
98
100
101
104
0.49
2.17
2.03
2.11
2.28
0.70
2.21
2.26
1.83
1.84
1.90
1.85
1.74
1.58
1.60
0.67
1.56
1.63
1.52
1.06
1.55
1,53
1.04
1.71
1.71
1.65
1.71
1.70
1.55
1.64
2.32
1.25
1.84
1.78
1.15
1.81
1.49
1.75
1.35
1.35
1.90
1.47
1.40
1.36
1.73
1.76
2.11 -
1.36
1.20
1.17
1.50
0.02
1.96
1.17
1.12
1.00
0.77
0.69-
0.61
0.46
0.40
0.39
0.34
0.29
0.24 -
0.21 -
0.41
0.23
0.19
0.16
0.36
0.18
0.15
0.30
0.19
0.14
0.12
0.16
0.14
0.30
0.17
0.13
0.30
0.14
0.29
0.10
0.17
0.10
0.19
0.09
0.08
0.22
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.16
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.13
0.04
0.17
0.23
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.26
0.22
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.29
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.25
0.14
0.12
0.20
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.11
0.18
0.11
0.11
0.17
0.09
0.17
0.07
0.11
0.07
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.15
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.04
0.13
0.52
0.50
0.47
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.41
0.37
0.39
0.37
0.38
0.33
0.29
0.58
0.39
0.32
0.26
0.59
0.31
0.25
0.49
0.32
0.25
0.23
0.35
0.32
0.65
0.36
0.37
0.66
0.30
0.61
0.21
0.36
0.22
0.40
0.21
0.19
0.47
0.22
0.18
0.17
0.33
0.22
0.51
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.27
0.08
0.57
1.24
1.29
1.75
1.45
1.37
1.29
1.06
0.93
0.89
0.80
0.68
0.57
0.50
0.76
0.51
0.43
0.36
0.68
0.38
0.32
0.54
0.37
0.29
0.25
0.30
0.26
0.47
0.26
0.26
0.44
0.20
0.39
0.13
0.22
0.13
0.23
0.12
0.10
0.24
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.16
0.11
0.23
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.15
2.39
2.10
2.25
2.42
2.41
2.35
2.25
1.65
1.51
1.55
1.37
1.05
0.88
0.74
1.24
0.66
0.57
0.46
0.99
0.40
0.36
0.80
0.42
0.35
0.32
0.41
0.38
0.91
0.38
0.42
1.02
0.42
1.06
0.31
0.59
0.33
0.75
0.33
0.30
0.93
0.37
0.30
0.27
0.63
0.35
1.01
0.32
0.26
0.24
0.50
0.09
2.14
2.23
2.33
2.55
2.48
2.21
2.01
1.47
1.51
1.36
1.36
1.16
0.98
0.84
1.72
0.97
0.82
0.67
1.99
0.88
0.76
1.71
0.93
0.74
0.66
0.87
0.78
1.67
0.80
0.84
1.64
0.62
1.62
0.51
0.88
0.50
0.99
0.46
0.32
1.14
0.50
0.36
0.31
0.77
0.42
1.23
0.38
0.25
0.22
0.48
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.23
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02 -
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.30
2.57
2.43
3.55
1.39
1.20
1.30
1.54
1.08
1.30
1.39
1.38
1.10
1.21
1.27
0.46
0.98
1.16
1.19
0.78
1.12 -
1.17
0.72
1.28
1.32
1.25
1.32
1.34
1.34
1.36
1.64
1.53
1.46
1.62
1.06
1.33
1.19 -
1.25
1.15
1.11
1.47
1.33
1.19
1.27
1.53
1.71
1.32
1.12
1.06
1.29
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
115
-------
Table A-15.
StudysCoupon
AnaIytc=Zn
Run 5: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5,24 hour stand time
Date Time, davs C36000 Pb free C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C854QO Co^r Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
11/23/93
11/30/93
12/02/93
12/03/93
12/06/93
12/07/93
12/09/93
12/13/93
12/14/93
12/16/93
12/20/93
12/21/93
12/29/93
LOWER pH to
12/30/93
01/11/94
01/13/94
01/19/94
01/20/94
01/25/94
01/27/94
01/28/94
02/01/94
02/03/94
02/07/94
105
112
114
115
118
119
121
125
126
128
132
133
141
6.5
142
154
156
162
163
168
170
171
175
177
181 ~
ADDPHOSPHATE=3.0
02/08/94
02/11/94
02/15/94
02/17/94
02/24/94
02/25/94
182
185
189
191
198
199
1.51
1.87
1.60
1.55
2.12
132
1.43
2.19
1.39
1.17
1.75
1.70
1.44
1.20
6.33
5.91
6.38
635
6.40
6.28
6.06
7.50
8.71
~
mg/L
8.80
4.22
7.86
4.39
2.60
2.44
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.07
0.12
0.21
0.08
0.06
0.18 -
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.15
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.22
0.18
0.23
035
-
0.84
0.20
0.24
0.15 -
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.16
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.23
-
0.48
0.08
0.11
—
0.04
0.04
0.18
0.21
0.17
0.16
0.33
0.15
0.16
0.39
0.17
0.14
0.33
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.41
0.41
0.49
0.44
0.39
0.42
0.39
0.45
0.66
- —
1.35
0.25
0.30
—
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.07
0.16
0.07
0.06
0.13
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.19
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.19
0.28
-
0.61
0.15
0.19
—
0.07
0.06
0.30
0.36
0.29
0.29
0.58
0.24
0.26
0.73
0.28
0.20
0.60
0.32
0.26
0.22
0.83
0.82
1.02
0.93
0.73
0.76
0.74
0.90
1.34
~
2.88
0.70
1.24 -
—
0.37
0.32
0.29
0.39
0.31
0.32
0.68
0.26 -
0.27
0.83
0.29
0.22
0.66
0.36
0.33
0.26
1.66
1.68
2.21
1.97
1.83
1.94
1.83
2.11
3.28
—
6.00
1.51
-
0.98
0.90
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
—
0.02
0.01
0.03
-
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
—
0.02
0.01
0.02
-
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
--
0.02
0.01
0.03
-
0.01
0.01
1.35 0.01
1.81 0.01
1.55 0.01
1.50 0.01
1.71 0.01
1.23 0.01
1.52 0.01
1.61 0.01
1.35 0.01
1.15 0.01
1.68 -
1.80 0.01
1.65 0.01
1.46 --
8.40 0.01
8.21 0.01
7.89 0.01
7.54 0.01
7.78 0.01
8.13 0.01
7.88 0.01
9.00 0.02
8.92 0.02
—
7.30 0.02
6.10 0.01
13.46 0.02
—
4.00 0.01
3.82 0.01
116
-------
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5,72 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Pb
Date Time, days C36QOO C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/19/91
08/26/91
09/09/91
09/16/91
09/23/91
09/30/91
10/07/91
10/21/91
10/28/91
11/04/91
11/25/91
12/02/91
12/16/91
12/30/91
6
13
27
34
41
48
55
69
76
83
104
111
125
139
92.9
65.2
30.5
18.5
16.4
13.1
10.2
8.2
6.8
9.4
10.3
--
9.3
9.7
105.9
74.3
31.4
19.0
18.5
12.7
23.9
7.3
5.8
7.9
8.3
8.1
7.6
6.6
136.4
85.9
90.2
62.3
64.9
51.3
56.4
49.5
45.1
49.4
48.6
54.9
40.2
24.9
167.7
105.0
90.4
76.4
86.4
66.5
92.6
76.1
60.7
78.3
79.1
84.2
58.8
31.8
134.2
95.1
125.3
93.5
102.0
77.8
98.2
69.0
50.1
68.7
66.4
69.7
50.0
27.3
131.6
99.6
93.6
72.4
83.3
61.8
59.7
45.0
33.3
36.2
29.5
18.9
37.8
29.8
95.2
54.4
35.9
20.6
20.1
13.7
13.7
13.5
8.7
10.3
10.4
13.2
13.3
9.7
0.2
-0.9
0.2
-0.3
-2.3
0.1
0.0
-0.8
6.7
0.3
1.5
2.8
2.6
2.1
1131.3
203.8
230.8
211.1
224.7
185.4
212.6
215.7
205.3
239.8
278.1
293.4
347.3
268.2
1256.0
251.5
238.7
218.7
244.2
194.8
232.4
254.1
227.7
284.4
360.1
358.6
394.1
287.3
0.4
-0.5
0.2
-0.5
-2.4
-0.6
-0.2
-1.0
-0.6
0.5
1.8
0.3
2.4
2.2
322.9
309.9
333.3
361.3
444.4
293.1
362.6
219.4
171.4
216.4
200.7
145.3
497.3
301.8
117
-------
Table A-17.
Study=Coupon
Analytc=Pb
Run 2: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.0,72 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper PurePb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn_
03/02/92
03/09/92
03/16/92
03/30/92
04/06/92
04/13/92
04/20/92
04/27/92
05/04/92
05/11/92
05/18/92
05/26/92
06/01/92
06/08/92
06/15/92
06/22/92
06/29/92
07/06/92
07/13/92
07/20/92
07/27/92
7-
14
21
35
42
49
56
63
70
77
84
92
98
105
112
119
126
133
140
147
154
177.2
237.6
205.3
169.3
113.3
118.3
104.7
109.0
98.7
113.8
102.8
91.5
78.8
74.5
72.0
67.4
58.7
48.3
37.8
39.5
233.3
169.4
199.2
222.0
189.1
185.9
208.5
211.2
204.5
182.3
191.8
197.5
160.9
151.6
143.0
138.0
119.7
104.1
76.9
58.3
58.6
1688.6
447.1
320.1
235.7
175.8
150.7
160.9
152.0
141.4
146.7
148.7
134.6
124.4
127.1
123.0
119.4
107.3
108.2
96.1
88.1
109.6
899.5
313.3
306.2
234.7
187.0
170.1
197.9
204.1
172.3
176.0
184.5
177.8
162.7
181.7
163.6
163.2
15S.5
161.9
156.0
147.2
176.6
1423.3
410.9
271.3
143.2
100.9
88.8
117.9
118.6
114.3
137.3
146.1
139.0
29.4
159.1
134.1
-
—
131.8
120.8
104.4
129.8
153.4
72.4
89.3
102.4
74.7
52.9
53.6
45.1
36.5
29.5
28.8
30.2
29.8
32.7
26.1
26.6
24.3
25.9
23.7
21.1
22.7
321.7
105.8
68.6
35.7
29.5
25.9
32.2
35.0
37.7
38.6
44.8
45.2
45.9
52.8
43.6
43.1
44.3
47.6
44.9
39.2
37.0
3.8
3.2
-0.7
1.3
0.5
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
-0.5
0.3
0.8
1185.8
1024.6
1688.2
504.6
893.9
821.6
854.8
772.3
696.7
664.2
796.4
795.2
672.1
767.3
680.4
720.6
749.2
653.8
580.8
-
710.5
815.1
991.3
1512.3
494.1
876.0
848.0
836.4
777.7
684.9 -
713.8
778.9
784.0
689.9
748.2
659.0
693.4
717.6
661.3
570.0 -
-
727.5
3.0
3.0
-0.9
0.6
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.3
0.7
1619.3
965.0
939.5
573.3
355.6
422.8
399.7
343.8
278.9
382.9
475.9
363.3
298.0
0.3
392.7
-
238.8
259.9
210.8
—
282.1
118
-------
Table A.-1S.
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Pb
Run. 3-. Cincinnati tap -water, pH=7.5, 3 mg PO^/L, 72 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/17/92
08/24/92
08/31/92
09/08/92
09/14/92
7
14
21
29
35
2.0
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.6
1.1
1.2
0.8
53.0
25.0
17.6
12.7
11.9
36.0
16.1
10.8
7.3
7.1
41.0
15.3
10.2
8.4
9.3
4.0
4.1
3.4
2.6
2.6
2.0 -
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.8
447.0 401.0 -
0.3 575.0 363.8
0.7 480.0 360.0
0.2 293.2 313.9
0.2 305.6 304.4
84.0
0.4 117.2
0.4 111.6
-0.2 75.6
0.3 70.4
119
-------
Table A-19. Run 4: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO^fL, 72 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Ana1ylc=Pb
Dale Timei_davs C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Conner Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
02/22/93
03/08/93
03/15/93
03/22/93
03/29/93
04/05/93
04/12/93
04/19/93
04/26/93
05/03/93
05/10/93
05/18/93
05/24/93
06/07/93
06/21/93
5
19
26
33
40
47
54
61
68-
75
82
90
96
110
124
40.5
18.0
19.6
12.8
16.0
163
10.5
12.9
—
11.5
10.8
11.7
11.8
38.9
32.3
46.1 268.3 418.9 226.2
20.2
18.2
11.4
13.0
10.6
10.1-
14.7
—
14.5
13.2
13.8
16.8
30.9
23.3
46.7
38.5
24.3
21.1
13.7
11.1
—
6.2-
5.8
5.9
6.1
9.1
6.3
82.8
82.2
38.7
31.4
21.4
13.6
13.9
—
8.4
8.8
9.4
13.1
9.2
44.8
36.3
22.8
20.3
11.7
7.7
8.2
—
5.6 -
5.0
4.7
4.8
7.2
5.0
150.0
20.0
18.9
10.3
10.4
5.5
5.2
7.9
—
4.4
3.9
3.8
6.5
4.6
40.9 -
9.3
10.0
5.6
5.3
3.7
2.2
3.3 -
—
2.2
2.0
2.6
2.4-
3.9
2.2
0.2
0.0
-0.4
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
—
-0.3 -
0.6
0.6
0.4
-0.4
7.1
1.0
0.7
0.4
-0.1
-0.1
-0.5
-0.1
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.1
-0.4
234.2
213.9 -
234.9
206.1
246.7
258.7 -
225.3
269.5
—
251.8
242.2
258.7
239.0
300.4
282.9
-0.5
-0.1
-0.3
-0.3
-0.6
0.5
0.2
0.6
-0.3
0.4
0.2
-0.6
597.7
288.1
345.4
234.6
224.6
212.4
177.4
189.2
..
176.1
187.4
196.3
172.6
198.9
204.3
120
-------
'able A-20.
Run 5: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 72 hour stand time
itudy=Coupon
^nalyte=Pb
Date Time, davs C36000 Pb
08/16/93
08/23/93
08/30/93
09/07/93
09/14/93
09/20/93
10/04/93
10/18/93
10/25/93
11/01/93
11/08/93
11/15/93
11/22/93
11/30/93
12/06/93
12/13/93
12/20/93
,OWER pH
31/31/94
6
13
20
28
35
41
55
69
76
83
90
97
104
112
118
125
132
to 6.5
174
157.8
82.7
40.8
35.7
37.4
25.5
23.2
19.8
19.1
18.7
15.8
18.6
14.9
15.2
21.0
22.9
20.5
122.0
free C83600
47.5 299.2
23.7 275.7
12.8 224.7
11.9 216.5
8.7 206.0
5.9 165.6
4.9 137.5
4.6 136.1
4.0 105.5
4.2 101.3
2.6 74.0
5.2 88.6
2.5 54.5
2.4 45.2
2.2 45.2
3.6 44.8
2.3 --
8.8 110.8
C84400
259.0
256.4
203.4
197.4
202.9
152.7
141.9
148.2
107.3
111.6
84.5
114.0
66.4
62.0
67.0
67.8
49.6
218.1
C84500 C85200 C85400 Cooper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn
331.8
318.6
285.9
240.2
243.9
181.1
153.5
137.3
102.7
108.9
81.6
106.4
59.8
55.1
54.7
55.5
37.2
138.7
93.3
137.7
110.0
84.3
45.3
39.9
26.9
24.0
17.7
18.7
13.2
18.8
10.0
8.8
10.0
10.2
6.9
31.7
135.3
164.3
161.4
132.2
110.0
75.5
52.2
43.1
30.0
30.0
21.2
27.4
14.2
12.8
13.7
14.1
10.8
38.5
0.3 198.1
0.3 220.0
0.9 263.2
0.0 262.8
-3.6 322.1
-0.8 299.9
0.5 461.1
0.4 457.8
1.0 447.5
0.6 421.2
0.3 385.1
1.1 472.4
0.5 380.8
-0.2 320.4
-0.6 406.5
0.5 484.7
0.5 456.2
0.8 1743.5
186.0
376.5
422.0
443.6
457.5
390.4
489.3
466.0
402.4
449.4
390.2
471.2
374.2
318.9
397.9
498.9
446.9
1805.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
-0.1
14.0
-0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.3
1.4
-0.3
0.0
-0.4
0.3
0.7
0.4
Pb/Sn
950.9
517.2
555.2
464.2
305.6
336.5
379.0 --
348.0 -
292.4
282.2 --
254.1 -
332.8 -
246.5 -
188.0 --
254.6 -
291.9 --
._
740.4 -
13 14
0.0 0.3
0.0 -0.1
0.0 0.4
0.0 0.1
0.0 2.8
0.0 -0.4
0.1
0.6
0.3 -0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
-0.3
0.3
-0.4
-0.1
1.0
0.6
DD PHOSPHATE=3.0 mg/L
32/14/94
G/22/94
188 --
196 --
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
567.2
206.6
696.0 --
210.1 --
—
—
—
121
-------
Table A-21.
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5,72 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analytc=Cu
Date Time, davs
08/19/91
08/26/91
09/09/91
09/16/91
09/23/91
09/30/91
10/07/91
10/21/91
10/28/91
11/04/91
11/25/91
12/02/91
12/16/91
12/30/91
6
13
27
34
41
48
55
69
76
83
104
111
125
139
C36000
0.050
0.028
0.020
0.020
—
-0.010
—
-0.010
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.004
C36000 C83600 C84400 C8450 C85200 C85400 Copper
0.051
0.036
0.020
0.020
~
-0.010
—
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.010
0.005
0.249
0.251
0.270
0.220
0.230
0.170
0.220
0.210
0.170
0.220
0.260
0.280
0.360
0.160
0.149
0.163
0.220
0.200
0.200
0.190
0.200
0.210
0.180
0.210
0.260
0.300
0.370
0.180
0.176
0.182
0.220
0.210
0.230
0.190
0.220
0.250
0.190
0.230
0.240
0.260
0.350
0.150
0.065
0.057
0.040
0.020
0.040
0.020
0.020
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.030
0.075
0.070
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.040
0.050
0.030
0.060
0.070
0.120
0.060
0.461
0.354
0.470
0.370
0.370
0.320
0.300
0.280
0.240
0.330
0.290
0.330
0.500
0.210
Pure Pb
0.007
0.010
—
-
—
-0.010
-
0.010
—
0.030
0.010
0.010
-0.020
Pure Pb
0.002
0.008
0.010
~
-
—
-0.010
0.010
0.010
-
0.030
0.020
0.010
-0.010
Pure Zn
0.002
0.009
—
-0.010
—
~
-0.020
0.010
-
-
0.010
0.010
-
-0.010
Pb/Sn
0.003
0.010
0.010
-
—
-
-0.020
—
-
-
0.030
0.020
-
-0.010
122
-------
Run 2: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.0,72 hour stand time
!tudy=Coupon
^.nalyte=Cu
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C8450 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
7
14
21
35
42
49
56
63
70
77
84
92
98
105
112
119
126
133
140
147
154
—
0.090
0.143
0.153
0.118
0.066
0.165
0.047
0.080
0.092
0.905
0.026
0.228
-0.008
..
0.047
0.023
-0.033
0.050
0.044
0.059
0.214
0.133
0.146
0.154
0.149
0.086
0.131
0.085
0.104
0.096
0.651
0.108
0.078
0.088
—
0.075
0.051
-0.005
0.053
0.041
0.062
2.073
2.412
3.144
3.102
2.412
2.041
2.240
2.252
2.078
1.886
2.208
1.808
1.543
1.484
1.592
1.667
1.588
1.357
2.284
1.614
1.927
3.141
2.364
2.756
2.864
2.208
1.604
2.139
2.257
2.346
1.956
0.001
1.815
1.836
1.885
1.863
1.854
1.911
1.630
2.008
1.897
2.234
1.753
1.441
2.609
2.732
2.161
1.734
2.210
2.363
2.156
1.926
0.003
1.821
2.031
1.852
1.829
1.749
1.807
1.483
1.976
1.928
2.085
0.123
0.211
0.399
1.089
1.127
0.911
1.088
1.221
1.037
0.905
0.039
0.924
0.990
0.983
1.011
0.950
0.920
0.878
1.108
1.426
1.177
0.595
0.334
0.324
0.347
0.398
0.370
0.528
0.638
0.664
0.651
0.042
0.717
0.924
0.882
0.850
0.852
0.803
1.088
0.977
3.762
1.110
0.896
1.155
3.712
3.849
3.133
2.563
2.847
2.713
2.121
2.208
0.012
2.078
1.738
1.651
1.545
1.489
1.487
1.603
1.606
4.949
0.998
0.010
~
-0.009
-0.016
0.015
0.031
0.039
-0.036
0.010
0.001
0.047
0.051
-0.020
-0.020
-0.005
0.005
-0.060
0.000
0.001
0.006
0.018
-0.001
0.005
-0.032
0.016
0.020
0.024
-0.038
-0.028
0.003
0.003
-0.016
0.058
-0.020
-0.020
-0.005
0.006
0.001
-0.008
0.009
0.006
0.094
-0.025
-0.010
-0.049
0.033
-0.027
0.005
0.001
-0.021
-0.004
0.039
1.409
0.064
-0.020
-0.020
-0.032
0.007
-0.005
0.025
-0.057
-0.040
0.021
-0.006
0.012
-0.020
-0.015
-0.048
0.011
-0.104
-0.013
-0.004
0.042
1.411
0.070
-0.020
-0.020
-0.005
0.008
-0.042
-0.015
-0.019
0.007
0.028
123
-------
Table A-23.
Study=Coupon
Analytc=Cu
Run 3: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5,3.0 mg FO^fL, 72 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C8360Q C84400 C8450 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/17/92
08/24/92
08/31/92
09/08/92
09/14/92
7 0.093
14 0.108
21 0.083
29 0.077
35 O.OS6
0.093
0.078
0.083
0.077
0.049
0.285
0.392
0.375
0.308
0.318
0.208
0.437
0.500
0.397
0.395
0.324
0.497
0.500
0.410
0.435
0.170
0.302
0.333
0.256
0.283
0.131
0.257
0.208
0.179
0.171
0.864
0.751
0.833
0.731
0.526
0.011
0.016
0.021
0.019
0.010
0.011
0.016
0.014
0.019
0.011
-0.046
-0.060
—
..
0.048
-0.005
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.012
124
-------
Run 4: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 0.5 ing PO^/L, 72 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Cu
Date Time, davs C36000 C3600Q C83600 C84400 C845QQ C85200 C854QO_Co{)per Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
02/22/93
03/08/93
03/22/93
03/29/93
04/05/93
04/12/93
04/19/93
04/26/93
05/03/93
05/10/93
05/18/93
05/24/93
06/07/93
06/21/93
5
19
33
40
47
54
61
68
75
82
90
96
110
124
0.093
0.056
0.023
0.012
0.020
0.023
0.024
0.037
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.017
0.010
—
0.123
0.056
0.023
0.019
0.034
0.023
0.024
0.023
0.009
0.022
0.021
0.017
0.010
-0.001
0.551
0.517
0.475
0.504
0.427
—
0.473
0.356
0.334
0.285
0.229
0.244
0.239
0.266
0.356
0.457
0.393
0.408
0.420
0.394
0.379
0.311
0.299
0.250
0.208
0.230
0.232
0.247
0.617
0.317
0.311
0.381
0.447
0.394
0.424
0.357
0.318
0.271
0.229
0.237
0.253
0.254
0.054
0.197
0.167
0.205
0.244
0.205
0.227
0.199
0.186
0.167
0.132
0.144
0.169
0.168
0.271
0.297
0.249
0.266
0.285
0.227
0.250
0.206
0.213
0.188
0.146
0.157
0.176
0.209
1.385
1.039
0.845
0.882
0.935
0.765
0.738
0.562
0.504
0.402
0.333
0.349
0.351
0.356
0.174
0.658
0.516
0.543
..
0.525
0.518
0.403
0.400,
0.312
0.257
0.271
0.282
0.291
-0.002
0.003
0.003
0.001
-.
0.004
0.010
0.011
0.005
0.008
„
-0.000
-0.001
0.012
-0.002
-0.004
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.011
-0.004
0.004
0.008
-0.008
-0.008
-0.014
—
-0.004
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.004
-0.003
0.007
0.008
..
-0.008
-0.007
0.006
125
-------
Table A-25.
Run 5: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5,72 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
AnalytcsCu
08/16/93
08/23/93
08/30/93
09/07/93
09/14/93
09/20/93
10/04/93
10/18/93
10/25/93
11/01/93
11/08/93
11/15/93
11/22/93
11/30/93
12/06/93
12/13/93
12/20/93
LOWER pH to 6
01/31/94
davs C36000 Pb free C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
6
13
20
28
35
41
55
69
76
83
90
97
104
112
118
125
132
.5
174
0.028
0.022
0.011
0.007
0.007
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.007
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.034
0.843
1.206
1.086
0.806
0.724
0.557
0.476
0.417
0.279
0.290
0.208
0.292
0.181
0.156
0.204
0.251
0.209
0.971
0.594
0.709
0.783
0.584
0.591
0.500
0.544
0.598
0.452
0.493
0.402
0.538
0.369
0.406
0.466
0.545
NA
1.991
0.281
0.822
1.081
0.813
0.837
0.720
0.637
0.779
0.608
0.657
0.553
0.709
0.464
0.511
0.625
0.690
0.589
1.982
0.379
0.795
0.899
0.756
0.779
0.617
0.572
0.495
0.324
0.330
0.237
0.307
0.182
0.199
0.205
0.243
0.202
0.870
0.074
0.198
0.359
0.234
0.199
0.158
0.141
0.125
0.086
0.100
0.078
0.109
0.064
0.063
0.085
0.110
0.097
0.611
0.068
0.112
0.129
0.155
0.175
0.161
0.148
0.129
0.107
0.110
0.097
0.129
0.068
0.075
0.104
0.133
0.113
0.421
1.606
1.603
1.286
0.934
0.788
0.659
0.643
0.604
0.400
0.418
0.349
0.489
0.296
0.326
0.389
0.463
0.392
1.884
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.014
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.228
0.007
0.006
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.015
0.004
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.005
0.006
0.004
0.028
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.003
0.006
0.003
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.002
0
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
-0.00
0.001
0.002 •
0.000
-0.00
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.003
0.001
0.002
>?
0.001
ADD PHOSPHATE=3.0 mg/L
02/14/94 188 0.014
02/22/94 196 0.011
0369 0.650 0.714 0.379 0.216 0.176 0.634 0.001 0.001 0.000 -0.00
0.486 0.681 0.718 0.333 0.271 0.180 0.670 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.004
126
-------
Run 1: Cincinnati tap water, pH=8.3-8.5, 72 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Zn
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/19/91
08/26/91
09/09/91
09/16/91
09/23/91
09/30/91
10/07/91
10/15/91
10/21/91
10/28/91
11/04/91
11/25/91
12/02/91
12/09/91
12/16/91
12/30/91
6
13
27
34
41
48
55
63
69
76
83
104
111
117
125
139
0.59
0.34
0.47
0.32
0.40
0.30
0.39
0.37
0.30
0.20
0.35
0.29
0.39
0.50
0.73
0.27
0.56
0.40
0.61
0.49
0.47
0.38
0.39
0.37
0.33
0.23
0.35
0.26
0.34
0.49
0.73
0.26
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.04
0.22
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.20
0.28
0.09
0.17
0.12
0.23
0.22
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.10
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.21
0.30
0.10
0.54
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.43
0.28
0.38
0.34
0.25
0.18
0.22
0.22
0.27
0.31
0.50
0.23
0.43
0.31
0.47
0.36
0.35
0.29
0.35
0.45
0.33
0.22
0.29
0.30
0.37
0.46
0.71
0.28
0.01
0.01
0.01 -
0.21
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
-0.00 -
0.19
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5.94
3.16
1.38
0.85
0.34
0.33
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.25
0.33
0.12
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.59
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
127
-------
Table A-27.
Study=Coupou
AnalytcsZn
Run 2: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.0,72 hour stand time
Date Time, days C360QO C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
03/02/92
03/09/92
03/16/92
03/23/92
03/30/92
04/06/92
04/13/92
04/20/92
04/27/92
05/04/92
05/11/92
05/18/92
05/26/92
06/01/92
06/08/92
06/15/92
06/22/92
06/29/92
07/06/92
07/13/92
07/20/92
07/27/92
7 —
14
21
28 ??
35
42
49
56
63
70
77
84
92
98
105
112
119
126
133
140
147
154
6.75
6.59
—
6.47
5.20
4.91
5.90
5.27
5.11
5.49
5.48
5.10
4.81
5.25
5.50
5.09
5.54
4.45
5.22
4.63
6.17
7.75
6.05
6.21
—
6.33
5.04
5.15
7.42
5.81
5.15
5.53
5.48
5.11
5.03
5.62
5.41
5.24
5.39
4.70
4.95
4.64
6.07
1.43
1.03
0.95
—
0.59
0.46
0.52
0.39
0.31
0.31
0.45
0.34
0.40
0.28
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.28
0.27
0.30
0.31
0.40
2.28
1.80
1.98
-
1.62
1.35
1.50
1.35
1.11
1.04
1.31
1.14
1.20
0.91
1.13
1.05
0.99
1.00
0.92
1.17
1.03
1.38
1.59
2.15
1.93
.
1.81
1.54
1.70
1.59
1.32
1.29
1.54
1.36
1.38
1.07
1.35
1.24
1.22
1.17
1.04
1.26
1.13
1.50
8.07
5.79
5.86
-
4.40
3.33
3.47
3.35
3.03
2.92
3.46
3.39
3.27
2.63
3.16
2.97
3.00
2.S4
2.48
3.02
2.61
3.56
5.98
5.97
6.16
—
6.08
4.95
5.10
6.24
5.27
4.75
5.01
4.92
4.64
4.39
4.94
5.20
4.44
4.67
3.99
4.98
3.47
5.07
0.04
0.03
0.02
-
0.02
0.03
-0.00
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
0.03
-0.06
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
0.11
-0.04
0.00
-0.03
0.01 -
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
-0.01
-0.05
-0.04
-0.04
0.14
-0.06
-0.04
0.06
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.06
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.02
0.03
-0.00
.
0.01
0.02
-0.01
-0.05
-0.04
-0.04
0.01
-0.06
-0.03
-0.05
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
0.00
-0.01
-0.00
-0.01
5.16
3.43
3.30
—
5.53
3.77
3.62
4.21
4.63
4.01
4.22
4.29
3.82
4.29
4.44
4.48
4.28
4.73
4.23
5.71
5.36
5.54
0.02
0.03
-0.00
0.01
0.02
-0.00
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
0.01
-0.07
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.06
0.00
-0.04
0.00
0.01
128
-------
Table A-28.
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Zn
Run 3: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 3.0 mg PO4/L, 72 hour stand time
Date Time, days C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C854QO Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Su
08/17/92
08/24/92
08/31/92
09/08/92
09/14/92
7
14
21
29
35
2.00
1.73
1.91
1.43
1.41
1.64
1.68
1.90
1.42
1.48
0.29
0.41
0.47
0.30
0.21
0.68
0.57
0.47
0.37
0.31
0.34
0.40
0.42
0.31
0.30
1.39
1.07
1.15
0.85
0.79
1.60
1.34
1.46
1.12
1.17
-0.02
-0.00
-0.01
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00
6.94 0.01
6.30 -0.01
2.48 -0.00
1.94 -0.00
2.33 -0.00
129
-------
Table A-29.
SludysCoupon
AnalytcaZn
Run 4: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 0.5 mg PO^/L, 72 hour stand time
itp Titnp dnv<: CSfiOOO C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 C85200 C85400 Copper Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
02/22/93
03/08/93
03/22/93
03/29/93
04/05/93
04/12/93
04/19/93
04/26/93
05/03/93
05/10/93
05/18/93
05/24/93
06/07/93
06/21/93
5
19
33
40
47
54
61
68
75
82
90
96
110
124-
3.57
2.14
1.28
1.99
2.32
1.86-
1.78
137
1.38
1.05
0.74
0.89
0.84
3.43
2.15
1.76
1.86
2.15
—
1.61
1.25
1.23
0.92
0.68
0.82
1.21
1.58
0.72
0.24
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.69
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.24
0.18
0.19
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.69
0.72
0.57
0.43
0.40
0.32
0.29
0.20
0.18
0.13
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.11
3.61
1.49
1.28
1.29
1.41
1.25
1.09
0.87
0.84
0.66
0.58
0.59
0.55
0.54
3.33
1.81
1.40
1.40
1.60
1.35
1.25
0.98
0.91
0.75
0.65
0.74
0.77
0.79
0.02
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 ~
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
2.50
0.32
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.22
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.07
-0.01
-0.01
-0.00 -
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
-0.00
8.45
4.68
3.72
2.80
2.31
2.60
2.14
1.79
1.56
1.17
1.13
1.24
1.38
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.01
-0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.03
130
-------
Ta\>\c A-3O.
Run 5: Cincinnati tap water, pH=7.5, 72 hour stand time
Study=Coupon
Analyte=Zn
Date Time, davs C36000 C36000 C83600 C84400 C84500 CS5200 C85400 Copner Pure Pb Pure Pb Pure Zn Pb/Sn
08/16/93
08/23/93
08/30/93
09/07/93
09/14/93
09/20/93
10/04/93
10/18/93
10/25/93
11/01/93
11/08/93
11/15/93
11/22/93
12/06/93
12/13/93
12/20/93
LOWER pH to
01/31/94
6
13
20
28
35
41
55
69
76
83
90
97
104
118
125
132
6.5
174
1.68
1.76
1.63
0.67
1.06
1.04
1.55
1.78
1.75
1.90
1.73
2.11
1.50
2.12
2.19
1.75
7.90
1.52
0.81
0.65
0.41
0.36
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.19
0.22
0.16
0.31
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.18 -
0.55
0.32 0.99
0.43 0.81
0.40 0.80
0.29 0.58
0.25 0.59
0.20 0.49
0.18 0.65
0.17 0.61
0.12 0.40
0.14 0.47
0.10 0.33
0.15 0.51
0.08 0.27
0.10 0.33
0.13 0.39
0.33
0.34 1.00
1.95
1.67
1.29
0.76
0.68
0.54
0.47
0.39
0.23
0.24
0.16
0.23
0.11
0.12
0.16
0.13
0.41
1.43
2.31
2.27
1.24
0.99
0.80
0.91
1.06
0.75
0.93
0.63
1.01
0.50
0.58
0.73
0.60
1.97
1.39
2.37
2.44
1.72
1.99
1.71
'1.67
1.62
0.99
1.14
0.77
1.23
0.48
0.68
0.83
0.66
4.30
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
6.16 0.01
1.48 0.01
0.64 0.01
0.46 0.01
0.78 0.01
0.72 0.01
1.34 0.01
1.62 0.01
1.25 0.01
1.47 0.02
1.27 0.02
1.71 0.01
1.29 0.01
1.71 0.01
1.61 0.01
1.68 -
6.82 0.03
ADD PHOSPHATE=3.0 mg/L
02/14/94
02/22/94
188
196
4.26
6.55
0.28
0.46
0.09 0.28
0.12 0.38
0.18
0.21
0.87
1.70
1.96
3.37
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
5.62 0.01
6.44 0.01
131
-------
oo388888833333883888 33888888838888 3 3333 3 3
e>c>c>c5c$c5c>oooc>c3c5QG5ooooc5 oooooc$oooooc5c>o o o o cp o o o
9Oc^
---
ff£ ^^ ^f^ ^nj ^j ^j ^ >^I ^/J ^sj ^j pxj f/^ £f} (x| (xj fsj c^i frj CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO *<3* CO CO CO ^" ^ ^ ^i" W"> ^J" ^" ^J" IO *O *O 'O IO >O ^ CO
Oj """J ^ C^ OO
?? ^r ^r ^r ^±~ en en cn TT ^r en en en co eo en eo en eo ^3" ^3* ^3* co en "f ^r co en ^ ^T ^* ^J* ^r ^r ^" ^" ^3* ^ ^ en ^r ^~ ''T ^ ^* ^l* ^" ^r
\O C5 C3 CS C3 O C5 ^3 ^3 ^3 en O O '••H ^^ O e^l O ON ^^ SO ^~* '"^ **"> S Q fi *~* ^ ^*^ OO ^O O "•• C! W *~* !i CJ • 3! « £^ ^ l^ 5Q II^
c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 o o ^5 ^5 ^5 o O o o o o o o eo o O o o o o o o o o ^3 *~i o o o o »-* ^ ^ CP w o o o o o o o
c5^3c5c5^lcsc>c5cSc3oc3c3 cdocioc3ooc5c5ooociC3c5oc5ooc>c3ciooc3c5c5ooc3cJc5cio
3SSS88S8S3388833333S8883SSS338SSSS8S888SS3 383 3
cicdc5c>o^c>oc5oc5oc5oc5oooooc>oooc5ooooc)ooocDooooooo ooo o
38833833333 3338 83888838388888838 S3 88 3
£-c c>c3cJcicJc3^csc5c5c3 csc5cio c5oooc5oocDooooooooo oo
g
i
SSSSS2S§SSSSSSSSSSSS2S12S2S^ ?!^g)^^^?3SSS SSSSSS
,^,^,_4«-t1—(^HvH,—It—(r-tr-tT-Hi—It-fT-HT-H'—(i—t^H*—»*—<»-H^H^H^-<»-<^H T-H^H»-HF-HT-Ht—lt-4»—li—!•—It—1»—If—IT—*»-odooo6cooDoocdcdc>ocococxicoco coodcoco'odcood
o* ^
^
I s
*o 2 §22SSddSdddddddddddddooddp'op'dp'op'ddpodpp'oddop'p'dp'o
i
% 2 c^Sc^e^c>i5ea2c4c>iNHe>5cn«Mc^c4ciMcici^espSrHrtrtJ-irfc-ie-icicicici'-5'-Hc^cicJT-iJJc5es
^ c,
r o\ovo^o\o\ddo\o\d<
»J COCOtOMmT^ — —
c E
_ ^ g^ gv g\ ^ £J^ ^ 2i ^ -
W ^ en^*>n%oo\O'—ioi<
~ 1 ° §§g§§ili§§§g§gggggssooo
C/5
132
-------
I
CO C-; i—l ^H T—l*
u-> -<3; in in CN cxj O
r^ o\ o cj i> rr \o
CN T—i cs CN i—i T—i »—i
co co oo oo oo OD
OD
&SS38S
O O T-i ^H 1-! r-i
d c! d d c! o
a
o
J c4 J _) ^
o
133
-------
<
(2
S
E
B
S S 8 8 8 8 8 8 o 8 8 S S 8
doo99999'd 90999
C1^ ON i-t '
CO t-^ CO <
looovf-NoooNO-jtojo
iCNONONONOpppp
ON (S ON
2 S 2
S S s s S:
^ o cS c> o i
!8SSSS
i o o o o d
o 9 o 9 o o 9 o 9 o o o 9 9 9
i o O O O O O O Cp O '
lOOOO OOOOO<
• CO O >O O f-^ OO t"^ Vj "T '
' O C3 O *-< OOOOO'
o
o
8SS8SS8S
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
'"
SSSSSSSSSSSS8|
-
^t-
jOOOOOfOOO
oooo
; 00
**ssss&9BSSS8a5a3»assg&ss.:3S3$333§§8.S3SS3as5i2;|
88«^8S33gj88388as38$ss8ass£i8^
81
• *f *T *& *f *f V) *&• Ol CO CO
O r-25»o\d*d*o*O'OC-;>o vo c^ F- t^^oovovdvovdoo
So
88888888S8888 88888 8.888888 8888
O rfrfrfrirfdddo-o ooo §dddddddddddd ddddd ooooooo oooo
{
I
. , . ,_. ._. ,_. _^ --. -y\ *+• /—) r*^ ffi r1-! IO f^i O i—* OO OO O O 0*1 O O VO 00 CO O*l *O CO CO
^J O C4 O »•* CO C*l O O^ OO VP C*) *~* O O <*i CJ ON CJ Oi *O O* JJ ^-J 1*1 "^r j-* w -i ^ i *• ^; ^ ^ ^ ^j ^^ ^ Q^ ON OO *™t *O ON ON f* *O P* O CO
ON C* O\ O O CP O Oj G\ Ox O ON p O p ON p p p p OO p ON w ON ON , . . . , . ^. ^ ^» ^ ^ ^ ^ ^_» ^^
^i ^3 *O f* C™" t"" C** *O NO ^O t*1 ^O C1^ t^ C^ *O C^ t"" C** C** NO t*" NO NO \O NO r^- NO NO NO i >—' i ^ >w i i •***+*•**
jojrjrjcjcogvojrjo^gioogrjvgjg gj « £j S 5 c^ c^ ^BBBH
Q^C«r»O5OO^J'rri^l-'^f'^l-Tf'^- TfTf"-f'^J-I1ff^f";T-'^f'rfl'r1"ONONONONONONON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON
3^c|9c§9399999d9909!9999 d9!9!9999!99!99999999 9 999999
!gS^95i5>§^^P!5RiR^§SS!9S5^^jaPf:
134
-------
sggsgssss s
9 9 9" 9 =5 9 9 9 9 9
o«— tT-c.-HoiOfHWi-Hcnoooo-i'— (T-I *-o oo p vo oo c^* o o \o oo r-t c— os os *o cn cn CN os ^ »—i c^i CN o o c~* »~< o\ 03 vo
o o o o o o f—i o o o «—t o ^H o o *~i o o o c5 o o o c5 o o i—5 o o c?
o ooooooooo'ooc5oooooo*ooooooo*ooo
p pppoo»-Hoppppppoooooo^oooooo^o
o ooo<^ooooo"ooo'o'ooooo"oooc5oo"oc3oo'
adooco ooodoooooocoodooodoooood
C-l
ooooooooo
\O C4 O p CA <^v Cl CJ 00
oooooo<
-
!8S
vovovo^ot^ovOONcncncncn^-toiO'
CN cn >o ^ o •* ;
\o
*o ^f i-< •**• OA cn
p cn vq cn t^ rj-
S888§ 88888888§88338Sp8SSSSSS8SS8S8
oocJoo O*oooooc5oc5oooooooooooooo*c5ooooo
i
ico^cnrHooi^fn>ocooocnoocNTHOi^cni-Hr^'—icncn^cN'—(*^t"O^H
o ooooooooo ooooo^
ggggggggggg ggg
c3 ooocpoooooooocp
o
E
u
o
I-H r-H i-J ,-J fN i—< «-H C-1 ^-* C-i '
SO^1^ T1•Cv^COCO>O1^t•OOOO^cn•^t•O1OO^•^•OO^HrHt~^^omr^^O^
1 p I-H r^ ^^c!'^crllOc';c>:Joifx!PP^po^'^:-r;i:cx-j'-;ppcnob
r) cl cl ci cl
rl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl
ggggigilllllllgggg-ggggggggggfggggggggggggg
135
-------
SSS SSSooSSSSoooSSSSS 38888838388888888g3 888080 88
^ o o o oo'o'oooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo oooooo
TT vH CD Os OA Ov Ov, O\ C** ^3 O1 ^^ *O t** Ov
co »-« co \o*O'*T*O'*roJo\cai%sT*ov>. Ov
52S8S EqSS2SSS5^2S2 ®'
o cd cd cococoosooodcoovovovovov
r*j Tf Ov Oifofot^oc^cooojgv^co*^"
VJ Ov, P1* in^*/"iri$t'*»OO'$UlcOf*'V»rsil Ov ^3"
»•< C^ CO O^ VI ^f *O *~4 **T Ov C^* Ov CN 00 00 Vi OO
oSS8Soo888S88oS88qS88888888q8888qq88q888888q88:
™ c5c5ooooo"oooooooooooooooc5ooooooooooooooooooooooo<
pS J5 C"^ t*^ cS O S5 C5 Ol *O ^5 O C*^ CO *0 CS »—< «-^ 04 VD >0 C*l t** i—< C4 VO ^H O CN ^O ^T T—* O (N "f ^J" ^O '•"* *~* **T *O ^r OO CO *O O O p O '
f^ <^ Cj *-5 ^4 C3 ^3 ^ O* O* *~5 C3 O C3 O O T~< *—* O O O O O O O O O •—* T-H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (
SS8 S^SS88ooqS8q8qSSS8g8q8qqq8388qSqq8Sqqqq8qqqqqq;
{£ o o o cic5odc5C>ooodc3oddooooooo'p'p'oooooodc3C3p'c5c5qooc5ocpo
SS88SoS8S888q88888g8q88qgqgqq88qqqqq8888qqq88q
rf oooooooooooooooo'oooooooooooooo'o'oo'oooo'oooooopoo
oC oo co cd cdcdoNONo6ododcdcocoodcococo*wovcocdcoodinvoi> r^r^odcdodcdcdcocdcdcdcdod cdodo\
si
10
w
3 1
i a
B.
j^ jj* i** c^C t^C t*» t*» t** t^~ t** c^ t** c^ r^ f^ c~* c^~ c^* c^* r^- t**- c**- r^ c^~ c*^ r"~ c*^ r^- r^ t^- c~* c*~ r^
*w pM
Ct ^q »—«»-Hqo\ooppqc>qqc/>>oc7>cj^TO'-ji
^* i-J esip>i«-*csii^e>i»-4i-3c4»-5cscsicsiT-HT—|'-H»-<»—i'-*'—'r>4'-H'-Hr^'-H'—'^-*cs*—tr^^H ^-» »—i —H o o
O
M SSfySNSMNMc^Mcoco^WKKcotoco^mco"cocommM«com!^coro^Mm«««
0 E
. a P
-------
ppppppppppppo
ooopdddpppddp
coco C^O)~H*OOOOOCOCO
r*5 co **H N co vo *T co co c*) GO oo '
;—! Q Q _•_•_•—•_•_•_•••
^ coco coco'coco'coco'cocococoNco
r 00 00 ' '
u coco.
t~: ppSpppPPPpppOO
- oddp'opdpdocJdpo
gggg gggggggggSS88
£ op'cso cDiopoddddddcJdd
rjj pppppopppppppp
JJ; p'ddcJcJcDdpcJoddpcJ
opopoooppooooo
Q ocJddpp'pcJddopdd
co r^ ^—i r>i r*- co >o
Q o; Tf »-
-------
3
I
•f
&
c
I
•
f
3
388388S88S88S88SS88833 8 8888888888888. 888888888.88
Z oOO^OOOOpOOpCpOCpCpC^OOCjJOO m'r^^^^^^^^^r^r->r-i<--><-->r-ir-)«a<=iOOOOO
|i—I O) C4 "*$• r"* C\ »-< ^°N'"~<'':'"VOrf"T^1"Hr?aa^2j2^\nMi>i>
M mRSm&totrJtommmmMrotoWMcocotoco'
l99§§§3§l§lllllllsssssslsslsl§slsllillliiliiliill
^
^ SSS8SSS88SSS88SS88S 88888888888888 888 8 8 8888888
g Scycso'cidoodddddddodpp dpopppppppooop ooo o o opooopo
ooSo8o88oo83833p83pp8pp3ppp8383oopooQppo.ppooppppp
[f odpdddddddddddddddp'pddpdddddp
SSSS838888S888S888S88S88S888S888883388.S3388338.8S8
Jjj ^ocpodddddddddddddoddo'-''^'-5^"'^'-'"""""000000000000000^
.- K!S«KClS«K§^"S5&SSS"S955^^cococomt>immmmm^n-^^^^-*1n'01oln'o1^1">">"
o o
o8S§S£8S?5£8So?g8?5?3e2S§!QSoS§:?SS^S
g| jjpipi .pi^gi^pfi^SSSggSSSgSSS^SSSSK^Sfi^SSSSS^SSiSSSSSRPPJ?:^
en
gj r3S5S5r?rfridrfd2dddoddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddddd
o
^.fljt^rj.CV(*.O5OC)0X(^o\^toc«ifric3O-r-t->AC\'M^-<'noo«nooc^vot^t-^-Hfna\^-*-^- oovo^ooxONr^t^^wmoo
^^t^c^t^t^c^c^t^t^Hr^c^Hr^c^HtSr^r^r^r^c^Sr^t^tSiSt^r^SSSSiSSS S^iSt^c^iSt^-r^c^c^c^
O| ^SSS^rt««-n2rt-;rtrt^v-;-;,-i-i.-;-;.-;,-;.-;d'-;.-C>JD50K!£OJ!J
g\gvg\g\g\g\g\g\
&^^SS§i-
io8
•? in oo w.
O.O^P_0^:
m co en en
:i
138
-------
oooooo oooo
888800 8 S S
18
§
I 00 00
o o o o o *+
fi1* OTHT-<
ONO i-(CO»n
•n vi F- ^ o\ v> r*-
SSSSSSSSSop
ooooooooooo
s
88 888S 888
oo oooo o o o
gs
*-
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Table A-35.
Study=Coupon
Date Time, davs
11/18/93
11/19/93
11/22/93
11/23/93
11/30/93
12/02/93
12/03/93
12/06/93
12/07/93
12/09/93
12/13/93
12/14/93
12/16/93
12/20/93
12/21/93
12/29/93
12/30/93
01/11/94
01/13/94
01/19/94
i- 01/20/94
£ 01/25/94
01/27/94
01/28/94
01/31/94
02/01/94
02/03/94
02/07/94
02/08/94
02/11/94
02/14/94
02/15/94
02/17/94
02/22/94
02/24/94
02/25/94
100
101
104
105
112
114
115
118
119
121
125
126
128
132
133
141
142
154
156
162
163
168
170
171
174
175
177
181
182
185
188
189
191
196
198
199
Test Run 5, Extraction Water Quality, pH=7.5
CL CL2 F NH3 NO3 PH TEMP
32.78
32.75
32.91
27.56
23.98
.
.
31.92
31.96
27.13
26.53
33.26
31.02
31.18
31.21
33.16
33.11
33.12
30.11
30.4
30.37
30.24
30.8
31.02
24.12
24.22
0.9
0.78
0.74
1.16
1.01
1.1
0.92
0.83
1.08
0.92
0.7
1.21
1
0.78
1.19
0.93
0.87
0.78
0.86
0.67
0.79
0.71
,
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
7.563
7.593
7.564
7.552
7.511
7.428
7.44
7.4
7.624
7.575
7.41
7.583
7.55
7.514
7.409
7.377
7.56
0.94 7.521
0.93 6.564
0.85 6.561
0.87 6.493
0.8 6.538
0.82 .
0.82 .
0.82 .
0.8 .
0.8 .
20.1
22.5
22.7
14.4
19.8
19
22.3
22.7
12.3
19.7
22.6
10.9
18.7
22.4
10.5
18.2
18
21
16.1
20.3
19.3
22.9
P04 SI02
3.8
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.44
5.44
5.44
0.02 5.575
0.02 .
0.02 .
5.650
5.471
5.800
SO4
108.1
105.3
106.7
89.27
76.14
75.35
75.35
66.35
66.35
66.35
66.35
59.34
59.34
t
66.96
67.56
62.88
t
48.80
43.67
46.52
.TIC
13.5
13.5
13.61
14.23
14.03
14.00
13.9
12.02
12.04
12.16
11.53
10.59
10.57
10.55
10.12
10.80
11.20
11.07
.
8.908
7.767
7.683
TALK
54.19
54.09
56.28
54.88
54.32
5436
48.76
48.39
46.36
46.19
42.55
42.08
41.81
38.47
30.04
30.15
17.91
19.04
25.25
25.33
24.84
24.66
26.91
26.99
26.99
27.38
27.50
27.33
23.90
24.11
23.53
22.63
22.36
DO CU
8.65 0.001
0.001
9.44 0.000
9.19 0.001
-0.00
9.12 -0.00
0.000
10.29 0.001
0.001
9.355 0.002
10.64 0.004
10.2 0.002
0.003
10.43 0.004
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.001
-0.00
0.000
-0.00
-0.00
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.003
-0.00
0.001
0.002
t
0.003
0.002
0.001
FE
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.012
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.014
0.019
0.017
0.009
0.035
0.017
0.045
0.023
0.015
0.015
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.007
0.005
0.007
0.01 1.
0.006
0.013
0.014
PB
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.000
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.000
0.000
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.001
0.001
-0.00
0.000
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
-0.00
ZN
0.015
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.012
0.008
0.009
0.012
0.006
0.017
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.018
0.011
0.008
0.009
0.021
0.019
0.012
0.013
CA
39.73
38.95
35.44
33.74
36.84
37.50
36.70
31.95
33.24
32.67
32.13
28.99
28.89
30.26
30.33
29.62
29.32
32.73
31.93
28.41
28.30
29.90
30.74
30.71
29.58
31.03
30.99
31.39
31.43
33.37
32.59
32.59
27.69
28.99
K
4.215
4.195
3.984
4.154
1.002
3.863
3.906
3.135
.
2.137
2.325
1.905
.
.
MG
10.93
10.92
9.675
9.866
9.123
8.974
8.951
7.464
7.941
7.864
8.141
6.814
7.146
7.285
7.252
7.617
7.484
8.440
8.147
7.063
7.104
7.329
7.741
7.664
7.592
7.824
7.992
6.991
6.919
7.225
7.247
.
7.501
6.708
7.151
NA
28.77
28.48
2Z20
26.38
16.01
15.89
15.50
11.31
13.16
12.23
13.39
8.957
9.379
9.574
9.681
10.69
10.63
14.45
14.22
11.42
11.80
12.95
14.03
13.71
13.79
14.81
16.18
14.44
14.50
14.99
13.10
13.45
11.51
12.50
MN
0.000
-0.00
-0.00
0.000
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.00
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.00
0.000
0.000
.
0.000
0.000
0.000
AL
0.094
0.086
0.087
0.084
O.OS5
0.075
0.060
0.081
0.054
0.058
0.077
0.053
0.073
0.049
0.046
0.095
0.071
-------
Table A-36. Statistical comparisons of lead leaching trends using the KrusM-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on Ranks during test runs 1 to 3. All
of the data sets showed that the trends were statistically different (PO.OOOI). The table shows the proceeding painvise multiple comparisons of lead leached from
individual alloys.
Test run #1
Test run #2
Test run #3
Statistical comparison
C36000(l).vs. C36000(2)
C36000 (1) .vs. C83600
C36000 (1) .vs. C84400
C36000(l).vs. C84500
C36000(l).vs.C85200
C36000(l).vs. C85400
C36000 (2) .vs. C83600
C36000 (2) .vs. C84400
C36000 (2) .vs. C84500
C36000 (2) .vs. C85200
C36000 (2) .vs. C85400
C83600 .vs. C84400
C83600 .vs. C84500
C83600 .vs. C85200
C83600 .vs.' C85400
C84400 .vs. C84500
C84400 .vs. C85200
C84400 .vs. C85400
C84500 .vs. C85200
C84500 .vs. C85400
C85200 .vs. C85400
Painvise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
over entire runF'B
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
Painvise multiple
comparison (p O.05)
after 60 daysF'B
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
Painvise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
over entire runF>B
different
no difference
different
no difference
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
different
different
no difference
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
Painvise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
after 60 daysF'B
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
Painvise multiple
comparison (p O.05)
p R
over entire run '
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
Painvise multiple
comparison (p O.05)
after 60 daysF|A
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
F Failed Kolmorogov-Smirnov test for normality (PO.OOOI)
A Student-Newman-Keuls Method for multiple comparisons
B Dunn's Method for multiple comparisons
-------
Table A-37. Statistical comparisons of copper leaching trends using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on Ranks during test runs 1 to 3. All
of the data sets showed that the trends were statistically different (PO.0001). The table shows the proceeding painvise multiple comparisons of copper leached from
individual alloys.
Test run #1
Test run #2
Test run #3
OJ
Statistical comparison
C36000(l).vs. C36000(2)
C36000(l).vs. C83600
C36000(l).vs. C84400
C36000(l).vs. C84500
C36000 (1) .vs. C85200
C36000(l).vs. C85400
C36000 (2) .vs. C83600
C36000 (2) .vs. C84400
C36000 (2) .vs. C84500
C36000 (2) .vs. C85200
C36000 (2) .vs. C85400
C83600 .vs. C84400
C83600 .vs. C84500
C83600 .vs. C85200
C83600 .vs. C85400
C84400 .vs. C84500
C84400 .vs. C85200
C84400 .vs. C85400
C84500 .vs. C85200
C84500 .vs. C85400
C85200 .vs. C85400
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
over entire runF1> B
no difference
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
after 60 days"' B
no difference
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
over entire runF1' B
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p O.05)
after 60 daysFI'B
no difference
'different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
different
no difference
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.0_5)
over entire runF2> B
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
no difference
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p O.05)
after 60 daysp'A
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
no difference
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
F1 Failed Kolmorogov-Smimov test for normality (PO.0001)
F2 Failed Kolmorogov-Smirnov test for normality (P=0.0024)
p Passed Kolmorogov-Smimov test for normality (P=0.3252)
A Student-Newman-Keuls Method for multiple comparisons
B Dunn's Method for multiple comparisons
-------
Table A-38. Statistical comparisons of zinc leaching trends using the Rruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on Ranks during test runs 1 to 3. All
of the data sets showed that the trends were statistically different (PO.0001). The table shows the proceeding pairwise multiple comparisons of zinc leached from
individual alloys.
Test run #1
Test run #2
Test run #3
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
Statistical comparison over entire runF> A
C36000 (1) .vs. C36000 (2)
C36000 (1) -vs. C83600
C36000 (1) .vs. C84400
C36000 (1) .vs. C84500
036000(1). vs. C85200
C36000(l),.vs. C85400
C36000 (2) .vs. C83600
C36000 (2) .vs. C84400
C36000 (2) .vs. C84500
C36000 (2) .vs. C85200
C36000 (2) .vs. C85400
C83600 .vs. C84400
C83600 .vs. C84500
C83600 .vs. C85200
C83600 .vs. C85400
C84400 .vs. C84500
C84400 .vs. C85200
C84400 .vs. C85400
C84500 .vs. C85200
C84500 .vs. C85400
C85200 .vs. C85400
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
after 60 daysF'A
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
over entire runF'B
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
after 60 daysF>B
no difference
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
no difference
different
no difference
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
• FA
over entire run '
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
Pairwise multiple
comparison (p <0.05)
after 60 daysF'A
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
different
no difference
different
different
different
different
different
F Failed Kolmorogov-Smirnov test for normality (PO.0001)
A Student-Newman-Keuls Method for multiple comparisons
8 Dunn's Method for multiple comparisons
-------
Table A-39. Quality control table showing duplicate sample analysis differences over the entire study period.
Difference, mg/L
Ul
Analyte
Al
Al
Ca
Ca
Cl
Cl
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
F
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
K
K
K
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mn
Mn
Mn
Method*
ICAP
ICAP
AAS
ICAP
TITRATION
TITRATION
AAS
AAS
AAS
AAS
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ISE
AAS
AAS
AAS
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
AAS
AAS
ICAP
AAS
AAS
ICAP
ICAP
AAS
AAS
ICAP
N
15
10
15
25
1
11
93
51
84
46
10
3
11
1
1
141
81
18
14
10
1
3
29
20
10
5
20
5
90
6
25
Min.
0.0010
0.0002
0.0000
0.0186
0.8000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0008
0.0007
0.0080
0.0080
0.0000
0.0000
0.0120
0.0000
0.0000
0.0008
0.0009
0.0000
0.0077
0.0000
0.0098
0.0065
0.0090
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Max.
0.0141
0.0140
2.8754
0.7754
0.8000
3.0400
0.0931
0.0600
0.5121
1.0061
0.0011
0.0011
0.0111
0.0080
0.0080
4.1330
0.4320
0.5016
0.0047
0.0038
0.0008
0.0028
0.2144
0.8398
0.6054
0.0607
0.1831
0.0821
0.0650
0.0324
0.0005
Mean
0.0052
0.0069
0.5201
0.2735
0.8000
0.5982
0.0070
0.0088
0.0182
0.1442
0.0003
0.0009
0.0044
0.0080
0.0080
0.0674
0.0402
0.1378
0.0013
0.0011
0.0008
0.0016
0.0473
0.2800
0.1490
0.0282
0.0842
0.0373
0.0066
0.0113
0.0001
Std. Dev
0.0036
0.0050
0.7728
0.1915
0.9516
0.0130
0.0129
0.0594
0.2553
0.0004
0.0002
0.0034
0.3523
0.0673
0.1316
0.0014
0.0011
0.0010
0.0601
0.2262
0.2285
0.0198
0.0598
0.0345
0.0124
0.0123
0.0001
Range, mg/L
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.100-1.000
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
0.010-0.100
1.000-10.00
1.000-10.00
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.001-0.010
Analyte
Na
Na
NOj
NO,
NO,
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
• P04
P04
P04
P04
PO<
P04
P04
S
SO4
so,
SI
SiO2
TALK
TIC
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Method
AAS
ICAP
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
AAS
AAS
AAS
AAS
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
TECHNICON AA
TECHNICON AA
TECHNICON AA
TECHNICON AA
ICAP
UTOANALYZE
UTOANALYZE
ICAP
ALPKEMAA
TECHNICON AA
COULOMETRY
AAS
AAS
AAS
AAS
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
N
15
25
3
21
17
395
228
250
12
9
8
8
2
3
1
7
10
5
5
25
9
1
25
27
12
9
90
28
65
70
9
6
6
4
Min.
0.0000
0.0360
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0077
0.0006
0.0006
0.0038
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0004
0.0000
29.860
0.0010
o.oboo
0.0383
0.0600
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0133
Max.
1.4408
1.4613
0.0100
0.0600
0.1400
0.0058
0.0138
0.0542
0.1706
0.0140
0.0202
0.0239
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0100
0.0100
0.0000
0.5500
0.2964
4.9000
29.860
0.0346
0.8200
0.3427
1.0000
0.0561
0.0224
0.1880
2.5939
0.0017
0.0033
0.0019
0.0181
Mean
0.4702
0.3420
0.0033
0.0124
0.0506
0.0003
0.0009
0.0056
0.0555
0.0048
0.0115
0.0102
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0014
0.0020
0.0000
0.2380
0.0949
1.0071
29.860
0.0154
0.1107
0.1758
0.2389
0.0048
0.0053
0.0110
0.0698
0.0006
0.0008
0.0008
0.0155
Std. Dev
0.4304
0.3399
0.0058
0.0161
0.0448
0.0005
0.0015
0.0083
0.0625
0.0043
0.0055
0.0070
0.0000
0.0000
0.0038
0.0042
0.0000
0.2319
0.0816
1.5659
0.0102
0.1845
0.1024
0.2919
0.0086
0.0056
0.0274
0.3091
0.0006
0.0013
0.0008
0.0020
Range, mg/L
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
0.001-0.010
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
1.000-10.00
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
>100
1.000-10.00 "
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
* Methodologies detailed in Table 3
AAS- atomic absorption spectrophotometer
AA- autoanahyzer
-------
Table A-40. Quality control table showing spike recovery analysis over the entire study period
Spike recovery, %
Spike recovery, %
Analyte
Al
Ca
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
K
K
Mg
Mg
Mn
Mn
Mn
Na
Na
Method*
ICAP
AAS
AAS
AAS
AAS
AAS
AAS
ICAP
AAS
AAS
AAS
ICAP
AAS
ICAP
AAS
ICAP
AAS
AAS
ICAP
AAS
ICAP
N
26
14
5
1
140
127
1
25
134
105
1
26
26
14
15
26
35
61
26
14
26
Min.
95.8
90.2
96.6
99.4
85.8
73.8
100.5
89.8
89.4
86.0
112.3
93.8
86.3
93.8
88.6
94.9
89.3
98.0
90.7
90.3
89.9
Max.
105.0
104.7
103.8
99.4
107.3
108.3
100.5
105.7
109.5
122.3
112.3
103.7
119.4
114.9
103.9
103.2
108.5
108.4
102.2
108.7
108.2
Mean
99.4
99.3
100.1
99.4
100.9
99.9
100.5
98.8
101.6
102.4
112.3
99.2
103.5
102.1
95.8
98.5
102.2
103.5
98.4
97.9
98.8
Std. Dev.
2.4
4.2
3.3
3.4
4.4
3.0
3.8
5.5
2.4
7.2
7.1
5.2
2.1
4.8
2.6
2.4
5.5
3.4
Range, mg/L
0.100-1.000
10.00-100.0
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
0.100-1.000
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.010-0.100
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
Analyte
N03
NO3
NOj
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
P04
P04
P04
P04
P04
S
S04
Si
Si02
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
Method
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
AAS
' AAS
AAS
AAS
AAS
AAS
ICAP
ICAP
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
TECHNICONAA
TECHNICONAA
ICAP
AUTOANALYZE
ICAP
ALPKEMAA
AAS
AAS
AAS
ICAP
N
2
32
2
7
265
111
5
6
6
22
4
4
3
1
20
6
22
2
9
16
103
135
4
20
Min.
100.1
84.7
71.0
94.0
87.2
86.0
91.0
91.1
87.8
93.6
94.6
104.0
70.0
128.0
92.0
98.2
94.3
96.5
96.6
79.9
94.6
89.0
97.0
91.9
Max.
110.8
127.8
116.3
109.1
116.6
116.3
113.5
106.2
104.5
102.8
109.8
112.0
86.0
128.0
106.1
102.0
107.1
100.0
119.5
131.7
108.4
110.9
100.5
102.3
Mean
105.4
103.6
93.7
100.8
101.6
100.1
100.0
98.4
94.5
99.3
100.6
107.3
78.7
128.0
96.4
100.1
100.7
98.3
106.6
96.2
102.4
100.1
98.4
98.5
Std. Dev.
7.5
10.3
32.1
4.9
6.3
6.9
9.4
6.3
5.8
2.2
6.5
3.4
8.1
3.6
1.7
3.7
2.5
7.2
13.4
2.6
4.3
1.7
2.7
Range, mg/L
0.001-0.010
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
>100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
1.000-10.00
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
1.000-10.00
1.000-10.00
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
0.100-1.000
* Methodologies detailed in Table 3
AAS- atomic absorption spectrophotometer
AA- autoanalyzer
-------
Table A-41. Quality control table showing standard reference material (SRM) analysis over the entire study period.
SRM recovery, %
SRM recovery, %
Analyte
Al
Al
Al
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Method*
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
AA
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
N
180
127
126
66
177
345
52
Min.
73.2
82.9
93.9
95.1
91.6
91.7
96.4
Max.
128.0
119.3
108.8
107.5
111.2
108.2
109.2
Mean Std. Dev.
105.3
104.4
102.3
102.9
99.0
99.9
101.0
9.2
5.8
2.3
3.2
2.4
2.6
Z5
Range, mg/L
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
>100
Analyte
Na
Na
Na
Na
Na
Na
NOs
NOj
Method
AA
AA
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
N
6
60
175
19
253
144
221
145
Min.
93.1
93.8
89.7
80.9
90.1
94.0
79.2
75.8
Max.
101.0
107.9
113.1
95.4
114.8
109.0
122.0
133.2
Mean
96.2
103.2
102.7
89.6
101.4
100.7
101.1
98.1
Std. Dev.
2.6
2.7
4.1
3.7
3.8
2.7
7.2
7.0
Range, mg/L
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
>100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
Cl
TTTRATION 147 91.2 104.9 100.2
2.1
10.00-100.0
Pb
AA
887 88.8 122.1 99.3
4.3
* Methodologies detailed in Table 3
AAS- atomic absorption spectrophotometer
AA- autoanalyzer
0.010-0.100
Cu
Cu
Cu
' Cu
F
F
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
K
K
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mn
Mn
Mn
Mn
Mn
AA
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ISE
JSE
AA
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
AA
AA
AA
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
AA
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
436
364
78
58
37
15
336
209
250
320
79
77
64
177
142
203
52
189
170
84
292
57
88.0
53.8
96.3
95.5
69.2
82.8
86.5
92.5
94.3
93.3
88.6
93.2
90.9
90.6
93.8
92.7
96.2
93.1
94.9
94.9
93.7
98.4
120.8
129.6
109.7
105.9
126.7
113.1
109.8
152.3
120.6
112.6
110.6
111.1
104.9
108.3
108.4
107.6
106.8
107.6
113.6
110.9
109.1
103.3
99.2
100.2
102.9
99.8
100.2
98.5
99.3
103.7
101.8
101.0
99.6
103.6
101.3
101.6
100.0
100.6
100.4
99.9
102.9
101.5
101.4
100.7
3.7
8.8
3.3
1.7
8.1
8.4
3.5
5.7
3.4
2.2
4.4
4.2
3.4
2.8
2.8
1.9
2.3
1.9
3.0
3.6
2.5
1.0
0.100-1.000
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.100-1.000
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
1.000-10.00
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
>100
0.100-1.000
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
P04
P04
P04
P04
s
s
S04
S04
SO4
Si
Si02
SiO2
TALK
TALK
TIC
Zn
Zn
Zn
Zn
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
TECHNICON AA
TECHNICONAA
ICAP
ICAP
AUTOANALYZE
AUTOANALYZE
AUTOANALYZE
ICAP
ALPKEMAA
ALPKEMAA
TECHNICONAA
TECHNICONAA
COULOMETRY
AA
ICAP
ICAP
ICAP
2
37
109
79
130
57
1
163
3
303
89
103
141
35
315
485
84
465
57
91.7
81.7
91.7
95.2
93.7
98.0
98.1
82.1
96.1
86.6
85.1
91.8
84.1
95.0
92.6
92.0
63.5
92.8
97.0
100.0
115.8
116.7
106.3
107.7
106.8
98.1
103.6
99.8
103.1
116.8
120.2
128.0
105.9
104.8
109.5
128.6
115.9
101.1
95.8
98.7
99.3
100.5
101.4
100.7
98.1
99.1
97.6
95.3
97.0
102.9
100.2
100.0
99.7
99.5
96.7
101.5
99.4
5.9
7.4
5.5
2.1
3.2
1.9
2.8
1.9
2.9
5.5
4.6
4.0
1.7
0.8
2.4
10.9
4.3
0.9
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
>100
1.000-10.00
1.000-10.00
10.00-100.0
10.00-100.0
>100
10.00-100.0
0.100-1.000
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
1.000-10.00
-------
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
Test run 1
Test run 2
Test run 3
Test run 4
Test run 5
o-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-1. pH variation of test waters during each test run
148
-------
3.0
2.5
2.0
bfi
a 1.5
I
u
1.0
0.5
0.0
Test run 1
Test run 2
Test run 3
Test run 4
Test run 5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-2. Free chlorine variation of test waters
during each test run
149
-------
3.5
3.0
2.5
I 2.0
"§<
8
fpL,
O
1.5
6 i.o
0.5
0.0
Test run 3
Test run 4
Test run 5
0 20 40 60 80
Time, days
100 120
Figure A-3. Ortho-phosphate concentrations
during test runs 3,4, and 5
150
-------
1000
100
10
\ ' i ' i ' i • i ' r
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
0 20 40 60 '80 100 .120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-4. Brass Alloy C36000, Free Cutting Brass
151
-------
1 ' I ' [ ' I ' I ' I
1000
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
100
•s
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-5. Brass Alloy C83600, Red Brass
152
-------
1000 r
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-6. Brass Alloy C84400, Red Brass
153
-------
1000
PH8.5
pH 7.0
100
10
I . I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-7. Brass Alloy C84500, Red Brass
154
-------
1000
100
•a
10
I ' I
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-8. Brass Alloy C85200, Yellow Brass
155
-------
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
1000
100
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-9. Brass Alloy C85400, Yellow Brass
156
-------
o
U
3.0 i-r
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
.1*4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-10. Brass Alloy C36000, Free Cutting Brass
157
-------
3.0
2.5
2.0
~5b
H 1.5
o
u
T ' I
1.0
0.5
0.0 "-^^
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-11 Brass Alloy C83600, Red Brass
158
-------
3.0
2.5
2.0
j
I
H 1.5
o
o
i.o
0.5
0.0
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100. 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-12. Brass Alloy C84400, Red Brass
159
-------
3.0
2.5
2.0
H 1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-13. Brass Alloy C84500, Red Brass
160
-------
H-l
t
o
U
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
o pH 8.5
« pH 7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-14. Brass Alloy C85200, Yellow Brass
161
-------
"S3)
5
3.0
2.5
2.0
L5
1.0
0.5
0.0
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
r^55g)tm><3sivrtftrdffl5fM^^ lO, ,
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-15. Brass Alloy C85400, Yellow Brass
162
-------
G, 3.0 -
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-16. Brass Alloy C36000, Free-Cutting Brass
163
-------
1.00
II I
0.75
~ 0.50
0.25
0.00 L-1
o pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-17. Brass Alloy C83600, Red Brass
164
-------
1.50
1.25 -
pH 8.5
• pH 7.0
60
„ 0.75 I-
o
c
N
0.501-
0.25 -
0.00
0 20 40
60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-18. Brass Alloy C84400, Red Brass
165
-------
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
* 1.00
o
3
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
o pH 8.5
• pH7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-19. Brass Alloy C84500, Red Brass
166
-------
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
o
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
PH 8.5
pH 7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-20. Brass Alloy C85200, Yellow Brass
167
-------
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Time, days
Figure A-21. Pure lead
168
-------
u
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
o pH=8.5
• pH=7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-22. Pure copper
169
-------
O
cs
• r-l
SI
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-23. Pure zinc
170
-------
IE 800
pH=8.5
pH=7.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time, days
Figure A-24. 60:40 Sn:Pb Solder
171
-------
------- |