ornl
OAK RIDGE
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
I* A19 TIN MARI
Treatability of Hazardous Chemicals
in Soils: Volatile and
Semivolatile Organics
B. T. Walton
M. S. Hendricks
T. A. Anderson
S. S. Talmage
Environmental Sciences Division
Publication No. 3283
OPERATED BY
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC
FOR THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
-------
This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Techni-
cal Information. P.O. Box 62. Oak Ridge. TN 37831; prices available from (615)
576-8401, FTS 626-8401.
Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce. 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
NTIS price codes—Printed Copy: All Microfiche A01
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of
the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com-
pleteness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process dis-
closed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily consti-
tute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
-------
ORNL-6451
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
TREATABILITY OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IN SOILS:
VOLATILE AND SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
B. T. Walton, M. S. Hendricks, T. A. Anderson,
and S. S. Talmage
Environmental Sciences Division
Publication No. 3283
Date Published - July 1989
Prepared for
John E. Matthews, Project Officer
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
under Interagency Agreement No. DW89931473-01-0
Prepared by the
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6285
operated by
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract DE-AC05-840R21400
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi
1. BACKGROUND 1
2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 2
3. CHEMICALS 3
4. SOILS 5
5. MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
5.1 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION 6
5.2 SOIL MICROBIAL RESPIRATION 7
5.3 SORPTION ON SOILS 8
5.4 CHEMICAL ANALYSES 11
5.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 12
5.4.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 13
5.4.3 Analysis of Vapor Phase Organics Collected
on Charcoal Tubes 13
5.4.4 Benzidines and Methapyrilene 14
5.5 BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION 15
5.5.1 Soil Sterilization 16
5.5.2 Soil Extractions 16
5.5.3 Degradation of Hazardous Organics 17
5.5.4 Degradation Kinetics 18
5.6 BIOLOGICAL ACCUMULATION 19
5.7 STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY ANALYSES 20
6. RESULTS 21
6.1 SOIL PROPERTIES 21
6.2 SOIL MICROBIAL RESPIRATION 24
6.3 SORPTION ON SOILS 31
6.4 DEGRADATION IN SOIL 43
6.4.1 Soil Sterilization 43
6.4.2 Soil Extractions 44
6.4.3 Degradation of Hazardous Organics 44
6.5 BIOLOGICAL ACCUMULATION 55
6.6 STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY ANALYSIS OF MICROBIAL
RESPIRATION DATA 58
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 66
iii
-------
8. REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
9.1 SOIL RESPIRATION DATA 75
9.2 SOIL RESPIRATION GRAPHS 104
9.3 SOIL SORPTION DATA 132
9.4 SOIL DEGRADATION DATA 176
9.5 SOIL DEGRADATION GRAPHS AND CHARTS 190
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Zero headspace extractor (ZHE) ................ 10
2 C02 efflux from control soils ................ 25
3 Effect of dichlorobenzene on soil microbial respiration ... 27
4 Effect of acrylonitrile on soil microbial respiration .... 29
5 Effect of methyl ethyl ketone on soil microbial respiration . 30
6 Correlation of experimentally determined sorption partition
coefficients (logiQ Kp) for 15 hazardous organic chemicals
in a Captina silt loam with log^Q Kp predicted from
KOW ............................. 37
7 Correlation of experimentally determined sorption partition
coefficients (log^o Kp) f°r 16 hazardous organic chemicals
in a McLaurin sandy loam with log^Q Kp predicted from Kow . . 38
8 Correlation of experimentally determined sorption partition
coefficients to soil organic carbon (log^g Koc) for 16
hazardous organic chemicals with log^Q Kp predicted
from Kow ........................... 41
Regression of soil microbial respiration [C02 efflux
(treatment/control) in /ig«g~-'-»h~-'-] on molecular connectivity
indices ( x) °f benzene, alkylbenzenes , and chlorobenzenes . . 65
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Hazardous chemicals for evaluation of treatability potential
in soil 4
2 Selected physical and chemical properties of study soils . . 22
3 Cation exchange properties (in meq/lOOg) of the test soils . 23
4 Effects of individual chemicals on C02 efflux from soils . . 26
5 Comparison of experimentally determined and calculated
sorption partition coefficients (Kp) for selected hazardous
organics in a McLaurin sandy loam 34
6 Comparison of experimentally determined and calculated
sorption partition coefficients (Kp) for hazardous organics
in a Captina silt loam 35
7 Comparison of experimentally determined and calculated
sorption coefficients for selected hazardous organics to
organic carbon in soil (Koc) 39
8 Comparison of published data with experimentally determined
sorption coefficients to soil organic carbon (Koc) for
selected hazardous organic chemicals 42
9 Average extraction efficiencies for selected hazardous
organics in a McLaurin sandy loam 45
10 Average extraction efficiencies for selected hazardous
organics in a Captina silt loam 46
11 First-order degradation half-lives for selected hazardous
organics in a Captina silt loam and a McLaurin sandy loam . . 47
12 First-order degradation rate constants for selected hazardous
organics in a Captina silt loam and a McLaurin sandy loam
soil 48
13 Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) for
physicochemical properties of hazardous organics (N=16) when
correlated with degradation half-lives 51
14 Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) for
physicochemical properties of hazardous organics (N-16) when
correlated with first-order degradation rate constants ... 52
vii
-------
15 Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) for
physicochemical properties of benzene and several
substituted benzenes when correlated with degradation
half-lives 53
16 Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) for
physicochemical properties of benzene and several
substituted benzenes when correlated with first-order
degradation rate constants 54
17 Partition coefficients in n-octanol:water (Kow) for selected
hazardous chemicals 57
18 Effects of individual chemicals on C(>2 efflux from soils as
compared to matched controls 60
19 Correlation coefficients (r) for physicochemical properties
of 16 organic chemicals when correlated with their effect on
soil microbial respiration 62
20 Correlation coefficients (r) for physicochemical properties
of benzene and several substituted benzenes when correlated
with their effect on soil microbial respiration 63
21 Partition coefficients in n-octanol:water (Kow) and molecular
connectivity indices ( x) f°r benzene, alkylbenzenes, and
chlorobenzenes 64
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank John Matthews, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory (RSKERL), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Nelson T. Edwards and Chester W. Francis, ORNL; and Theodore Mill,
Stanford Research Institute, for helpful contributions to this work.
We are grateful to Bert Bledsoe, also of RSKERL for organic carbon
analyses of soils reported herein and to Gary McGinnis, Mississippi
State University, for the McLaurin sandy loam soil.
This research was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) through Interagency Agreement Number DW89931473-01-0 to
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is operated by Martin
Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy under
contract DE-AC05-840R21400.
IX
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Selected hazardous organics, primarily volatiles and
semivolatiles, were evaluated for toxicity to soil microorganisms,
sorption to soil, degradation, and potential for bioaccumulation in
terrestrial plants and animals. In addition, a structure-activity
approach was used for data analysis, because this technique may prove
useful to predict rate constants for critical environmental processes
in soils as well as to provide criteria to prescreen hazardous organic
contaminants for ecotoxicological potential. These capabilities are
needed for mathematical modeling of chemical fate in the terrestrial
environment and for conducting environmental risk assessments.
The chemicals included in the study were acrylonitrile, furan,
methyl ethyl ketone, tetrahydrofuran, benzene, toluene,
1,2-dichloroethane, j>-xylene, chlorobenzene, chloroform, nitrobenzene,
trans-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. c is -1.4-dichloro- 2-butene. 1,2-
dichlorobenzene, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, carbon tetrachloride,
2-chloronaphthalene, benzidine, ethylene dibromide,
3,3'-dimethyIbenzidine, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene,
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine, methapyrilene, and hexachlorobenzene.
The two study soils were typical of areas in regions of high
humidity and warm climates, such as the Southeastern United States.
They were a McLaurin sandy loam from Wiggins County, Mississippi, and a
Captina silt loam from Roane County, Tennessee. Both soils were
slightly acidic and low in organic carbon.
Sorption partition coefficients based on soil organic matter
(1°S10 KQC) were high for 2-chloronaphthalene (4.65) and
hexachlorobenzene (4.59); were moderate for toluene (2.19), £-xylene
(2.60), chlorobenzene (2.33), cis-1,4-dichloro-2-butene (2.33),
1,2-dichlorobenzene (2.99), carbon tetrachloride (2.06), nitrobenzene
(1.99), 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1.92) and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
(2.79); and low for acrylonitrile (1.09), furan (1.48), methyl ethyl
ketone (1.50), tetrahydrofuran (1.33), benzene (1.78), chloroform
(1.54), and ethylene dibromide (1.71). Chemicals with high partition
xi
-------
coefficients are more likely to cause environmental problems due to
persistence in soils, whereas those with a low sorption potential are
more likely to be problematic due to migration into ground water.
Those chemicals with the longest half-lives (t]/2) in soil were
nitrobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, and
2-chloronaphthalene, whereas those rapidly nonrecoverable
(t]/2 < 3 days) by solvent extraction were p_-xylene, chlorobenzene,
chloroform, and cis-1.4-dichlorobenzene. Initially, non-biological
processes instead of biological degradation dominated chemical losses
from soils, however, whether disappearance of the chemicals was due to
irreversible binding to the solid phase or to degradation and
decomposition could not be established from these studies.
Although most chemicals depressed carbon dioxide efflux in soils
when applied individually at 1000 A*g/g soil dry weight; this effect
disappeared within a few days in most instances. Tetrachlorobenzene
was the only chemical of 24 tested that did not affect soil microbial
respiration at the 1000 /*g/g loading rate. Although acrylonitrile,
nitrobenzene, methapyrilene, and l,4-dichloro-4-butenes were toxic at
1000 Mg/g, depression of C02 was temporary at 500 /Jg/g. Thus, none of
the chemicals evaluated showed a high potential for adverse effects on
soil microbial activity when tested at the above concentrations.
Evaluation of all 24 chemicals for bioaccumulation potential based
on physicochemical properties implicated only
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene to be of high concern,
however, the following chemicals could not be judged due to a lack of
data: 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 2-chloronaphthalene, 3,3'dimethylbenzidine,
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine, and methapyrilene.
Structure-activity analysis of sorption data for 16 chemicals
showed a good linear correlation (r = 0.94) between experimentally
determined Koc and Koc predicted from Kow. Because Koc experiments
were conducted with mixtures of chemicals, this finding indicates that
predictive equations for sorption of individual hydrophobic organics in
sediments can be applied with high reliability to mixtures of volatile
and semivolatile organics in soils.
xii
-------
Linear correlations for physicochemical parameters with chemical
effects on soil respiration and degradation parameters (t]/2 and
degradation rate constants) were poor for the complete data set,
however, they were quite good for a subset of benzene and its chloro-
and alkyl- derivatives. The latter findings indicate that
structure-activity analyses may be used to predict degradation and
effects of organic chemicals in matrices as complex as soils, although
multiple structure-activity relationships may be required for large
'data sets of structurally diverse compounds.
xiii
-------
1. BACKGROUND
Application of waste materials to soils is a common practice that
historically has been considered a means to supplement plant nutrients
or to improve the physical properties of the soils. Only in more
recent times has the practice been used to dispose of wastes not
previously considered beneficial to land uses.
Soils are natural acceptors of wastes, and their wide variety of
fauna and flora have the potential to decompose and purify a wide range
of substances. Many factors, including the chemical and physical
characteristics of the wastes as well as those of the soils themselves,
determine the effectiveness and acceptability of waste treatment in
soils. As the quantity and variety of waste streams increase and as
traditional methods for disposal of these wastes become more restricted
because of state and federal air and water quality regulations,
alternative disposal methods, such as application to land, are being
considered. The critical issue in the utilization of soils for waste
disposal is to determine which wastes, soils, and conditions are
appropriate for environmentally acceptable treatment to take place.
Soils are essentially non-renewable resources; thus, waste management
practices that decrease soil fertility or soil uses cannot be
tolerated.
The use of the natural assimilative properties of ecosystems to
achieve safe disposal of hazardous chemicals can be a cost-effective,
ecologically sound waste management strategy; however, before
application of hazardous wastes to soils can be attempted, candidate
wastes must be carefully evaluated to select those having properties
conducive to environmentally acceptable application. The primary
concern for treatment of wastes in soils is the presence of hazardous
chemicals having the potential to adversely affect human health and the
environment. Such adverse effects are likely to occur when hazardous
chemicals in the waste can be (1) transported to other sites through
migration or volatilization from the disposal site; (2) transformed by
biotic and abiotic processes into more toxic chemicals; (3) highly
-------
toxic to biota, including soil microorganisms, at the disposal site;
and (4) taken up by plants and/or animals and accumulated or made
available to higher trophic levels.
For this project, published data were used in combination with
laboratory tests to evaluate specific hazardous organic chemicals
common to wastes considered for treatment in soils. These data are to
be used by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
facilitate decisions as to when treatment of hazardous organic
chemicals in soils is appropriate without adversely affecting the
potential fertility or productivity of soils, impairing critical
foodchains, or jeopardizing the quality of water passing through the
soil.
2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
The overall approach to this problem was to utilize existing
analytical and biological methodologies to evaluate selected volatile
and semivolatile hazardous organic chemicals for toxicity, sorption on
soil, degradation, and potential for bioaccumulation. Ultimately, the
information is to be used by the sponsor to assess the potential for
treatability in soils of wastes containing these chemicals. However,
the data generated in this study are not expected to be realistic
expressions of the actual behavior of any chemical at a specific
disposal site. Under actual conditions of treatment at a given site,
environmental factors too numerous to take into account in the
laboratory would affect chemical disposition. Rather, the question of
the suitability of these chemicals for treatment in soils was addressed
by providing data that are needed for mathematical modeling of chemical
transport and fate in soils and by comparing chemicals within and
between different classes for relevant parameters considered as part of
the scope of this project. To meet this latter goal, the studies were
carried out in consultation with other principal investigators funded
by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL) to
obtain sorption, toxicity, bioaccumulation, and degradation data for
other classes of chemicals. Information was exchanged via letters,
-------
telephone conversations, and periodic meetings called by the Project
Officer, as well as at the annual RSKERL research seminars.
Thus, the data obtained in this study provide a basis for
distinguishing those volatile and semivolatile chemicals in the study
that will behave differently from each other under conditions of
treatment in soils with respect to the parameters of sorption,
volatilization, toxicity, bioaccumulation, and degradation. In
addition, the data may be used to compare volatile and semivolatile
organics with pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other
classes of compounds included within the scope of other RSKERL research
on treatability of hazardous chemicals in soils.
3. CHEMICALS
The chemicals included in these studies (see Table 1) were
selected by the EPA Project Officer, in consultation with the principal
investigator. They were chosen because they frequently occur in wastes
that are candidates for treatment in soil and because existing data
were taken under a wide range of experimental conditions and thus are
not readily comparable. Most of these compounds are listed as
hazardous chemicals in Appendix VIII, Section 261.33 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; the majority are solvents with high
vapor pressures.
Only one of the 1,4-dichloro-2-butene isomers was to be included
in the full sequence of studies; however, both the cis and the trans
isomers were investigated. Soil microbial respiration studies were
conducted for both chemicals to determine whether substantial
differences in toxicity occurred. Only the cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene
was included in subsequent tests for soil sorption and degradation.
In the initial work statement, four of the chemicals included in
this study (benzidine, 3,3-dimethylbenzidine, 3,3- dichlorobenzidine,
and methapyrilene) were recognized as potentially difficult to study
because our analytical chemists did not already have experience with
them. In addition, it was recognized that methods for isolation and
quantitation might be unavailable or not possible without considerable
-------
Table 1. Hazardous chemicals for evaluation of
treatability potential in soil
Chemical
CAS No.
Empirical
Formula
M.Wt.
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1
Furan 110-00-9
Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3
Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9
Benzene 71-43-2
Toluene 108-88-3
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2
E-Xylene 106-42-3
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
Chloroform 67-66-3
Nitrobenzene 98-95-3
cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene 764-41-0
trans-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene 764-41-0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5
2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7
Benzidine 92-87-5
Ethylene dibromide 106-93-4
3,3-Dimethylbenzidine 119-93-7
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1
Methapyrilene 91-80-5
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1
CH2=CH2CN
C4H40
C4H80
C4H80
C6H6
C7H8
CH2C1CH2C1
C6H5C1
CHC13
C6H5N02
C1CH2CH=CHCH2C1
C1CH2CH=CHCH2C1
C6H4C12
C1CH2CH(C1)CH2CL
CC14
C10H7C1
C12H14N2
C2H4Br2
C14H16N2
C6H2C14
C12H10C12N2
C14H19N3S
C&C16
53
68
72
72
78
92
99
106
113
119
123
125
125
147
147
154
163
184
188
212
216
253
261
285
-------
preliminary work on analytical methods development. Thus, the
benzidines and methapyrilene were to be included in the studies only if
analytical methods were well documented and could be employed readily
at ORNL.
Chemicals were purchased from the vendors listed below at the
purities indicated: Acrylonitrile; 1,2-dibromoethane (ethylene
dibromide); 1,2-dichloroethane; furan; 1,2,3-trichloropropane and
E-xylene, all of 99+% purity; 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, 98%;
hexachlorobenzene, 97%; cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. 95%; and
trans-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. 85% purity were obtained from Aldrich
Chemical Co., Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Fisher Scientific,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, provided certification grade carbon
tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, and tetrahydrofuran.
Additional suppliers were Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, New York, for
2-chloronaphthalene, nitrobenzene (reagent grade) and dichlorobenzene
(99%); Mallinckrodt Co., Paris, Kentucky, for toluene and benzene
(analytical reagent grades); E M Science, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, for
chloroform (99%); and Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, Missouri, for
benzidine (95%), 3,3'dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride («95%), 3,3'-
dimethylbenzidine dihydrochloride (practical grade), and methapyrilene
hydrochloride (purity not reported).
4. SOILS
Soils from two sites in the Southeastern United States were used
to evaluate effects of the selected chemicals on soil microbial
respiration, sorption properties of the chemicals, and degradation
rates. A Captina silt loam (Typic Fragiudult) collected from the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reservation, Roane County, Tennessee, was
obtained from a moderately well-drained, grassy field. The collection
site, known as the 0800 area, is flat to gently rolling bottomland of
the Clinch River. Alluvial soils of the Elk (Ultic Hapludalfs) and
Lindside (Fluvaquentic Eutrochrepts) Series dominate in this area,
which has been maintained in an old field successional state by
occasional mowing since 1942. Before 1942, the land was used for
-------
pasture and for cultivated field crops. These soils are deep,
moderately well drained, and typically of pH 5 (see Ward et al. 1984
for a detailed site description). Soil was removed to a depth of
approximately 15 cm and sieved through a gasoline-powered mechanical
shaker to break up large clods and remove stones and roots before the
soil was transported to the greenhouse.
The second test soil was a McLaurin sandy loam (Typic Paleudults)
collected by Mississippi State University from the western edge of the
town of Wiggins, Stone County, Mississippi. The McLaurin series
consists of deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils that occur
on ridgetops and upper slopes of ridges dividing major streams. The
collection site for the soil used in these experiments was an upland
ridge with a 5% slope. After scraping weeds and grasses from the
surface, the soil was collected from the top 15 cm using a backhoe.
The soil was packed in a metal drum and shipped to Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, where it was immediately removed from the drum and handled
in the same way as the local soil described in Section 5.1 on soil
characterization.
Samples of the McLaurin sandy loam from Wiggins County, collected
at the same time as the 0800 soil, were used by collaborators at Utah
State University, University of Texas, Austin, and Mississippi State
University in studies of pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
phenols, and other classes of compounds included within the RSKERL
research program on treatability of hazardous organic chemicals in
soils.
5. MATERIALS AND METHODS
5.1 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
Both the Captina silt loam and the McLaurin sandy loam were coarse
sieved (6.3 mm) and air dried in the greenhouse, then stored in the
dark at 4°C until needed. Before use for toxicity, degradation, and
soil property studies, soils were fine sieved (2.0 mm) and moistened
with distilled, deionized water to 80% saturation, i.e., 190 A*L/g
-------
Captina silt loam and 92 /*L/g McLaurin sandy loam. No nutrient
amendments were added to the soils before or during the experiments.
Soil properties were measured using standard procedures: soil
saturation, pH, and sulfur were determined according to Page, et al.
(1982): particle size distribution was measured gravimetrically (Gee
and Bauder 1986). Total phosphorus and total nitrogen were analyzed
according to Methods 365.4 and 351.2, respectively, of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1979) with slight modifications
appropriate for soil samples. Cation-exchange capacities and
exchangeable cations of the soils were determined using the method of
Johnson et al. (1985), in which extraction with 1 M NH^Cl is followed
by KC1 to displace adsorbed NH4+. All analyses were done in
triplicate.
Total organic carbon in the soils was measured as the amount of
dissolved organic carbon plus the amount in the solid sample according
to the following procedure. In the first step, carbonates were removed
by the addition of 20 mL of 10% (by volume) H3P04 to 5-g samples in
50-mL centrifuge tubes. The tubes were vortexed every 15 minutes and
allowed to settle. This step was repeated four times. The samples
were centrifuged until a clear supernatant was achieved. The
supernatant was decanted repeatedly with washings of carbon-free water.
The washings were combined and brought to 100-mL total volume, sparged
with nitrogen gas to remove dissolved carbon dioxide, and analyzed on a
Dorhman carbon analyzer using the liquid sample capability
(Xertex/Dorhman, Santa Clara, CA). The remaining soil was removed from
the centrifuge tubes, dried in polytetrafluoroethylene dishes, then
pulverized by mortar and pestle. Triplicate subsamples were analyzed
for remaining carbon on a Leco WR-12 solid sample analyzer (Leco
Corporation, St. Joseph, MI).
5.2 SOIL MICROBIAL RESPIRATION
Individual chemicals were added at a concentration of 1000 /*g*g
soil (dry weight) directly as undiluted liquids or solids near the
surface of 50-g soil samples contained in stoppered 8 x 5-cm glass
jars. Soils were moistened with distilled, deionized water to 80%
-------
saturation (as specified above) before addition of the test chemicals.
Soils were not mixed after addition of the chemicals in order to avoid
increased losses from volatilization. Triplicate treatments with
matched controls for each chemical and soil were incubated at 20 +
0.4°C in the dark. CC>2 efflux was measured on an infrared gas analyzer
(Model 300, Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pittsburgh, PA) at 24-h
intervals over a 7-d incubation period by purging the headspace with
moist, C02-free air (Edwards 1982).
In addition to the experiments to determine the effects of
individual chemicals on soil microbial respiration, C02 efflux was also
measured for soils treated with mixtures of chemicals. These
experiments were carried out to establish a safe loading rate for the
chemicals when added as a mixture to the soils for the degradation
experiments.
5.3 SORPTION ON SOILS
The extent to which the selected volatile and semivolatile
organics partitioned between the test soils and aqueous solutions was
measured as an important predictor of chemical mobility in soils during
the treatment process. Sorption partition coefficients, Kp, were
determined for each chemical on each of the two soils by using the
relation:
Kp - cs (Aig'S"1 soil)/Cw (/ig-mL'1 water) (1)
where Cs is the concentration of chemical on the soil at equilibrium
and Cw is the concentration of chemical in water at equilibrium (Mill
et al. 1982). From experimentally determined Kp values,
chemical-specific sorption coefficients, Koc, were calculated using the
following relation (Lyman 1982):
KOC ~ (MS sorbed«g organic carbon)/(/jg«mL~^ water) (2)
or
-------
Koc = Kp (100)/(% organic carbon in soil). (3)
Extractions to measure sorption partition coefficients were
carried out in stainless steel zero headspace extractor vessels (ZHEs)
developed and machined at ORNL (Association of Official Analytical
Chemists 1985). These extractor vessels were designed to extract and
remove volatile organic compounds without free headspace (Fig. 1). In
addition, filtrations were carried out without loss of volatile
compounds, which was an important consideration for this study.
Because procedures for the use of ZHEs had been developed only for
conducting leaching tests of liquid, solid, and multiphasic wastes
(U.S. EPA 1986), but not specifically for soils, sorption studies
incorporated appropriate aspects of standard methods for sediment and
soil adsorption isotherms published in the Federal Register (U. S. EPA
1985). In brief, 50 g of previously air-dried, sieved soil was put
into the partially assembled ZHE. Solid chemicals weighed on an
automatic Cahn 21 electrobalance were placed on the soil, and the
extractor was then fully assembled and securely tightened. Air was
removed from the soil chamber by movement of the plunger, which is
displaced by pressurized nitrogen. A standard mixture of liquid
chemicals was prepared in known concentrations immediately before
injection into a 250-mL stream of 0.01 M aqueous CaN03 solution, which
was pumped into each extractor. (Calcium nitrate solution proved
necessary to prevent dispersion of fine clays and clogging of the
filter, which occurred when distilled water was used for the
extractions). After the polytetrafluoroethylene inlet tube was
detached, the headspace eliminated from the chamber, and the ZHE
checked for leaks, ZHEs were mounted on a rotary extraction device
operating end over end at 30 rpm for 18 h. Typically, one run of a
given concentration was prepared simultaneously for each of the two
soils. With few exceptions, sorption experiments were conducted at
five different concentrations (75, 150, 500, 550, 600, and 650 ng
chemical •g"-'- soil) for each individual chemical and each experiment was
-------
10
ORNL-OWQ 17-1551)
N,PORT
(QUICK RELEASE VALVE)
OVERALL OBJECT HEIGHT
35 cm
HAND WHEEL
• LIQUID PORT COVER
LIQUID PORT
TOP PLATE
STAINLESS STEEL
SCREEN
GLASS FIBER FILTER
O-RING
O-RING
BOTTOM PLATE
PRESSURE RELEASE
VALVE
LEG
Fig. 1. Zero headspace extractor (ZHE)
-------
11
repeated at least once on a different day. Although calculations were
made for each chemical individually, the actual experiments were
conducted with mixtures of 18 chemicals.
After an 18-h rotation period to achieve equilibrium of the test
chemicals between the two phases, the suspensions were filtered through
glass fiber filters (0.7 mm pore space) contained within the ZHE
assemblage. This separation of the liquid phase from the soil is
achieved by movement of the plunger (by pressurized nitrogen gas) so
that the soil is pressed into a cake while the liquid is forced out.
The first two aqueous samples (2 mL each) for chemical analysis were
taken directly into a glass syringe and transferred to 2-mL vials,
which were then sealed and could be fit directly into the autosamplers
(Section 5.4, Chemical Analyses). A 125-mL sample was archived, and
the remainder was used to measure pH and conductivity, then discarded.
The resultant soil cake was extracted three times with 50 mL of
methanol. These extractions were conducted without opening the ZHE,
which was tumbled with methanol for 15 minutes each time. Each of the
three extracts was analyzed separately in order to monitor the
efficiency of individual extractions. Once again, 2-mL aliquots of the
filtrate were taken with a glass syringe and handled as described above
for the aqueous samples. The percent recovery was determined for
individual chemicals in each separate experiment.
Samples were immediately transported to the Analytical Chemistry
Division for storage at 4°C until analysis within 14 days as specified
in the EPA Method 624 for analysis of volatile organics. Care was
taken to limit exposure of the samples to the atmosphere during all
phases of experimental preparation, sample collection and handling.
Headspace was excluded from all sample bottles by filling to the top
with sample liquid.
5.4 CHEMICAL ANALYSES
-Chemical analyses of soil and water phases for sorption studies
were conducted within the Analytical Chemistry Division at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory using standard methods as described below. The
same analytical procedures were used to quantify the rate of
-------
12
disappearance of parent chemicals from soil during the degradation
studies. Organics in the vapor phase were trapped on coconut charcoal
for the degradation studies, however, soil and the associated soil
water were extracted without separation into two phases for the
degradation studies.
All analyses were carried out by professionally trained staff
experienced in analysis of the specific chemicals used. Routine
quality assurance and quality control measures included frequent
calibration of instruments, verification of instrument performance, and
detailed record keeping as experiments were conducted. Spiked samples,
verified percent recoveries, periodic repetitive analyses, and external
standards were used to ensure reproducibility of the extraction and
analytical procedures.
5.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
The volatile organics included the following compounds:
acrylonitrile, furan, tetrahydrofuran, chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone,
carbon tetrachloride, benzene, ethylene dibromide,
cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. 1,2,3-trichloropropane, toluene,
chlorobenzene, and ^--xylene. These compounds, which were present in
methanol or water extracts, were analyzed by packed column gas
chromatography using the chromatographic conditions specified in U. S.
EPA Method 624. A Hewlett-Packard Model 5840 gas chromatograph (GC)
equipped with a flame ionization detector, a 243- by 0.318-cm (8-ft by
0.125-in) OD stainless steel column packed with 1% SP-1000 on
60/80 mesh Carbopak B, and a model 7671A sampler were used. The
conditions were as follows: Injector temperature, 200°C; flame
ionization detector temperature, 250°C; column temperature program,
55°C for 12 minutes increasing to 220°C at 8°C/minute and holding at
220°C for 20 minutes. The injection volume was approximately 1.5 /iL.
Immediately prior to analysis of each set of samples, the
instrument was calibrated using authentic standards prepared in
methanol. All sample types, i.e., methanol and water extracts of soil
and 1:1000 dilutions in methanol of the standard solutions used to
treat the soils, were sealed in glass vials capped with
-------
13
polytetrafluoroethylene-lined septa. The samples were injected by the
automatic sampler, and the concentration of each volatile organic
compound was determined by the method of external standards using the
HP5840 data system. The results were reported in units of ^g«mL"^ for
the extracts and mg«/*L~-'- for the standard mixtures used to treat the
soils. Quality control standards and methanol blanks were also
analyzed with each set of samples to verify the calibration and to
check the background reading from the instrument.
5.4.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
The semivolatile organic compounds included the following:
nitrobenzene, dichlorobenzene, 2-chloronaphthalene,
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobenzene. These chemicals
were quantified in methanol and water by reverse phase liquid
chromatography. A Hewlett-Packard Model 1090 liquid chromatograph
equipped with a diode-array UV absorbance detector, a 100- by 4.6-mm ID
RP CIS column, and an autosampler were used for these determinations.
Operating conditions of the instruments were as follows: Solvent A,
water; Solvent B, methanol; flow rate, 2.0 mL»minute~ , solvent
program, isocratic 30:70 (A:B) for 20 minutes, then 100% B for
10 minutes; run time, 30 minutes; detection, UV absorbance at 254 nm,
50 m AU FS; injection volume, 25 /*L.
The liquid chromatograph was first calibrated with authentic
standards prepared in methanol. The samples, prepared as described
above, were transferred to glass autosampler vials and capped with
polytetrafluoroethylene-lined septa. Injections were made using the
autosampler. An HP 79994A Data System was used to collect the raw
data. The concentration of each component was determined by the
external standard method using peak areas. The results were reported
in units of /ig«mL , except for the standard for treating soil, where
the units were mg«mL~ .
5.4.3 Analysis of Vapor Phase Organics Collected on Charcoal Tubes
The organic compounds collected on charcoal tubes were analyzed
using a modified version of Occupational Safety and Health Agency
-------
14
procedure P & CAM 127, "Organic Solvents in Air." These modifications
consisted of somewhat different gas chromatographic conditions from
those specified in the procedure, in order to achieve improved
resolution and sensitivity. High performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC) was used for the analysis of the least volatile compounds.
Briefly, the charcoal tubes were unpacked into septum-capped
2.0-mL vials and were extracted for 0.5 h with 1.0 mL of carbon
disulfide. A 1:10 dilution was made in CS2 after the extraction.
Separate extractions and analyses were made of the front and backup
portions of the charcoal traps.
The compounds with volatilities through nitrobenzene were measured
using capillary column GC on a Hewlett-Packard model 5880 GC equipped
with a flame ionization detector set, a level IV data system, and a
60-m by 0.32-mm I.D. fused silica column with a 5 pm bonded film of
RSL-160. The column was programmed for temperature starting from 40°C
(12-minute initial isothermal hold) and increasing to 175°C at
S'Omin"1, with a 22-min final isothermal hold at 175°C. The hydrogen
carrier gas head pressure was 57 kPa. One ^L of the diluted extract
was analyzed by the method of external standards (three concentration
levels) and was corrected for charcoal/CS2 blank. The less volatile
solutes were measured using the HPLC procedure described for the
analyses of the soil extracts. The recovery of known amounts of test
chemicals sorbed onto the traps was determined to ensure that recovery
was quantitative.
5.4.4 Benzidines and Methapyrilene
Two reports of methods for separation and detection of benzidine
(Rice and Kissinger 1982, and U. S. Department of Commerce 1977) were
used as a guideline for HPLC analysis of benzidine,
3,3-dimethylbenzidine, and 3,3-dichlorobenzidine in this study;
however, no separation method adaptable to our instruments was found
for methapyrilene.
Analysis of benzidine was attempted using a PerkinElmer Series 4
HPLC equipped with a Vydac CIQ reverse phase column (15 cm), a
Perkin-Elmer LC-85B spectrophotometric detector, a Perkin-Elmer LS-4
-------
15
fluorescence spectrometer, and a Hewlett-Packard 3390A integrator. A
variety of solvents, solvent ratios, flow rates, and injection
concentrations of benzidine were tried. Emphasis was placed on
achieving sharp, reproducible peaks for benzidine with UV detection at
254 nm using the following mobile phases: 100% toluene, 60:40 methanol
and water, 45:55 methanol and water, and 35:65 methanol and ammonium
acetate (0.1 M) . Typical operating conditions were as follows:
Injection volume, 10 pL; flow rate, 1.5 mL«minute , equilibration
time, 2 minutes; and run time, 15 minutes.
5.5 BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION
Experiments designed to measure biological degradation rates of
the test chemicals were carried out using incubation conditions similar
to those described for the toxicity determinations. The cost of
radiolabeled chemicals prohibited the use of radiotracers to determine
degradation rates. Thus, degradation was inferred from measurement of
the rate of loss for parent chemicals in moist soils incubated (20°C)
in closed jars of the same type used for the microbial respiration
studies. Jars were fitted with charcoal tubes to trap organic vapors
by flushing the headspace with sterile, moist air at 24-hr intervals.
Comparisons of chemical losses from sterile and nonsterile soils
were used to differentiate between biological and nonbiological losses,
that is, a faster degradation rate for a chemical in nonsterile soil
relative to sterile soil was attributed to microbial degradation.
Similarly, chemical losses observed in sterile soils were attributed to
nonbiological processes.
Preliminary experiments were conducted to find the most effective
way to sterilize soils, to determine acceptable ways to extract the
test chemicals, and to select the time course for conducting the
degradation experiments. All treatments were setup with matched,
sterile controls that were analyzed in toto on the selected sampling
days.
-------
16
5.5.1 Soil Sterilization
Several methods of soil sterilization were tried in an attempt to
achieve sterility with minimum alteration of soil properties. These
methods included the use of mercuric chloride, sodium azide, gamma
irradiation, and autoclaving. In addition, some soils were flushed
with nitrogen to arrest aerobic microbial activity. This approach was
regarded as an alternative to sterilization and a means to eliminate
biochemical transformations by aerobic microorganisms. The
effectiveness of each method was determined by testing for CC>2 efflux
(as an indicator of microbial respiration) at 24-h intervals over a
seven-day incubation period following the sterilization or inactivation
procedure. In addition, nutrient agar was innoculated with soils and
incubated at the conclusion of the experiments as a further test for
viable microorganisms.
5.5.2 Soil Extractions
Two difficulties were encountered with solvent extractions of the
test chemicals from soils, thus methods development was required.
Methylene chloride, the solvent most commonly used to extract organics
from soils, could not be employed because it produced a peak that
interfered with chromatographic isolation and quantitation of the test
compounds. Also, soxhlet extraction and sonication, the two methods
most often used to remove organics from soils, were inappropriate
because of the volatility of the many of the test compounds. Soxhlet
extraction depends on a continuous cycle of volatilization,
condensation, and percolation of the extracting solvent through the
sample, thus volatile test compounds would simply have refluxed in the
soxhlet apparatus along with the methylene chloride rather than
concentrate in the collection flask. With sonication, heat is
generated by the probe during vibration; thus volatiles can be lost
during this step. Because of the high vapor pressures of the
compounds, the commonly used practice of extracting the analytes in
several volumes of solvent, then concentrating the pooled extracts by
rotary evaporation or volume reduction of the solvent under a stream of
inert gas (e.g., nitrogen), could not be employed.
-------
17
The extraction efficiency of methanol relative to methylene
chloride was tested under a number of extraction situations. The goal
was to determine the minimum volume and the minimum number of
extractions needed with methanol to obtain good recovery of the
analytes in a reproducible manner.
5.5.3 Degradation of Hazardous Organics
Degradation experiments were carried out using equipment and
conditions similar to those used for the soil respiration assessment
experiments (Section 5.2). Fifty-gram soil samples were incubated at
20"C in 110-ml (8- by 5-cm) glass jars fitted with
polytetrafluoroethylene-lined stoppers. Coconut charcoal traps (150-mg
size, MSA, Pittsburgh, PA) were attached to the stoppers with glass
tubing. Soils were moistened to 80% saturation using sterile,
distilled, deionized water (i.e., 9.2 mL and 4.6 mL water to 50 g of
Captina silt loam and McLaurin sandy loam, respectively). Sterile
controls were obtained by autoclaving incubation jars for one hour on
each of three consecutive days. Test chemicals were introduced at
individual concentrations of 100 /Jg*g (ppm) of soil (air-dry weight)
by pipeting a known volume of a standard solution of freshly mixed
liquids (ca. 24°C) after weighed amounts of solid samples
(2-chloro-naphthalene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, and
hexachlorobenzene) were added to the soil. The latter compounds were
weighed directly on a Cahn 21 electrobalance in 5-mg quantities. No
effort was made to obtain an even distribution of the chemicals by
mixing because losses would be accelerated by such a step.
Incubation jars were immediately stoppered after the chemical
additions and were held in the dark at 20°C for the duration of the
experiment. At 24-h intervals, the jars were flushed with a gentle
stream of air that passed through a sterile cotton plug and charcoal
trap (activated carbon, 60-14 mesh, Fisher, Pittsburgh, PA) to remove
air-borne microorganisms and organics before entering the incubation
jar. The exit air passed through coconut charcoal tubes. Air inlet
and outlet tubes on the stoppers for each jar were equipped with
-------
18
stopcocks so that no loss of volatiles could occur during incubation.
In addition to trapping headspace volatiles, this step also ensured
aeration of the soil samples.
After a preliminary experimental run to determine the approximate
half lives of the chemicals in soils, experiments were run with soil
extractions on days zero, two, three, six and seven using extraction
methods described in Section 6.4.2. The entire 50-g soil sample was
extracted for each treatment and a matched control at the appropriate
sampling time, i.e., no recoveries were based on subsamples. In
addition, matched controls were run simultaneously with treatments;
both treatments and controls were carried out in duplicate. Data are
reported as the mean of two determinations for all degradation studies.
5.5.4 Degradation Kinetics
Data obtained from the experiments described above were used to
calculate the half-life and degradation rate constant for each of the
test chemicals. Kinetic expressions modeling the loss of a compound
over time can be described by two general laws: the hyperbolic rate
law and the power rate law (Scow 1982, Morrill et. al 1982).
The hyperbolic rate law, which is commonly used to describe both
microbial population growth on a single substrate and many enzyme
reactions (Larson 1980), is based on Monod kinetics where the rate is a
hyperbolic function of substrate concentration. Monod kinetics can be
used to express substrate disappearance by the addition of a yield
coefficient (Yd) such that Yd = d[B]/d[S] , where [B] is the microbial
population concentration and [S] is the substrate concentration
(Baughman et. al 1980, Scow 1982). The rate of disappearance then
becomes a function of both the microorganism and substrate
concentrations.
The power rate law describes an equation where the rate is
proportional to some power of the initial substrate concentration
(Larson 1980, Morrill et. al 1982) in the following way:
rate = k[S]n, (4)
-------
19
where n = order of reaction, [S] = substrate concentration, and
k = degradation rate constant.
First-order reaction kinetics, which are applicable to pesticides
(Morrill et. al 1982) are a common assumption at low pollutant
concentrations or if the kinetic relationship is not well understood
(Scow,1982). It also permits calculation of the half-life (tj/2) of a
chemical by the following equation:
t1/2 - 0.693/k (5)
Based on these features, first order reaction kinetics were decided
upon for the degradation rate data.
Plots of the log^o total percent of each chemical remaining (soil
+ trap) in the soil versus time were made using Cricket Graph software
on an Apple Macintosh Plus personal computer. The program derived a
linear regression equation from the data, and the slope of this
equation was used to calculate the first-order degradation rate
constant for each chemical by multiplying the slope of the
corresponding regression line by 2.303 (In 10). Once a rate constant
had been calculated, it was used to obtain the half-life for each
chemical using equation (5).
5.6 BIOLOGICAL ACCUMULATION
The potential for chemicals to move from a contaminated soil into
plants and animals and reach concentrations higher than those that
might be found in soil at a specific site was evaluated based on
pertinent published data and relevant physicochemical properties for
each compound. Computerized searches for toxicity, bioaccumulation,
and physicochemical data were carried out using the Hazardous
Substances Data Bank established by the National Library of Medicine in
collaboration with ORNL. Because data entries to the Hazardous
Substances Data Bank must satisfy review specifications by an invited
panel of experts, all of whom are current or past members of the
National Institutes of Health's Toxicology Grant Review Committee, the
scientific reliability of data obtained through the Hazardous
-------
20
Substances Data Bank is judged to be high. All entries included
citations to the published documents from which the data were obtained.
These data were analyzed subjectively based on pertinent
physicochemical properties using the method of Gillett (1983) for
conducting prebiological screens of chemicals for adverse ecological
effects. That is, chemicals were judged according to the following
criteria:
• Chemicals with t]/2 (soil) < ^ days are likely to be degraded
within a fraction of the lifetime of most animals or of a plant's
growing season and, in most instances, are of little
ecotoxicologic concern.
• Chemicals with log Kow < 2.5 rarely pose a bioaccumulation problem
in plants or animals.
• Chemicals with log Kow > 3.5 and t^/2 (soil) > ^ days are of
heavy concern for bioaccumulation.
• Chemicals with log Kow > 7 or mol wt > 550-650 may have diminished
bioaccumulation potential, primarily because of slow solution rate
and steric factors.
• Chemicals not falling in the above groups should be judged on
weight of evidence because of a lack of clearcut generalizations
for such substances.
5.7 STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY ANALYSES
Chemical-specific data on water solubility, vapor pressure,
Henry's law constant, and the octanol: water partition coefficient were
also compiled from referenced citations in the Hazardous Substances
Data Bank and supplemented by hand searches of other sources. Some
parameters not found in the literature were estimated according to
methods in Lyman et al. (1982). Namely, octanol:water partition
-------
21
coefficients (Kow) were obtained using fragment constants when
experimental values were not found, and Henry's law constants were
calculated from the equation:
H - Pvp/S (6)
where P-^p is vapor pressure in Torr, S is aqueous solubility in mol/L,
and H is in Torr/M.
Structure-activity analyses were done using linear regression to
describe the relation between biological activity of the chemicals and
selected physicochemical properties.
6. RESULTS
6.1 SOIL PROPERTIES
The soils used in these experiments were slightly acidic and low
in organic carbon, which is common for well-drained areas in regions of
high humidity and warm climates such as the Southeastern United States.
However, the two soils differed from each other in a number of
important parameters, as indicated by the analyses for physical and
chemical properties (Tables 2 and 3). Notably, the silt loam had a
higher organic carbon content (1.49 + 0.06%) than the sandy loam
(0.66 + 0.04%) as well as a higher cation exchange capacity
(10.15 ± 0.44 meq/100 g silt loam, and 1.15 ± 0.17 meq/100 g sandy
loam). With the exception of Al , and possibly Na+, extractable
cations in NH4N03 and NfyCl (Ca2+, K+, Mg2+, and Mn2+) were more
abundant in the silt loam; however, the sandy loam was richer in
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur. No nutrient amendments were made
because data from these experiments were to be used in modeling
chemical fate under conditions of land treatment, and data were needed
for situations where site management may be less than ideal. Thus, the
values obtained can be viewed as conservative estimates of microbial
responses because of non-optimal nutrient conditions.
Bulk densities of the soils, the ratio of the mass to the
macroscopic volume (bulk) of soil particles plus pore spaces, was
-------
22
Table 2. Selected physical and chemical properties of study soils
Test Soila
Parameter
PHdistilled water
PH CaC12
Total organic carbon (%)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Nitrogen (mg/g)
Phosphorus (mg/g)
Sulfur (mg/g)
Captina silt loam
(Roane County, TN)
5.33 ± 0.03
4.97 ± 0.08
1.49 ± 0.06
7.7 ± 0.7
62.5 ± 2.4
29.9 + 2.4
0.18b
0.04 + 0.00
0.084b
McLaurin sandy loam
(Stone County, MS)
4.92 ±
4.43 ±
0.66 ±
74.9 ±
20.4 ±
4.7 ±
1.3b
0.49 +
0.186b
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.6
1.7
1.2
0.02
aAll numeric values are reported as the mean + one standard
deviation for three samples unless indicated otherwise.
^Number reported is based on one sample.
-------
23
Table 3. Cation-exchange properties (in meq/100 g) of the test soils*
Test soil
Chemical property McLaurin sandy loam Captina silt loam
Cation-exchange capacity (meq/100 g)
NH4N03 extraction 1.15+0.17 10.15+0.44
NH4C1 extraction 0.65 10.05+0.83
Exchangeable cations (meq/lOOg)
NH4N03 extraction
A13+ 0.98 ± 0.00 NDb
Ca2+ 0.11+0.01 7.25+0.30
K+ 0.03 + 0.00 0.19 ± 0.01
Mg2+ 0.03 ± 0.01 1.66 ± 0.12
Mn2+ 0.01 ± 0.01 0.20 + 0.01
Na+ <0.02 <0.01
NH4C1 extraction
A13+ 0.89 + 0.00 NDb
Ca2+ 0.09 ± 0.01 7.34 ± 0.29
K+ 0.03 ± 0.00 0.18 ± 0.01
Mg2+ 0.04 ± 0.00 1.72 ± 0.02
Mn2+ 0.01 + 0.00 0.02 ± 0.01
Na+ <0.007 <0.02
Determined according to Johnson, et al. 1985. All values are
reported as the mean + standard deviation for three samples.
None detected.
-------
24
0.89 ± 0.005 g/mL and 1.28 + 0.034 g/mL for the Captina silt loam and
the McLaurin sandy loam, respectively, under experimental conditions
for degradation and toxicity studies.
6.2 SOIL MICROBIAL RESPIRATION
The higher organic carbon content of the Captina silt loam (i.e.
1.49%) is consistent with the higher microbial respiration for this
soil when compared with the McLaurin sandy loam (organic carbon content
= 0.66%). Control soils of both types showed a gradual decline in C02
efflux over the seven-day incubation period (Fig. 2), i.e., 50%
decline for the Captina silt loam and a 39% decline for the McLaurin
sandy loam. Twenty-four hour respiration rates for the sandy loam were
approximately one half those for the silt loam, with the exception of
the first day's readings where respiration in the former soil was
typically one third that of the other (Fig. 2).
Most chemicals depressed carbon dioxide efflux during the
beginning days of the experiment, but by the final day (Day 6), had no
effect. Tetrachlorobenzene was the only chemical of the 19 included in
this study that did not affect soil microbial respiration when added to
soil at 1000 j*g*g . Because it is not practical to describe the daily
respiration data for all 19 chemicals and matched controls on each of
the two soils, the effects produced by each compound during the six-day
monitoring period are summarized in Table 4. In addition, specific
examples of the types of responses observed are provided. The complete
data sets and graphs of respiration data can be found in Appendices 9.1
and 9.2 in this report.
The data for dichlorobenzene (Fig. 3) is typical of a temporary
depression in respiration due to chemical treatment. The data show that
on days one, two, and three, C02 was depressed (the depression was
statistically significant for the sandy loam but not for the silt loam;
measurements that do not overlap at one standard deviation from the
mean for triplicate treatments are considered significantly
different.), but was not different from matched controls on days four,
five, and six. Such a response is noted as "-" for "all days" and a
"0" for "day 6" in Table 4 to indicate that a depression occurred
-------
25
ORNL-DWG 87-12331
~ 3 1
O
M
O)
•
O)
CM
O
O
CAPTINA SILT LOAM
• McLAURIN SANDY LOAM
2 —
1 i—
4
DAY
Fig. 2. CC>2 efflux from control soils. Soils were moistened to
80% saturation and held in the dark at 20° + 0.4°C (mean of 19
triplicate determination + standard error of the mean).
-------
26
Table 4. Effects of individual chemicals on C02 efflux from soils. The table
summarizes results of comparing treated soils and matched controls occurring
at any time during the experiment (all days) and on the final day of the
experiment (day 6). Values for C02 in treatments relative to the
control are as follows: increase (+),decrease (-), no
significant difference (0), and initial decrease
followed by a later increase (-,+)
Effect on C02 efflux (relative to control)
Captina silt loam McLaurin sandy loam
Chemical All days Day 6 All days Day 6
Acrylonitrile - - - -
Furan - 0 00
Methyl ethyl ketone + + -,+ 0
Tetrahydrofuran +0 - 0
Benzene 0 0 -,+ +
Toluene +0 - 0
1,2-Dichloroethane - 0 - 0
E-Xylene 0 0 -,+ 0
Chlorobenzene +0 +0
Chloroform + 0 -,+ 0
Nitrobenzene - 0 - -
trans-1.4-Dichloro- 2-butene - - -
cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene - 0 - -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene - 0 - 0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane - 0 0
Carbon tetrachloride 00 - 0
Ethylene dibromide - 0 0
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 00 00
Hexachlorobenzene - 0 - 0
-------
ORNL-DWG 87-12332
^ 4
I
CONTROL
CAPTINA SILT LOAM
McLAURIN SANDY LOAM
r i
1 2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
8
DAY
Fig. 3. Effect of dichlorobenzene on soil microbial respiration. A single addition of
dichlorobenzene at 1000 /Jg/g soil (dry wt.) on Day 0 caused a temporary depression in C02
efflux. Each data point is the mean + standard error for triplicate experiments.
-------
28
during the experiment but disappeared by the final day. By comparison,
acrylonitrile depressed respiration at 1000 A*g*g in both soils
(Fig. 4) and remained significantly depressed ("-" for "all days" and
"-" for "day 6" in Table 4), a pattern also observed for nitrobenzene,
trans-1.4-dichloro-2-butene and cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene in the sandy
loam. Only acrylonitrile and trans-1.4-dichloro-2-butene showed this
effect in the silt loam.
Another type of response, indicated by "+" for "all days" and "+"
for "day 6," is that of methyl ethyl ketone in the silt loam, where C02
efflux was significantly increased by the third day and every day
thereafter. This experiment was extended an additional 24 h, at which
time a 6.3-fold increase over the control was observed (Fig. 5).
Increases in microbial respiration, measured as either biochemical
oxygen demand or carbon dioxide evolution, are sometimes used as an
indication of biological transformation of organic substances in soil
and water (Howard et al. 1981, Scow 1982). Because of the artifacts
and imprecision inherent to such a nonspecific measure of
mineralization, the respiration data were not used to calculate
theoretical increases in carbon dioxide efflux that would result from
biological degradation of the test chemicals. Nonetheless, the
elevated respiration rates observed for methyl ethyl ketone and also
for benzene (Appendix 9.2, Fig. 9.2.3.) suggest that these chemicals
were readily degraded.
The toxic effects of acrylonitrile, nitrobenzene, and the
1,4-dichloro-2-butenes, pointed to the need for further testing to
establish concentrations of these substances that could be added to
soils without suppressing microbial respiration irreversibly in
biodegradation studies. However, the fact that the remaining chemicals
caused only temporary depressions in C02 efflux, such that microbial
respiration returned to control rates by the sixth and final day of the
experiments, indicates that soil microbial function is not likely to be
impaired by application of these substances individually at
1000 A*g*g , even in soils of relatively low carbon content.
-------
ORNL-DWG 87-12334
T
CAPTINA
SILT LOAM
McLAURIN
SANDY LOAM
I
N5
VO
8
DAY
Fig. 4. Effect of acrylonitrile on soil microbial respiration. Acrylonitrile depressed
microbial respiration in both soils after a single addition at 1000 ^g/g soil (dry wt.) on
Day 0. Each data point is the mean + standard error for triplicate experiments.
-------
ORNL-DWG 87-12333
CAPTINA -
SILT LOAM
\McLAURIN
/SANDY LOAM
8
Fig. 5. Effect of methyl ethyl ketone on soil microbial respiration. Methyl ethyl ketone
added to soil at 1000 ^g/g soil (dry wt.) on Day 0 stimulated CC>2 efflux in the Captina silt
loam; however, respiration was not enhanced in the McLaurin sandy loam under similar treatment
conditions. Each data point is the mean + standard error for triplicate experiments.
-------
31
6.3 SORPTION ON SOILS
Several problems during the experimental determination of chemical
sorption on soils required modifications to the original experimental
plans for determining sorption isotherms. Two technical difficulties
were encountered with the use of sieved soil in ZHEs, but these were
eventually solved. Initially, the aqueous phase consisted of
distilled, deionized water; but filters became blocked by fine clay
particles that were dispersed in the suspensions so that filtration was
not possible. When the pressure on the piston (plunger) was increased
in an attempt to force filtration, either the filter ruptured or the
ZHE seals began to leak. Eventually we found that the use of 0.01 M
aqueous calcium nitrate (CaN03) instead of distilled water prevented
dispersion and eliminated the filtration problem.
Another difficulty occurred during filtration when the piston
became jammed in the ZHE, which seemed to be due to fine soil particles
working under the piston seal during operation and causing
misalignment. ZHEs were replated with stainless steel in the ORNL
machine shop to achieve a better fit and smoother action of the
plunger. When replating failed to solve the problem, new piston
plates were machined with a deeper groove around the rim so that the
0-ring was seated with less stretching. This operation solved the
problem, and no further difficulties occurred with the use of soils in
the ZHEs. Apparently, these problems had not been previously
encountered because only wastes with much larger particle sizes than
soils had been extracted.
Although the problems with the ZHEs were solved, progress on
determination of the sorption isotherms was hampered by another
problem. Total mass balances for each chemical in each experimental
run yielded inconsistent results, with percent recoveries highly
variable (see Appendix 9.3, Column 14 for percent recovery data).
Quality assurance/quality control checks with standards for instrument
performance showed good recoveries, high precision and excellent
reproducibility for both GC and HPLC analyses. Furthermore, no basis
could be found for attributing spurious recoveries to preparation of
standards or operation of the ZHEs. In retrospect, poor recoveries
-------
32
may have been due to losses during the holding time between sample
collection and sample analysis. Recent studies (sponsored by the U.S.
EPA) by M. Maskarinec and coworkers of the Analytical Chemistry
Division at ORNL show that significant losses of volatile organics can
occur even when samples are held according to conditions and times
specified by current U. S. EPA protocols (Maskarinec et al. 1987).
Because the problem of inconsistent mass balances for test
chemicals could not be solved within the scope of the present study,
the experimental approach to obtain data for Kp and Koc values was
modified as follows: Data from duplicate experiments at five to eight
concentrations of test chemicals were inspected for goodness of the
data based on mass balances for each experimental determination. Only
data showing consistent and relatively high mass balances were
included, poor data were excluded from calculations of Kp and Koc.
Because acceptable percent recoveries were chemical specific, the
criteria for accepting and rejecting data from a given experimental run
varied with the particular chemical under consideration, thus
acceptance criteria cannot be summarized in one statement that applied
to all chemicals.
Using this subjective method to ensure the quality of the data,
the resultant isotherm plots were often incomplete across the full
range of test concentrations. Rather than try to construct isotherms
with incomplete data, linearity of the isotherm was assumed; and data
from each experimental run were then used to calculate Kp and Koc at
the specified concentration. Mean values of Kp were determined for
each chemical on each of the two soils, and data from both soils were
used to obtain the Koc for each chemical.
The assumption of linear isotherms is reasonable in light of the
fairly narrow range of organic concentrations required to stay above
the detection limits of the instruments, yet to stay below the
saturation concentration for the aqueous phase--two conditions that
must hold to obtain valid sorption data. This assumption is also
supported by Chiou, et al. (1983) who found no indication of isotherm
curvature at equilibrium concentrations extending to 60-90% of
saturation for benzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, and
-------
33
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene. Thus, using this method, Kp and Koc data were
obtained for 18 test chemicals: acrylonitrile, furan, methyl ethyl
ketone, tetrahydrofuran, benzene, toluene, j>-xylene, chlorobenzene,
chloroform, nitrobenzene, cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. 1,2-
dichlorobenzene, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, carbon tetrachloride,
2-chloronaphthalene, ethylene dibromide, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene,
and hexachlorobenzene.
Although sorption behavior of the benzidines was not included in
this study because of analytical difficulties, sorption of
•^C-benzidines on soils has been examined by others. In studies of
binding to three silt loam soils, Graveel, et al., (1985) showed that
C-benzidine bound rapidly to inorganic and organic components of the
soils. Equilibrium Koc values ranged from 227 x 103 to 882 x 103
(Graveel et al. 1986). Similarly, Boyd, et al., (1984) reported strong
binding of ^C-3,3'-dichlorobenzidine to a clay loam and provided
evidence for covalent binding with soil humic components. Zierath, et
al., (1980) determined equilibrium sorption isotherms for •'•C-benzidine
in 14 soil and sediment samples and found sorption to be profoundly
affected by the pH of the aqueous phase. Neutral species of benzidine
were sorbed by organic matter, whereas ionized species interacted with
the mineral fraction of the soils and sediments. When a correction was
made for sorption of the neutral species, sorption of ionized benzidine
was shown to correlate with surface area of the soil, which supports
the conclusion that ionized species bind predominantly to clay
minerals. Because the soil pH exceeds the pKa for the remaining test
chemicals in this study, sorption is likely to be controlled by the
organic rather than the inorganic component of the soil (Schwarzenbach
and Westall 1981, Chiou et al.1979), hence data correction for binding
of ionized species would not be required.
The experimentally determined Kp values for test chemicals were
found to be consistently lower in the McLaurin sandy loam (Table 5)
than in the Captina silt loam (Table 6), with the exception of
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene. This greater
affinity of organics to the silt loam is predicted based on its higher
organic carbon content. Similarly, a good correlation was observed
-------
34
Table 5. Comparison of experimentally determined and calculated
sorption partition coefficients (Kp) for selected hazardous
organics in a McLaurin sandy loam
Experimental
Chemical
S.D.
Kp Predicted0
Acrylonitrile
Fur an
Methyl ethyl keton
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
£-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
0.07
0.19
0.22
0.12
0.42
0.95
1.62
0.97
0.19
0.70
0.49
5.26
0.51
0.32
443
0.3
4.06
352
(1)
(2)
(6)
(6)
(9)
(9)
(8)
(10)
(4)
(8)
(8)
(6)
(8)
(3)
(6)
(7)
(1)
(5)
...
0.12
0.06
0.22
0.37
0.94
0.57
0.03
0.28
0.25
2.98
0.16
0.18
352
0.08
0.00
190
0.0054
0.089
0.008
0.012
0.012
2.10
5.75
2.75
0.38
0.30
—
9.76
0.42
1.78
—
0.23
346
9100
aParentheses enclose the number of experimental determinations used
to calculate the mean.
°S. D. = Standard deviation of the mean for multiple determinations
of Kp for each chemical.
Calculated from the partition coefficient (Kow) using the
equations Kp - Koc(% organic carbon)/100 (Lyman, et al. 1982) and log
K
oc
1.00 log Kow - 0.21 (Karickhoff, et al., 1979).
-------
35
Table 6. Comparison of experimentally determined and calculated
sorption partition coefficients (Kp) for hazardous
organics in a Captina silt loam
Experimental
Chemical
V
S.D.'
Kp Predicted0
Acrylonitrile
Fur an
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
£-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 , 2 -Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 3 -Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2 - Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
1, 2 ,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
4
0
1
5
18
1
2
172
0
-
25
.22
.47
.44
.35
.82
.49
.90
.66
.56
.33
.32
.8
.41
.14
.86
--
.6
(5)
(2)
(7)
(8)
(6)
(9)
(9)
(7)
(7)
(9)
(8)
(4)
(4)
(7)
(4)
(5)
(2)
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
3
0
0
9
6
0
1
23
0
-
-
.08
.46
.14
.13
.41
.32
.39
.59
.34
.31
.39
.44
.32
.27
.4
.27
--
—
0
0
0
0
0
4
12
6
0
0
-
22
0
4
-
0
782
20600
.012
.20
.017
.026
.026
.71
.90
.21
.86
.68
--
.0
.90
.0
--
.5
aParentheses enclose the number of experimental determinations
used to calculate the mean.
S. D. = Standard deviation of the mean for multiple
determinations of Kp for each chemical .
cCalculated from the partition coefficient (Kow) using the equation
Koc "
Io6 K
ow
(Karickhoff, et al. , 1979).
-------
36
between experimentally determined Kp for each chemical and Kp
calculated from Kow, that is,
y - 0.186 + 0.356x, r = 0.90, N = 15 (7)
and
y - -0.036 + 0.469x, r - 0.92, N - 16 (8)
for the Captina silt loam and McLaurin sandy loam, respectively, where
y is log Kp experimental, x is log Kp predicted (Figs. 6 and 7), r is
the correlation coefficient, and N is the number of chemicals on which
the regression is based. Despite the high linear regression
coefficients, the difference between predicted Kp and actual Kp became
more pronounced as Kp increased, so that the difference between actual
and predicted sorption for hexachlorobenzene, in the most extreme case,
was three orders of magnitude lower than predicted in the Captina silt
loam (Table 6).
The underestimation of Kp based on Kow for polychlorinated
benzenes, such as tetra- and hexachlorobenzene, may be a function, in
part, of the greater imprecision for measurements of both Kp and Kow
for highly lipophilic organics. However, a more likely reason for
underestimation of Kp for these highly lipophilic compounds is that of
binding to nonsettling (nonfilterable) microparticles or organic
macromolecules in solution (Gschwend and Wu 1985, Hassett and Anderson
1982). Sorption to these substances would result in an artificially
low Kp due to the higher concentration of test chemical associated with
the water phase that is represented in the numerator of equation (1).
Experimental data from Kp determinations were pooled to determine
Koc for each hazardous organic. Once again, experimentally measured
Koc agreed very well with Koc predicted from Kow (Table 7) for each
chemical, with the exceptions of 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene and
hexachlorobenzene. Linear regression of log Koc actual on log Koc
-------
37
ORNL DUG 89-9570
O
"c
0
"JZ
Q)
Q.
x
LU
O)
o
1 -
0-
-1
y = 0.186 + 0.356x r =0.90
-2
0
log Kp Predicted
Fig. 6. Correlation of experimentally determined sorption
partition coefficients (log^Q Kp) f°r 15 hazardous organic chemicals in
a Captina silt loam soil with log^Q Kp predicted from Kow.
-------
38
ORNL DWG 89-9571
-------
39
Table 7. Comparison of experimentally determined and calculated
sorption coefficients for selected hazardous organics
to organic carbon in soil (Koc)
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Fur an
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
£-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2 - Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
1,2,4, 5 -Tetrachlorobenzen
Hexachlorobenzene
KOC
Experimental3
12
30
31
21
60
155
396
215
34
96
215
982
82
115
44,980
50
615
39,346
.2
.2
.5
.2
.5
.3
.8
.9
.7
(6)
(4)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(18)
(17)
(17)
(11)
(17)
(16)
(8)
(12)
(10)
(10)
(12)
(1)
(7)
log Koc
Experimental
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
1
2
4
.09
.48
.50
.33
.78
.19
.60
.33
.54
.99
.33
.99
.92
.06
.65
.71
.79
.59
log Koc ,
Predicted13
-0
1
0
0
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
4
6
.09
.13
.07
.25
.65
.50
.94
.62
.76
.43
—
.17
.80
.43
—
.55
.72
.14
aSorption partition coefficients (Kp) measured in a McLaurin sandy
loam and a Captina silt loam were used to determine Koc using the equation
KOC = Kp (100)/(% organic carbon in soil). The number in parentheses shows
the number of experimental determinations used to calculate Koc.
Calculated from the partition coefficient (Kow) using the equation
log Koc - 1-00 log Kow - °-21 (Karickhoff, et al., 1979).
-------
40
predicted yielded the equation
y = 1.080 + 0.488x, r - 0.94, N - 16, (9)
where y is log Koc experimental, x is log Koc predicted (Fig. 8), r is
the correlation coefficient, and N is the number of chemicals on which
the regression is based.
Comparison of the experimentally determined Koc data from the
present study with published Koc data for benzene, toluene, chloroform,
nitrobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, ethylene dibromide, and
hexachlorobenzene shows good agreement (Table 8) despite differences in
soils and experimental methods used to determine sorption. In most
instances, data generated in the present study fall within the range of
published Koc values. Kenaga (1980) also reported widely disparate
data for experimentally determined Koc (3,914) versus calculated Koc
(28,000) for hexachlorobenzene.
Collectively, the Kp and Koc data generated in this study indicate
that predictive equations for the sorption of hydrophobic organics in
sediments (Lyman, et al. 1982; Karickhoff, et al. 1979) can also be
applied with high reliability to volatile and semivolatile organics in
soils, although corrections may be needed to compensate for
overestimation of sorption for highly lipophilic chemicals. However,
the most important implication of these data is that a mixture of
18 organics appeared to sorb independently of each other at individual
concentrations of as much as 650 /ig chemical«g soil (dry weight).
Thus, the data give strong support to the hypothesis presented by
Chiou, et al., (1983) that sorption of nonionic organic compounds from
water on soil is an independent, noncompetitive process governed by
partitioning to the soil organic phase. A practical application of
this finding is that sorption equations based on Kow for individual
chemicals can be used to predict soil sorption for a complex chemical
mixture by calculating sorption of individual compounds in the mixture.
-------
41
ORNL DUG 89-9572
4-
o
3-
2-
y=1.080 + 0.4876x r =0.94
-2
0
8
log Koc Predicted
Fig. 8. Correlation of experimentally determined sorption
partition coefficients to soil organic carbon (log^g Koc) f°r 1
hazardous organic chemicals with log^Q Kp predicted from Kow.
-------
Table 8. Comparison of published data with experimentally determined
sorption coefficients to organic carbon in soil (Koc) for
selected hazardous organic chemicals
log Koc
Chemical
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
1 , 2 -Dichlorobenzene
Ethylene dibromide
Hexachlorobenzene
Experimental3
1.78
2.19
2.33
1.54
1.9
2.99
1.71
4.59
Published
1.92, 1.98
1.50b
1.92
2.2C
1.89 - 2.28
2.59
2.0C
1.92b
1.9C
1.9C
2.51b
1.80b
1.64
3.59
Reference
Schwarzenbach and Westall,
Chiou, et al. , 1983
Kenaga, 1980
Wilson, et al. , 1981
Garbarini and Lion, 1985
Schwarzenbach and Westall,
Wilson, et al. , 1981
Chiou, et al. , 1983
Wilson, et al. , 1981
Wilson, et al. , 1981
Chiou, et al. , 1983
Chiou, et al. , 1979
Kenaga, 1980
Kenaga, 1980
1981
1981
.p-
10
aDetermined experimentally in the present study.
Calculated from Kom.
°Estimated from graphed data.
-------
43
6.4 DEGRADATION IN SOIL
6.4.1 Soil Sterilization
Soils were sterilized by autoclaving for degradation experiments
because unsatisfactory results were obtained with the other methods
tried. Continuous irradiation of soils for 18 hours in a high flux
isotope reactor (HFIR), producing an average gamma flux field of 0.75 x
10^ R/h and a total accumulated dose of 1.35 Mrad, depressed
respiration but did not sterilize the soil. Five days after
irradiation, C02 efflux in the McLaurin sandy loam and the Captina silt
loam was 16% and 15%, respectively, of control values. The
effectiveness of higher radiation doses could not be explored because
the HFIR was subsequently shutdown, hence, unavailable for further use.
Mercuric chloride (HgCl2) and sodium azide (NaN3) proved to be
unacceptable for soil sterilization because the quantities required to
be effective would be likely to change the physical and chemical
properties of the soils. Addition of mercuric chloride at 10% by
weight to soil had no effect on microbial respiration of the Captina
silt loam, whereas a temporary 50% reduction in C02 efflux was observed
for the McLaurin sandy loam. Similar difficulties were encountered
with sodium azide. Additional problems of elevated C02 efflux, shifts
in azide concentration, rise in pH, and spontaneous formation of
explosive hydrazoic acid have been documented by Rozycki and Bartha
(1981) as reasons to avoid the use of azide as a microbial inhibitor.
We inadvertently confirmed the explosion hazard associated with
formation of mercuric azide, which is a percussion detonator, by
combining mercuric chloride and sodium azide.
Although autoclaving undoubtedly affects soil structure to some
extent and has been shown to reduce soil pH by 0.2 unit (Skipper and
Westermann 1973), soil samples autoclaved for one hour on three
consecutive days showed no C02 efflux over a seven-day incubation
period. Nor did microorganisms grow on nutrient agar plates
innoculated with the autoclaved soils, although cultures resulted from
incubations with the non-autoclaved soils.
-------
44
6.4.2 Soil Extractions
Triplicate extraction of soil samples with methanol (30 mL total
volume for the sandy loam and 45 mL total for the silt loam) gave
satisfactory recovery for 16 of the 18 chemicals included in the soil
degradation studies. Acrylonitrile and furan cochromatographed with
other test chemicals and were dropped from the study. Extractions were
carried out by methanol addition directly to the incubation jars, which
were then agitated and centrifuged to obtain the eluate. Eluates were
centrifuged a second time in a clinical centrifuge after removal from
the j ars. The amount of chemical recovered in each of the three
methanol extracts is tabulated in Appendix 9.4 for each experimental
run.
Extraction efficiencies ranged from 40% (1,2,4,5-
tetrachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene) to 123% (cis-1.4-
dichloro-2-butene) in the McLaurin sandy loam (Table 9) in experiments
conducted specifically to develop the extraction procedure. In the
Captina silt loam, efficiencies ranged from 28% (1,2,4,5-
tetrachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene) to 114% (chlorobenzene and
cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene) (Table 10). Despite the broad range of
recoveries in these preliminary experiments, efficiencies were fairly
consistent for each chemical as indicated by the standard deviations of
the means in Tables 9 and 10 for the McLaurin sandy loam and the
Captina silt loam, respectively. From these data, correction factors
were calculated to adjust the recoveries of the chemicals in subsequent
degradation studies.
6.4.3 Degradation of Hazardous Organics
Degradation half-lives and first-order degradation rate constants
proved to be relatively small for the 16 hazardous organics as a group
(Tables 11 and 12). The four longest lasting chemicals in the
non-sterile Captina silt loam were nitrobenzene (t]/2 - 23.1 d),
2-chloronaphthalene (t]/2 = 12.6 d), hexachlorobenzene (t]y2 = 13.6 d),
and l,2,4,5tetrachlorobenzene (t]/2 = 12.6 d). In the non-sterile
McLaurin sandy loam, hexachlorobenzene (t]/2 = 10.8 d), 2-
chloronaphthalene (ti/2 = 7.9 d), and nitrobenzene (t]/2 = 5.8 d) were
-------
45
Table 9. Average extraction efficiencies for selected hazardous
organics in a McLaurin sandy loam
Chemical Percent recovery3
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
g-Xylene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
cis_- 1 , 4 - dichloro - 2 -butene
1,2,3- trichloropropane
2 - chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5- tetrachlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
74
67
104
69
71
58
103
76
123
115
78
98
40
40
88
93
S.D.b
6.6
6.1
0.7
7.9
9.0
8.1
7.1
3.5
19.1
6.4
1.5
5.7
1.5
13.2
7.2
8.6
aMean percent of three triplicate experiments.
S.D. = one standard deviation of the mean.
-------
46
Table 10. Average extraction efficiencies for selected
hazardous organics in a Captina silt loam
Chemical Percent recovery3 S.D.^
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
E-Xylene
1,2- dichlorobenzene
cis- 1,4- dichloro - 2 -butene
1,2,3- trichloropropane
2 - chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5- tetrachlorobenzene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
72
70
114
64
73
65
97
68
114
112
72
90
28
28
83
93
2.1
4.4
19.1
4.5
11.4
20.0
0.0
5.9
5.7
0.0
6.1
1.4
4.0
12.5
6.1
12.1
aMean percent of three replicate experiments.
°S.D. = one standard deviation of the mean.
-------
47
Table 11. Degradation half-lives for selected hazardous organics in a
Captina silt loam and a McLaurin sandy loam in the dark at 20°C.
Half-lives were obtained for both sterile (autoclaved) and
non-sterile samples within each soil type and were
calculated from the first-order kinetic
expression, t]/2 = 0.693/kei
Chemical
Half-life (days)
Captina silt loam McLaurin sandy loam
Non-sterile Sterile Non-sterile Sterile
Methyl ethyl ketone
Te trahydro fur an
Benzene
Toluene
g-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis-1 .4-Dichloro-2-butene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 3 -Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2 - Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
1 , 2 ,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
6.5
7.4
3.1
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.8
23.1
2.5
5.3
4.0
3.2
12.6
3.1
12.6
13.6
8.2
10.8
3.3
2.5
1.9
2.0
3.3
11.2
1.9
6.5
2.4
3.5
16.9
2.4
5.0
10.8
4.1
4.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.1
5.8
1.9
3.4
2.3
2.5
7.9
1.9
5.5
10.8
4.1
4.8
2.4
2.2
1.9
1.8
2.2
5.8
1.8
7.0
2.8
2.4
9.1
2.0
6.2
11.6
-------
48
Table 12. First-order degradation rate constants for selected hazardous
organics in a Captina silt loam and a McLaurin sandy loam. Degradation
experiments were conducted in the dark at 20°C. Rate constants were
obtained for both sterile (autoclaved) and non-sterile soils of
each type by fitting a linear plot to the data and multiplying
the corresponding slope by 2.303 (In 10)
Half-life (days)
Chemical
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
E-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 3-Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2 - Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
1,2 ,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Non- sterile
0.106
0.094
0.223
0.266
0.246
0.260
0.251
0.030
0.281
0.131
0.173
0.216
0.055
0.226
0.055
0.051
Sterile
0.085
0.064
0.207
0.276
0.362
0.341
0.210
0.062
0.359
0.106
0.286
0.196
0.041
0.288
0.138
0.064
Non- sterile
0.168
0.145
0.292
0.345
0.432
0.389
0.329
0.120
0.373
0.205
0.302
0.272
0.088
0.364
0.125
0.064
Sterile
0.168
0.145
0.290
0.313
0.366
0.378
0.320
0.120
0.375
0.099
0.244
0.290
0.076
0.350
0.111
0.060
-------
49
the most persistent. Least persistent in the non-sterile Captina silt
loam were cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene (tj/2 - 2.5 d), toluene
(t]/2 = 2.6 d) chlorobenzene (t]/2 " 2.7 d), chloroform and g-xylene
(t]/2 ~ 2.8 d), and benzene and ethylene dibromide (t]/2 = 3.1 d).
Similarly, the shortest half-lives in the non-sterile McLaurin sandy
loam were observed for j>-xylene (t]/2 - 1.6 d), chlorobenzene
(t]/2 •» 1.8 d), and cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene and ethylene dibromide
(t1/2 - 1.9 d).
For all chemicals, degradation half lives were shorter and
degradation rate constants were greater in the nonsterile McLaurin
sandy loam than those in the non-sterile Captina silt loam; however,
the statistical significance of these differences could not be readily
evaluated given that the data were based only on duplicate experiments.
Despite the fact that autoclaved soils proved to be sterile, as
determined by the absence of CC>2 efflux from the soils and the absence
of microbial colonies on nutrient agar plates prepared from these
soils, differences between chemical degradation half lives and rate
constants for sterile and non-sterile soils were slight or nonexistent
(Tables 11 and 12). This finding indicates that non-biological factors
were more important during the 7-day experimental period than microbial
degradation as a mechanism for non-recovery of the test chemicals from
soils.
While chemicals could volatilize from the soils during the
experiments, these vapors were recovered in charcoal traps and were
accounted for in the total recoveries, thus volatility is not one of
the contributing losses in these experiments. The amount found in
vapor traps for each chemical corresponded well with Henry's constants,
that is, those chemicals with high Henry's constants were likely to be
present in detectable quantities in the traps, whereas, those with low
Henry's constants were not. (See Appendix 9.5 for data on the amount
of each chemical recovered from soil and charcoal traps at each time
period).
Attempts to correlate degradation half-lives and degradation rate
constants with physicochemical properties [i.e., log^o Kow, vapor
pressure (Torr), molecular weight, log^o molecular weight, and
-------
50
water solubility (mol/L)] of all the test chemicals (N = 16) yielded
poor results. Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) ranged
from 0.00 to 0.63 (Tables 13 and 14). However, similar regressions for
a subset of structurally related test chemicals (benzene, toluene,
I>-xylene, chlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobenzene) showed good
correlations with all parameters except vapor pressure and for all
soils except the sterile Captina silt loam (Tables 15 and 16).
Molecular connectivity (^x) (Kier and Hall 1986) also showed good
correlations with degradation half-lives and rate constants, with the
exception of the sterile Captina silt loam, using the ^x values
calculated by Sabljic' (1987).
Very few studies have been conducted to develop structure-activity
relationships for biological degradation of organic contaminants in
soils. One such study by Alexander and Lustigman (1966) on
biodegradation of substituted benzenes showed that chloro- and nitro-
groups enhanced their persistence in soils, an observation that is
supported by the present study.
In contrast to the paucity of data in soil systems, a considerable
data base exists on biodegradation and structure-activity analysis of
organic contaminants in aquatic systems. Many of these studies show
biodegradation to be negatively correlated with Kow (e.g., Vaishnav et
al. 1987, Beltrame et al. 1984, and Fitter 1985 and 1976). Niemi, et
al., (1987) found molecular connectivity indices and Kow to be useful
structural features for predicting the relative degradability of
organic chemicals in water.
While the trends observed for relative disappearance rates of the
test chemicals in this study are in keeping with what is expected based
on structure-activity analysis of organics in other studies, biological
degradation was not evident on the basis of differences in
disappearance rates between sterile and non-sterile soils of each type.
The only evidence for biodegradation is indirect, that of elevated C02
efflux from soils treated with individual chemicals. Benzene,
£-xylene, and chlorobenzene were among the most rapidly disappearing
substances and also stimulated (X>2 efflux; however, in most instances
-------
51
Table 13. Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) for
physicochemical properties of hazardous organics (N=16) when
correlated with degradation half-lives
Parameter
loglO Kow
Vapor pressure (Torr)
Molecular weight (M.W.)
log^Q M.W.
log^o H20 solubility (M)
Captina
Sterile
0.03
0.18
0.20
0.13
0.11
silt loam
Non- sterile
0.26
0.30
0.37
0.33
0.29
McLaurin
Sterile
0.61
0.33
0.63
0.54
0.55
sandv loam
Non-sterile
0.55
0.25
0.61
0.50
0.48
-------
52
Table 14. Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) for
physicochemical properties of hazardous organics (N=16) when
correlated with first-order degradation rate constants
Parameter
1°610 Kow
Vapor pressure (Torr)
Molecular weight (M.W.)
log^Q M.W.
Iog10 H20 solubility (M)
Captina
Sterile
0.03
0.09
0.21
0.12
0.02
silt loam
Non-sterile
0.22
0.28
0.39
0.31
0.28
McLaurin
Sterile
0.30
0.23
0.40
0.32
0.34
sandv loam
Non-sterile
0.24
0.09
0.39
0.29
0.26
-------
53
Table 15. Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) for
physicochemical properties of benzene and several
substituted benzenesa when correlated with
degradation half-lives
Parameter
loS10 Kow
Vapor pressure (Torr)
Molecular weight (M.W.)
Iog10 M.W.
1°§10 ^0 solubility (M)
Molecular connectivity (^x
Caotina
Sterile
0.83
0.30
0.88
0.84
0.77
) 0.83
silt loam
Non-sterile
0.94
0.09
0.96
0.93
0.98
0.93
McLaurin
Sterile
0.89
0.33
0.93
0.90
0.85
0.89
sandy loom
Non- sterile
0.93
0.22
0.95
0.89
0.88
0.93
aBenzene, chlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene,
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, toluene, and j>-xylene.
-------
54
Table 16. Least squares linear regression coefficients (r) for
physicochemical properties of benzene and several
substituted benzenes when correlated with
first-order degradation rate constants
Parameter
l°glO Kow
Vapor pressure (Torr)
Molecular weight (M.W.)
log^Q M.W.
logio H2° solubility (M)
Molecular connectivity (^x
Captina
Sterile
0.65
0.02
0.74
0.71
0.68
) 0.65
silt loam
Non- sterile
0.86
0.09
0.91
0.92
0.91
0.86
McLaurin
Sterile
0.76
0.13
0.82
0.83
0.79
0.76
sandy loom
Non-sterile
0.80
0.01
0.87
0.85
0.84
0.79
aBenzene, chlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene,
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, toluene, and j>"xylene-
-------
55
the elevated C(>2 was detected after the first half-life of the chemical
had passed. Thus, if elevated C02 evolution, as measured in the
microbial toxicity tests, correlated with biological mineralization in
the degradation studies, differences between sterile and non-sterile
soils were being exhibited toward the latter part of this study when
analyses were conducted near the detection limits of the analytical
instruments.
Inspection of the graphs showing the rate of disappearance of test
chemicals from sterile and non-sterile soils in Appendix 9.5, shows
that losses of most chemicals appears to occur in two phases, an
initial fast phase, and second slow phase. The most probable
explanation for nonbiological losses of the test chemicals from soils
is that of irreversible partitioning into the organic component of the
soil rather than to chemical reactivity, because polychlorinated
benzenes such as hexachlorobenzene are known to be environmentally
stable (Mill and Haag 1986).
Selected soil samples were extracted exhaustively with methanol
and with methylene chloride following the routine triplicate extraction
with methanol for the degradation studies. Methylene chloride is more
common than methanol as a soil extractant but was not used in this
study because of interference with chromatographic peaks of some
analytes. Although these additional extractions did not recover
detectable amounts of test chemicals, the possibility that chemicals
were bound on soil organic matter cannot be ruled out. The use of
radiolabeled test chemicals would permit an unequivocal resolution of
this issue.
6.5 BIOLOGICAL ACCUMULATION
Few data were found for experimentally determined biological
accumulation under steady state conditions for the 24 chemicals
included in this study. In most instances, those data available
applied to aquatic organisms rather than to terrestrial species. Of
course, terrestrial plant and animal data would be more relevant to the
environmental hazards associated with the treatability of hazardous
organic chemicals in soils.
-------
56
Results of computer searches for toxicity, bioaccumulation, and
physicochemical data, including supplemental entries from published
reports and other numeric data bases, were transmitted separately to
the R. S. Kerr Environmental Laboratory in December, 1986 (Lu et al.
1986). Because of the lack of relevant data on bioaccumulation, the
method of Gillett (1983) was used to predict bioaccumulation based on
physicochemical properties of molecules. Partition coefficients for
test chemicals are listed in Table 17.
Using Gillett's criteria, the following chemicals are highly
unlikely to pose a bioaccumulation problem in plants or animals based
on partitioning considerations alone, i.e., log Kow < 2.5:
Acrylonitrile, furan, methyl ethyl ketone, tetrahydrofuran, benzene,
1,2-dichloroethane, chloroform, nitrobenzene,
trans-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. 1,2,3-trichloropropane, benzidine, and
ethylene dibromide. Although an experimentally determined Kow was not
found for cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. it is reasonable to assume that it
is less than that of the trans-isomer (i.e., Kow < 1.73 ) because
polarity of a molecule is favored by nonsymmetry. Thus,
cis-1.4-dichloro- 2-butene would not be expected to accumulate in plants
or animals.
Using the additional criterion that chemicals with tjy2 = < 4 d in
soil tend to be degraded within a fraction of the lifetime of most
animals and within a fraction of a plant's growing season (Gillett
1983), then the following chemicals can be added to those unlikely to
pose environmental problems due to bioaccumulation: Toluene,
chlorobenzene, carbon tetrachloride, and £-xylene.
Chemicals with log Kow > 3.5 and tj/2 (soil) > ^ day8 are °f
considerable concern for bioaccumulatilon (Gillett 1983). Of the
24 hazardous organics in the present study, only the
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene were in this category.
Both 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene have been shown
to accumulate in fish, with reported bioconcentration factors (BCF) of
4,500 and 8,600, respectively (Kenaga 1980).
Chemicals in this study for which bioaccumulation should be
evaluated on a weight of evidence basis are 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
-------
57
Table 17. Partition coefficients in n-octanol:water (Kow) for
selected hazardous chemicals (as reported in
Lu, et al., 1986)
Chemical L°glO Kow
Acrylonitrile 0.12
Furan 1.34
Methyl ethyl ketone 0.28a
Tetrahydrofuran 0.46
Benzene 1.95a
Toluene 2.71
1,2-Dichloroethane 1.48
E-Xylene 3.15
Chlorobenzene 2.83
Chloroform 1.97
Nitrobenzene 1.87a
trans -1.4-Dichloro- 2-butene 1.73
cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene —
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3.38
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 2.01
Carbon tetrachloride 2.64
2-Chloronaphthalene —
Benzidine 1.81
Ethylene dibromide 1.76b
3,3-Dimethylbenzidine —
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 4.93
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 3.02
Me thapyr i1ene —
Hexachlorobenzene 6.35°
Calculated as the mean of two Kow values.
bCalculated according to Lyman et al. (1982).
-------
58
2-chloronaphthalene, 3,3'-dimethyIbenzidine, 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine,
and methapyrilene; however, more environmental data are needed before
. such evaluations can be made.
6.6 STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY ANALYSIS OF MICROBIAL RESPIRATION DATA
Attempts to correlate chemical effects on soil microbial
respiration with log^Q of the following physicochemical properties
failed to show significant linear correlations for the group of
19 chemicals for which data were available: n-octanol:water partition
coefficients (Kow), aqueous solubilities (M), vapor pressures (Torr),
and Henry's Law constants (Torr/M). Because the sorption partition
coefficients (Kp) and partition coefficients for organic carbon in soil
(Koc) have been shown to be highly correlated with Kow, these
parameters were not included in the analysis because of their
redundancy.
The biological data obtained in the respiration experiments are
not typical of those used in whole organism structure-activity
relationship (SAR) studies where toxicity is reported as a lethal dose
to a given percentage of the treatment population (e.g., LD5Q), as an
effective concentration (e.g., £050), or as a lethal concentration
(e.g., LC50). Unfortunately, experiments designed to express toxicity
as an effective concentration for the present study (i.e., the amount
required to reduce respiration by a given percentage) would be
impractical for a number of reasons: (1) Many of the chemicals are
solvents of low toxicity to microorganisms and are likely to affect
respiration only at high concentrations. Thus, increases in chemical
loading until an effective concentration is observed simply may
decrease oxygen diffusion in the soil, rather than produce direct
toxicity to the microorganisms. Such data are likely to detract from
meaningful SAR correlations. (2) Individual chemical loading rates on
soils in excess of 1000 Mg'g are not realistic in the context of
environmentally acceptable treatment of waste chemical mixtures in
soils (Matthews, personal communication), therefore, it was irrevelant
to the purpose of this study to exceed 1000 A»g*g~^ for the toxicity
tests. Thus, the approach of comparing toxicological effects resulting
-------
59
from treatment at a fixed dose (e.g., 1000 pg«g ), rather than basing
analysis on the concentration of chemical that produces a fixed
response (such as a 50 percent decrease in microbial respiration rate),
is a reasonable alternative and was employed for this study.
Initially, Day 4 respiration data were arbitrarily selected for
SAR analysis based on the observation that many chemicals showed a
delayed effect on microbial respiration, yet recovered to control
conditions by the end of the experiment (Day 6). Thus, Day 4 data
provided enough time for the effect to be exerted, but not so much time
that the effect disappeared. These data were expressed two ways for
each chemical: (1) as the difference between treatments and matched
controls on Day 4 [i.e., (C02 EFFLUXcontrol) - (C02 EFFLUXtreatment)]
and (2) as the log^Q of the ratio of C02 efflux in the treatment to
that of the control, that is,
Respiratory effect - loglo[(C02 EFFLUXtreatment)/(C02
EFFLUXcontrol)] (10)
The latter transformation permitted log linear relationships between
biological activity and chemical structure to be examined. Because of
the presence of negative numbers, this could not be done for the data
set based on differences. These data for all chemicals are summarized
in Table 18.
Linear regression analyses for physicochemical properties and
respiratory effects were also attempted using data from days other than
Day 4. A data set was constructed using Day 2 values for each chemical
and another was established using data for the day that yielded the
greatest deviation from the control for each test chemical. In other
words, treatment day varied; only maximum response was recorded. In
each case, no marked improvement was observed compared to the results
obtained with the Day 4 numbers; thus, the rationale for selecting
Day 4 appeared to be justified.
In addition to regressions of respiratory effects against
nonblological properties of the molecules, the Day 4 data were also
compared with the rat oral LDso (mmol/kg) and the log^Q of the LD5Q for
-------
60
Table 18. Effects of individual chemicals on C02 efflux from soils on
Day 4 at 1000 j*g/g soil (dry weight)
Effect on C02 efflux (Day 4)
Chemical
Captina silt loam
McLaurin sandy loam
Difference3 Ratiob Difference3 Ratiob
(A*g*g soil'1-!!'1) (j*g*g soil"1'h"1)
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
1, 2-Dichloroethane
jj-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
trans -1.4- Dichloro - 2 -butene
cis - 1 . 4 - Dichloro - 2 -butene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2, 3 -Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
Ethylene dibromide
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
-0.96
-0.22
1.77
0.22
0.52
0.36
-0.04
0.70
0.29
0.97
-0.55
-0.67
0.40
0.12
0.09
0.21
0.94
-0.15
-0.73
-0.230
-0.040
0.212
0.081
0.086
0.055
0.018
0.091
0.054
0.143
-0.109
-0.375
-0.248
0.019
0.035
0.034
0.148
-0.037
-0.202
-0.59
0.27
0.36
0.10
2.48
0.44
0.18
0.59
0.71
0.90
-0.61
-0.40
0.45
-0.22
0.18
-0.34
0.50
0.06
0.21
-0.387
0.092
0.108
0.050
0.492
0.154
0.062
0.177
0.248
0.249
-0.409
-0.248
-0.283
-0.082
0.084
-0.102
0.173
0.048
0.158
aRespiratory effect is expressed as the difference between treatments
and matched controls on Day 4 [i.e., (C02 EFFLUXcontroi) - (C02
EFFLUXtreatment)]•
"Respiratory effect is expressed as the log^o of the ratio of CC>2
efflux in the treatment to that of the control, [i.e., Respiratory
effect - Iog10 [(C02 EFFLUXtreatment)/(C02 EFFLUXcontrol)].
-------
61
each chemical. LDso data were found for all of the chemicals except
furan and tetrahydrofuran, and ranged from 0.047 mmol/kg (3.4 mg/kg)
for methyl ethyl ketone to 63 mmol/kg (4.9 mg/kg) for benzene.
Correlation coefficients for these regressions were extremely poor
(Table 19), indicating that acute, lethal toxicity in rats was of no
value for predicting even relative toxicity of the chemicals to soil
microorganisms.
Although the SAR analyses for the whole group of 19 chemicals did
not show either Kow, water solubility, vapor pressure, Henry's law
constant, or rat acute toxicity to be correlated with chemical effects
on soil microbial respiration, analysis of a subset of chemicals of
relatively similar structures yielded good correlations of respiratory
effects with Kow for the Captina silt loam (Table 20). This subset was
benzene, toluene, £-xylene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene,
tetrachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobenzene.
The relationship of respiration effect to Kow is described by the
following equation for the Captina silt loam.
y - 0.239 -0.064 x, N - 7, r - 0.91 (11)
where y is Iog10 [(C02 EFFLUXtreatment)/(co2 EFFLUXcontrol)], x is Kow,
N is the number of chemicals and r is the correlation coefficient.
This correlation was slightly improved by using molecular connectivity
(1X) instead of Kow (Table 21):
y = 0.239x -0.0636 N - 7, r - 0.94 (12)
where x is ^x (Fig- 9). Correlations were considerably lower for the
McLaurin sandy loam (Table 20), which may be due to the lower organic
carbon content of the soil such that nonbiological factors other than
partitioning predominate (Zelles et al. 1986).
-------
62
Table 19. Correlation coefficients (r) for physicochemical properties
of 16 organic chemicals when correlated with their effect on soil
microbial respiration. None of the correlations is significant
using Student's t test (p < 0.05). Microbial respiration was
expressed as log^o of the ratio (CC-2 EFFLUXtreatment)/
(C02 EFFLUXcontroi) in a Captina silt loam
and a McLaurin sandy loam
Correlation coefficient (r)
Property Captina silt loam McLaurin sandy loam
Kow 0.19 0.24
vapor pressure (Torr) 0.03 0.03
L,°gio water solubility (M) 0.04 0.10
Logio Henry's constant (Torr/M) 0.25 0.02
L°810 rat oral ^50 (mmol/kg) 0.13 0.04
-------
63
Table 20. Correlation coefficients (r) for physicochemical properties
of 7 chloro- and alkyl- benzene derivativesa when correlated with
their effect on soil microbial respiration. Microbial
respiration was expressed as the log^Q of the ratio
of (C02 EFFLUXtreatment)/(C02 EFFLUXcontrol) in
a Captina silt loam and a McLaurin sandy loam
Correlation coefficient (r)
Property Captina silt loam McLaurin sandy loam
L°S10 Kow
Molecular connectivity
Log^o vapor pressure (Torr)
LogiQ water solubility (M)
LogiQ Henry's constant (Torr/M)
Logio rat oral LD5Q (mmol/kg)
0.91°
i
0.94b
0.84C
0.84C
0.85C
0.18d
0.45°
0.44d
0.64d
0.64d
0.79°
0.79°
aBenzene; toluene; p-xylene; chlorobenzene; 1,2-dichlorobenzene;
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobenzene.
bSignificant at the 99% level (Student t-test).
Significant at the 95% level.
dNot significant at the 95% level.
-------
64
Table 21. Partition coefficients in noctanoI/water (Kow) and
molecular connectivity indices ( x) f°r benzene,
alkylbenzenes, and chlorobenzenes
Chemical
Benzene
Toluene
g-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1.95 (1.56,2.15)°
2.50 (2.69,2.15)°
3.15
2.83
3.38
4.93
6.35d
3.000
3.394
3.788
3.394
3.805
4.609
5.464
aObtained from the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (U.S.
Health and Human Services 1987).
bObtained from Sabljic (1987).
cCalculated as the arithmatic mean of the values in
parentheses.
Calculated according to Lyman et al. (1982) using the
fragment method.
Dept.
-------
65
0.1
c
o
o
c °
o
a
o
ORNL-OWG 88M-9426
X
D
-0.1
u_
UJ
O -0.2
O)
O
-0.3
y = 0.456-0.114 x r = 0.94
34s
MOLECULAR CONNECTIVITY 1
Fig. 9. Regression of soil microbial respiration [C02 efflux
(treatment/control) in /jg«g~^«h~l] on molecular connectivity indices
( X) of benzene, alkylbenzenes, and chlorobenzenes.
-------
66
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Selected hazardous organics, primarily volatiles and
semivolatiles, were evaluated for toxicity to soil microrganisms,
sorption on soil, degradation, and potential for bioaccumulation in
terrestrial plants and animals. In addition, a structure-activity
approach was used for data analysis, because this technique may prove
useful to predict rate constants for biodegradation and microbial
toxicity of organic compounds in soils as well as to provide criteria
to prescreen hazardous organic contaminants for potential ecotoxicity.
These capabilities are needed for mathematical modeling of chemical
fate in the terrestrial environment and for conducting environmental
risk assessments.
The chemicals included in the study were acrylonitrile, furan,
methyl ethyl ketone, tetrahydrofuran, benzene, toluene,
1,2-dichloroethane, j>"xylenei chlorobenzene, chloroform, nitrobenzene,
trans-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene. 1,2-
dichlorobenzene, '1,2,3-trichloropropane, carbon tetrachloride,
2-chloronaphthalene, benzidine, ethylene dibromide,
3,3'-dimethyIbenzidine, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene,
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine, methapyrilene, and hexachlorobenzene.
The two study soils used were from areas of high humidity and warm
climates, in the Southeastern United States, where microbial
degradation of hazardous organics may be favorable. They were a
McLaurin sandy loam from Wiggins County, Mississippi, and a Captina
silt loam from Roane County, Tennessee. Both soils were slightly
acidic and low in organic carbon.
Sorption partition coefficients with soil organic matter (log^Q
KQC) were high for 2-chloronaphthalene (4.65) and hexachlorobenzene
(4.59); moderate for toluene (2.19), £-xylene (2.60), chlorobenzene
(2.33), cis.-1,4-dichloro-2-butene (2.33), 1,2-dichlorobenzene (2.99),
carbon tetrachloride (2.06), nitrobenzene (1.99), 1,2,3-
trichloropropane (1.92), and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (2.79); and low
for acrylonitrile (1.09), furan (1.48), methyl ethyl ketone (1.50),
tetrahydrofuran (1.33), benzene (1.78), chloroform (1.54), and ethylene
-------
67
dibromide (1.71). Chemicals with high partition coefficients are more
likely to cause environmental problems due to persistence in soils,
whereas those with a low sorption potential are more likely to be
leached into ground water unless degradation occurs.
Those chemicals with the longest half-lives (tj/2) ^n soil were
nitrobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, and
2-chloronaphthalene; whereas those rapidly nonrecoverable (t]/2 < 3
days) by solvent extraction were p_-xylene; chlorobenzene; chloroform;
and cis-l,4dichlorobenzene. Initially, non-biological processes
instead of biological degradation dominated chemical losses from soils;
however, whether disappearance of the chemicals was due to irreversible
binding to the solid phase or to degradation and decomposition could
not be established from these studies.
Although most chemicals depressed carbon dioxide efflux in soils
when applied individually at 1000 ^g*g soil dry weight, this effect
was not apparent within a few days. Tetrachlorobenzene was the only
chemical of 24 tested that did not affect soil microbial respiration at
the 1000 /ig*g loading rate. Although acrylonitrile, nitrobenzene,
methapyrilene, and l,4-dichloro-4-butenes were toxic at 1000 /^g-g ,
depression of CC>2 was temporary at 500 /jg«g~ . Thus, none of the
chemicals evaluated showed a high potential for adverse effects on
microbial activity in the soil types tested.
Evaluation of all 24 chemicals for bioaccumulation potential based
on physicochemical properties implicated only
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene and hexachlorobenzene to be of high concern;
however, the following chemicals could not be judged due to a lack of
appropriate data: 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 2-chloronaphthalene, 3,3'-
dimethylbenzidine, 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine, and methapyrilene.
Structure-activity analysis of sorption data for 16 chemicals
showed a good linear correlation (r - 0.94) between experimentally
determined Koc and Koc predicted from Kow. Because Koc experiments
were conducted with mixtures of chemicals, this finding indicates that
predictive equations for sorption of individual hydrophobic organics in
sediments can be applied with high reliability to mixtures of volatile
and semivolatile organics in soils.
-------
68
Linear correlations for physicochemical parameters with chemical
effects on soil respiration and degradation parameters (t^/2 an<*
degradation rate constants) were poor for the complete data set, but
were quite good for a subset of benzene and its chloro- and alkyl-
derivatives. The latter findings indicate that structure-activity
analyses may be used to predict degradation and effects of organic
chemicals in matrices as complex as soils although multiple
structure-activity relationships may be required for large data sets of
structurally diverse compounds.
8. REFERENCES
Alexander, M. and B. K. Lustigman. 1966. Effect of chemical structure
on microbial degradation of substituted benzenes. J. Agr. Food
Chem. 14(4):410-413.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1985. Panel
Presentation and Discussion of Methods for Characterizing and
Identifying Hazardous Wastes. Tenth Annual AOAC Spring Training
Workshop, April 11, 1985, Sheraton Dallas Hotel, Dallas, Texas.
Baughman, G.L., D.F. Paris, and W.C. Steen. 1980. Quantitative
expression of biotransformation rate. pp. 105-111. In A.W. Maki,
K.L. Dickson, and J. Cairns, Jr., eds., Biotransformation and Fate
of Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment. American Society of
Microbiology: Washington, D.C.
Beltrame, P., P. L. Beltrame, and P. Carniti. 1984. Inhibiting action
of chloro- and nitro-phenols on biodegradation of phenol: A
structure-toxicity relationship. Chemosphere 13(1):3-9.
Boyd. S. A., C.-W. Kao, and J. M. Suflita. 1984. Fate of
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine in soil: Persistence and binding.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:201-208.
Chiou, C. T., L. J. Peters, and V. H. Freed. 1979. A physical concept
of soil-water equilibria for nonionic organic compounds. Science
(Washington, D. C.) 206:831.
-------
69
Chlou, C. T., P. E. Porter, and D. W. Schmedding. 1983. Partition
equilibria of nonionic compounds between soil organic matter and
water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17 (4):227-230.
Edwards, N. T. 1982. A time-saving technique for measuring
respiration rates in incubated soil samples. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 46:1114-1116.
Garbarini, D. R. and L. W. Lion. 1985. Evaluation of sorptive
partitioning of nonionic pollutants in closed systems by
headspace analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19:1122-1127.
Gee, G. W. and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size analysis.
pp. 383-411. In A. Klute, ed., Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1.
Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy Monograph no. 9 (2nd
Edition). American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Soil Science
Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin. 1188 pp.
Gillett, J. W. 1983. A comprehensive prebiological screen for
ecotoxicologic effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2:463476.
Graveel, J. G., L. E. Sommers, and D. W. Nelson. 1985. Sites of
benzidine, a-naphthylamine and jj-toluidine retention in soils.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:607-613.
Graveel, J. G., L. E. Sommers, and D. W. Nelson. 1986. Decomposition
of benzidine, a-naphthylamine, and j>-toluidine in soils.
J. Environ. Quality 14(1):53-59.
Gschwend, P. M. and S.-C. Wu. 1985. On the constancy of
sediment-water partition coefficients of hydrophobic organic
pollutants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19:90-96.
Hassett, J. P. and M. A. Anderson. 1982. Effects of dissolved organic
matter on adsorption of hydrophobic organic compounds by river-
and sewage-borne particles. Water Res. 16:681-686.
Holmgren, G. G. S., R. L. Juve, and R. C. Geschwender. 1977. A
mechanically controlled variable rate leaching device. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 41:1207-1208.
-------
70
Howard, P. H., H. C. Sikka, and S. Banerjee. 1981. Test methods for
determining the biodegradation of organic chemicals in the aquatic
environment. In G. Zweig and M. Beroza, eds. Test Protocols for
Environmental Fate and Movement of Toxicants. Association of
Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA. pp. 150-167.
Johnson, D. W., D. D. Richter, G. M. Lovett, and S. E. Lindberg. 1985.
The effects of atmospheric deposition on potassium, calcium, and
magnesium cycling in two deciduous forests. Can. J. For. Res.
15:774-782.
Karickhoff, S. W., D. S. Brown, and T. A. Scott. 1979. Sorption of
hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments. Water Res.
13:241-248.
Kenaga, E. E. 1980. Predicted bioconcentration factors and soil
sorption coefficients of pesticides and other chemicals.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 4:26-38.
Kier, L. B. and L. H Hall. 1986. Molecular Connectivity in
Structure-Activity Analysis, pp. 262. Research Studies Press
Ltd.: Letchworth, Hertfordshire, England.
Larson, R.J. 1980. Role of biodegradation kinetics in predicting
environmental fate. pp. 67-86. In A.W. Maki, K.L. Dickson, and
J. Cairns, Jr., eds., Biotransformation and Fate of Chemicals in
the Aquatic Environment. American Society of Microbiology:
Washington, D.C.
Lu, P.-Y., B. T. Walton, E. B. Lewis, B. W. Kline, J. H. Scott, and
G. E. Groover. 1986. Chemical information profile of selected
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act chemicals. ORNL Internal
Report to the Robert S. Kerr Research Laboratory, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Oak Ridge, TN. 7 volumes.
Lyman, W. J. 1982. Adsorption coefficient for soils and sediments.
In W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, eds. Handbook
of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior
of Organic Compounds. McGraw- Hill Book Company: New York.
Lyman, W. J., W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of
Organic Compounds. McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York.
-------
71
Maskarinec, M. P. , J. E. Goodin, and L. Moody. 1987. Data base for
establishment of preanalytical holding times, pp. 6-183 to 6-195.
Proceedings of Third Annual Symposium on Solid Waste Testing and
Quality Assurance. American Public Works Association:
Washington, D. C.
Mill, T. and W. Haag. 1986. Environmental fate of hexachlorobenzene.
61-66. Hexachlorobenzene: Proceedings of an International
Symposium. IARC Scientific Publication No. 77. Lyon, France.
Mill, T., W. R. Mabey, D. C. Bomberger, T.-W. Chou, D. G. Hendry, and
J. H. Smith. 1982. Laboratory Protocols for Evaluating the Fate
of Organic Chemicals in Air and Water, pp. 281-329. EPA Final
Report, EPA 600/3-82-022.
Morrill, L. G., B. C. Mahilum, and S. H. Mohiuddin. 1982. Predictive
models for quantitative decomposition of organic compounds in
soils, pp. 151-158. In L. G. Morrill, B. C. Mahilum, and
S. H. Mohiuddin, eds., Organic Compounds in Soils: Sorption.
Degradation and Persistence. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH). 1977.
Benzidine in air. In NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Part I.
Monitoring Methods. Second edition. Vol. 1, pp 243, 1-7. U. S.
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.
Niemi, G. J., G. D. Veith, R. R. Regal, and D. D. Vaishnav. 1987.
Structural features associated with degradable and persistent
chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6:515-527.
Page, A. L., R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeney. 1982. Methods of Soil
Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties.
Agronomy Monograph no. 9 (2nd Edition). American Society of
Agronomy, Inc. and Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison,
Wisconsin. 1159 pp.
Pitter, P. 1976. Determination of biological degradability of organic
substances. Water Res. 10:231-235.
Pitter, P. 1985. Correlation of microbial degradation rates with the
chemical structure. Acta hydrochim. hydrobiol. 13(4):453-460.
-------
72
Rice, J. R. and P. T. Kissinger. 1982. Liquid chromatography with
precolumn sample preconcentration and electrochemical detection:
Determination of aromatic amines in environmental samples.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:263268.
Rozycki, M. and R. Bartha. 1981. Problems associated with the use of
azide as an inhibitor of microbial activity in soil. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 41(3):833-836.
Sabljic', A. 1987. On the prediction of soil sorption coefficients of
organic pollutants from molecular structure: Application of
molecular topology model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:358-366.
Schwarzenbach, R. P. and J. Westall. 1981. Transport of nonpolar
organic compounds from surface water to groundwater. Laboratory
sorption studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15:1360-1367.
Scow, K. M. 1982. Rate of biodegradation. In W. J. Lyman,
W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, Handbook of Chemical Property
Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds.
McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York. pp. 9-1 to 9-85.
Skipper, H. D. and D. T. Westermann. 1973. Comparative effects of
propylene oxide, sodium azide, and autoclaving on selected soil
properties. Soil Biol. Biochem. 5:409-414.
U. S. Dept. Health and Human Services. 1987. Hazardous Substances
Data Bank. National Library of Medicine Toxnet File. National
Institute of Health. Bethesda, MD.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Rules and Regulations:
Sediment and soil adsorption isotherm. Federal Register
50(188):39275-39277.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Hazardous Waste
Management System: Proposed Rule. Appendix I. Federal Register
51(9):1750-1758.
-------
73
Vaishnav, D. D., R. S. Boethling, and L. Babeu. 1987. Quantitative
structure-biodegradability relationships for alcohols, ketones and
alicyclic compounds. Chemosphere 16(4):695-703.
Ward, M. H., G. S. Saylor, and R. J. Luxmoore. 1984. Synthetic fuel
oil effects on microbial activity and nitrogen transformations in
soil. ORNL/TM-8591. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. 76 pp.
Wilson, J. T., C. G. Enfield, W. J. Dunlap, R. L. Cosby, D. A. Foster,
and L. B. Baskin. 1981. Transport and fate of selected organic
pollutants in a sandy soil. J. Environ. Qual. 10(4):501-506.
Zelles, L. , I. Scheunert, and F. Korte. 1986. Comparison of methods
to test chemicals for side effects on soil microorganisms.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 12:53-69.
Zierath, D. L., J. J. Hassett, and W. L. Banwart. 1980. Sorption of
benzidine by sediments and soils. Soil Science 129(5):277-281.
-------
75
APPENDIX 9.1
SOIL RESPIRATION DATA
The appended tables summarize the experimental data for chemical
effects on soil microbial respiration. Carbon dioxide efflux, which is reported
in iig«g soil'1*!!'1, was measured on an infrared gas analyzer from 50-g soil
samples after addition of individually tested chemicals at the concentration
specified on each table. Data are presented for the following chemicals:
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chloronaphthalene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
3.3-Dichlorobenzidine
cis-l.4-Dichloro-2-butene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1,2-Dichloroethane
3,3-Dimethylbenzidine
Ethylene dibromide
Furan
Hexachlorobenzene
Methapyrilene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
p_-Xylene
-------
76
APPENDIX 9.1
ACRYLONITRILE
Table 9.1.1. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soil-'^rr1) from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm acrylonitrile. Values are the
means ± standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
2
3
1
5
6
Control
1.27
1.70
1.16
1.00
0.91
0.81
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.00
0.16
O.IO
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.56
0.17
0.61
0.11
0.52
0.17
0. 11
0.12
O.IO
0. II
0.01
0.07
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
2
3
1
5
6
Control
3.25
2.91
2.10
2. 31
1.99
1.79
Std. dev.
0.26
0.27
0.10
0.27
0.22
O.IO
1000 ppm
pg«g-l«h-1
2.11
1.88
1.53
1.36
1.25
1.21
Std. dev.
0.23
0.20
0.07
0.12
0.08
0.07
-------
77
APPENDIX 9.1
ACRYLONITRILE
Table 9.1.1.1. Carbon dioxide efflux(ug«g solH»fr') fromMcLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 500 ppm acrylonitrile. Values are the
means ± standard deviations for three replicates of control
and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev.
2
3
4
5
6
1.90
2.06
1.54
1.14
0.98
0.59
0.38
0.67
0.43
0.21
0.19
0.18
500 ppm
Ug«g-l«h-l
0.81
0.72
0.67
0.56
0.63
0.70
Std. dev.
0.21
0. 12
0.08
0.05
0. 17
0.37
Captina silt loam
(TNsoil) Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev. 500 ppm Std. dev.
2
3
4
5
6
2.66
1.99
1.65
1.36
1.18
0.66
0.23
0.28
0.30
0. 19
0.17
0.09
1.01
0.72
0.76
0.83
1.09
0.73
0.35
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.44
-------
78
APPENDIX 9.1
BENZENE
Table 9.1.2. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soil-Un-') from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm benzene. Values are the means
+ standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
«g-l«h-l
1.37
2.03
1.56
1.18
1.05
0.54
(MS soil)
Std. dev.
0.07
0/42
0.30
0.10
0.28
0.12
Mean of 3 re
1000 ppm
Mg«g-1«h-l
0.93
1.33
2.26
3.66
3.73
2.93
Std. dev.
0.26
0.4!
0.37
1.85
0.65
0.27
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg»g-1«h-l
3.29
2.94
2,73
2.39
2.23
1.88
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.59
0.47
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.27
3.93
3.44
3.07
2.91
2.80
2.35
0.65
0.62
0.49
0.28
0.41
0.36
-------
79
APPENDIX 9.1
BENZIDINE
Table 9. 1.3. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g solH^h-') from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm benzidine. Values are the means
± standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
1.74
1.88
0.54
1.01
0.98
0.86
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.37
0.47
0.18
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.92
1.23
0.45
0.78
0.78
0.70
0.10
0. 14
0.02
0. 10
0.04
0.06
Captina silt loam
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
2.55
1.92
0.60
1.18
1.12
0.97
(TNsoil) Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.49
0.27
0.09
0.17
0.23
0.25
1.45
1.88
0.66
1.07
1.01
0.93
0.34
0.13
0.05
0.07
0.12
0.13
-------
80
APPENDIX 9.1
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
Table 9.1.4 Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soll-'»h-') fromMcLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm carbon tetrachlorlde. Values
are the means ± standard deviations for three replicates of
control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
I
2
3
4
5
6
Control
jug«g-1«h-1
1.53
2.65
2.01
1.63
1.45
I. 14
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.32
0.69
0.47
0.30
0.24
0.20
0.72
1.45
1.79
1.29
1.18
1.05
0.07
0.25
0.14
0.24
0.10
0.21
Captina silt loam
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
«g-l«h-l
3. 12
3.08
2.91
2.59
2.39
2.10
(TN soil)
Std. dev.
0.52
0.83
0.34
0.34
0.35
0.32
Mean of 3 replicates
1000 ppm Std. dev.
pg«g-|»h-1
,29
32
,16
,80
2.66
2.23
0.38
0.25
0.18
0.35
0.39
0.25
-------
81
APPENDIX 9.1
CHLOROBENZENE
Table 9.1.5. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soll-'^tr') from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm chlorobenzene. Values are the
means ± standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
l«g-l«h-l
0.94
2.15
1.23
0.92
1.26
0.73
(MS soil)
Std. dev.
0.41
0.47
0.27
0. 17
0.33
0.19
Mean of 3 replicates
1000 ppm
Mg*g-1«h-I
0.54
0.81
1.63
1.63
2.03
1.02
Std. dev.
0.07
0.24
0.34
0.27
0.10
0.11
Captina silt loam
Day
(TNsoil) Mean of 3 replicates
Control Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
2
3
4
5-
6
2.12
2.72
2.64
2.19
2.81
1.69
2.62
2.30
1.10
0.82
1.21
0.71
4.92
3.66
3.50
2.48
3.72
2.05
1.97
0.57
0.54
0.3!
0.22
0.02
-------
82
APPENDIX 9.1
CHLOROFORM
Table 9.1.6 Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soiH«h-') from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm chloroform. Values are the
means ± standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
l«g-l»h-1
1.26
2.00
1.58
1. 16
1.21
0.94
(MS soil) Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0. 13
0.12
0. 14
0. 15
0.12
0.13
0.57
0.86
1.97
2.06
1.56
1.07
0.06
0.14
0.15
0.27
0.15
0.07
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
«g-l«h-l
3.04
3.13
2.59
2.48
2.37
2.08
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0,68
0.60
0.54
0.31
0.40
0.41
3.89
3.59
3.82
3.45
3.18
2.73
0.66
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.32
0.31
-------
83
APPENDIX 9.1
2-CHLORONAPTHALENE
TaDle 9.1.7 Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soiH^h-') from Mclaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after trtFatment with 1000 ppm 2-chloronapthalene. Values are
the means ± standard deviations for three replicates of control
and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std.
2
3
4
5
6
1.40
2.21
1.30
1.07
0.39
0.89
/.
0.16
0.38
0.30
0.19
0.02
0.08
1000 ppm
Mg«g-l«h-l
1.11
2.39
1.43
1.20
0.40
0.96
Std. dev.
0.28
0.10
0.15
0.13
0.03
0. 10
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev.
1000 ppm Std. dev.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.75
1.36
0.98
1.00
0.42
0.89
0.16
0.10
0.14
0. 11
0.04
0.08
1.32
1.36
0.78
0.82
0.31
0.74
0.25
0.34
0.27
0.27
0. 14
0.24
-------
84
APPENDIX 9.1
DICHLOROBENZENE
Table 9.1.8. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soiH^rr1) from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm dichlorobenzene. Values are the
means ± standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
;«g-1»h-I
0.89
2.03
2.01
1.27
1.79
0.88
Std.
dev.
0.34
0.56
0.75
0.20
0.50
0.28
1000 ppm
Mg«g-1»h-l
0.34
0.54
0.78
1.05
1.81
0.92
Std. dev.
0.12
0.07
0.10
0.04
0.14
0.03
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
«g-l«h-1
3.02
3.50
3.02
2.68
3.22
1.86
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.18
0.38
0.58
0.24
0.08
0.10
2.12
2.78
2.57
2.80
3.34
2.05
0.37
0.79
0.72
0.79
1.45
0.55
-------
85
APPENDIX 9.1
DICHLOROBENZIDINE
Table 9.1.9. Carbon dioxide efflux (|ig«g soil-Urr1) from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm dichlorobenzidine. Values are
the means ± standard deviations for three replicates of control
and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
0.78
2.69
3.71
0.49
0.81
0.23
(MS soil) Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.17
0.98
1.49
0.13
0. 18
0.03
1.05
2.46
4.28
0.50
1.07
0.29
0.21
0.97
0.65
0.10
0.23
0.03
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg«g-1«h-l
1.63
1.81
2.90
0.56
0.87
0.29
Std. dev.
0.10
1.11
0.29
0.11
0.07
0.03
1000 ppm
Hg«g-1«h-l
1.41
1.30
3.49
0.55
0.89
0.27
Std. dev.
0.44
0.47
1.05
0.11
0.14
0.07
-------
86
APPENDIX 9.1
C1S-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
Table 9.1.10. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soiH^rr1) from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm c_i2-l,4-dichloro-2-butene.
Values are the means ± standard deviations for three
replicates of control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
1.52
1.50
0.50
0.94
0.76
0.81
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.25
0.27
0.09
0.12
0.10
0.12
0.58
0.49
0.23
0.49
0.41
0.49
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.04
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
2.08
1.56
0.54
0.92
0.89
0.83
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.29
0.08
0.07
0.21
0.08
0.14
0.58
0.45
0.20
0.52
0.61
0.74
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.10
0.20
0.13
-------
87
APPENDIX 9.1
C1S-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
Table 9.1.10.1. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soil-'»h-') from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee
soil) after treatment with 500 ppm cjs_-l,4-dlchloro-2-
butene. Values are the means ± standard deviations for three
replicates of control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
Captina
Day
Control
Mg«g-i
1
2
3
4
5
6
silt loam
Control
pg«g-|
1
2
3
4
5
6
•
1
2
1
1
1
0
•
2
I
1
1
1
0
h-1
.81
.06
.47
.18
.07
.66
h-l
.37
.94
.36
.16
.07
.71
(MS soil)
Std. dev.
Mean of 3
500 ppm
replicates
Std. dev.
Mg«g-i»h-l
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(TN soil)
Std. dev.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
56
41
08
09
08
17
53
70
19
05
08
20
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
Mean of 3
500 ppm
Mg«g-l»h
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
99
72
63
89
21
73
replicates
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12
12
12
44
64
30
Std. dev.
-1
94
89
81
54
04
53
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
14
18
53
24
03
01
-------
88
APPENDIX 9.1
TRANS- 1 .4-DICHLORQ-2-BUTENE
Table 9.1.1 1. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soll-Uh'1) fromMcLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm l£ans-l,4-dlchloro-2-butene.
Values are the means t standard deviations for three
replicates of control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil) Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.61
1.76
0.47
0.92
0.81
0.83
0.13
0.22
0.03
0. 10
0.13
0.04
0.61
0.49
0.23
0.52
0.52
0.56
0.12
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.10
Captina silt loam
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg«g-l«h-l
2.15
1.88
0.66
1.16
1.03
1.09
(TNsoil) Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
ng«g-l»h-l
0.82 0.52 0.10
0.13 0.45 0.04
0.05 0.23 0.02
0.08 0.49 0.14
0.04 0.54 0.12
0.04 0.56 0.08
-------
89
APPENDIX 9.1
IKANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
Table 9.1.1 l.l. Carbon dioxide efflux (iig«g soll-Ufr1) from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee
sol I) after treatment with 500 ppm Irani-l,4-dichloro-2-
butene. Values are the means ± standard deviations for
three replicates of control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
Control
1
2
3
4
5
6
pg«g-1«h-1
2. 19
2.37
1.74
1.41
1. 18
0.78
(MS soil) Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev.
500 ppm
Std. dev.
0.23
0. 12
0.14
0.08
0. 12
0.05
0.86
0.56
0.56
0.72
1. 15
0.77
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.17
0.19
0.29
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
yg«g-l«h-1
3.11
2.08
1.88
1.52
1.32
0.88
Std. dev.
0.94
0.45
0.37
0.33
0.23
0.20
500 ppm
0.78
0.69
1.65
I. 17
1.04
0.56
Std. dev.
0.09
0.12
0.30
0.25
0.04
0.05
-------
90
APPENDIX 9.1
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
Table 9112 Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soil-'«rr') from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm 1,2-dlchloroethane. Values are
the means + standard deviations for three replicates of control
and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
0.84
1.37
1.59
1.17
0.38
0.92
(MS soil)
Std. dev.
Mean of 3 replicates
/.
0.13
0. 15
0.37
0.20
0. 10
0. 14
1000 ppm
Mg«g-1«h-l
0.39
1.36
1.70
1.35
0.41
0.83
Std. dev.
0.06
0.40
0. 10
0.20
0.05
0.17
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
I
2
3
4
5
6
Control
1.22
1.52
1.03
0.92
0.36
0.81
Std. dev.
0.28
0.37
0.34
0.24
0.02
0.31
1000 ppm
ng«g-l«h-l
0.47
1.54
0.96
0.88
0.35
1.05
Std. dev.
0.15
0.52
0.44
0.24
0.17
0.27
-------
91
APPENDIX 9.1
DIMETHYLBENZIDINE
Table 9.1.13. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soll-Utr1) from Mclaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm dlmethylbenzldlne. Values are
the means ± standard deviations for three replicates of control
and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil) Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev.
1000 ppm Std. dev.
2
3
4
5
6
0.92
2.21
1.12
1.02
0.38
0.81
0. 10
0.41
0.20
0. 16
0. 10
0. 13
1. 14
1. 12
1.21
1.35
0.41
0.96
0. 10
0.08
0.42
0.34
0.11
0.27
Captina silt
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
jag«g-|«h-l
2.06
1.29
1.21
1.10
0.44
0.94
Std. dev.
1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.39
0.15
0.35
0.26
0.09
0.18
0.88
1.85
1.21
1. 17
0.34
0.85
0.35
0.67
0.52
0.34
0.07
0.23
-------
92
APPENDIX 9.1
ETHYLENEDIBROMIDE
Table 9.1.14 Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soil-'«h-') from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm ethylene dibromide values
are the means t standard deviations for three replicates of
control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg«g- l
1.21
1.92
1.13
1.02
0.98
0.81
(MS soil) Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev.
1000 ppm
Std. dev.
0. 18
0.28
0. 1 1
0. 11
0. 15
Ot12
0.63
0.69
1.51
1.52
1.21
0.94
0.08
0.04
0.13
0.23
0. 13
0.13
Captina silt loam
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
3.87
3.48
2.53
2.31
2.35
1.94
(TNsoil) Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
/.
1.40
1.37
0.83
0.68
0.91
0.79
1000 ppm
Mg«g-l«h-l
3.93
3.70
3.25
3.25
2.91
2.44
0.50
0.75
0.58
0.69
0.53
0.48
-------
93
APPENDIX 9.1
FURAN
Table 9.1.15. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soll''«h-') from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm furan. Values are the means t
standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
0.78
1.88
1.56
1. 14
1.43
0.85
Std. dev.
1000 ppm Std. dev.
0. 19
0.35
0.45
0.24
0.21
0. 17
0.54
1.72
1.88
1.41
1.87
0.92
0.40
0.56
0.59
0.37
0.33
0.23
Captina silt loam
(TNsoil) Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
pg«g-l«h-l
3.84
3.52
3.41
2.46
3.69
2.13
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.41
0.51
0. 10
0.55
0.49
0.23
2.89
2.82
2.44
2.24
3.17
1.81
0.92
0.71
0.66
0.66
0.91
0.43
-------
94
APPENDIX 9.1
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
Table 9.1.16. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soil-urr1) from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm nexacniorobenzene. Values are
the means * standard deviations for three replicates of control
and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
Control
(MS soil)
Std. dev.
Mean of 3 replicates
1000 ppm
Std. dev.
2
3
4
5
6
1.09
1.72
2.60
0.48
0.74
0.23
0.43
0.22
0.40
0. 10
0.07
0.03
1.25
1.45
1.63
0.69
1.05
0.29
0. 10
0.27
0.33
0. 17
0. 14
0.03
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
4.68
3.86
12.99
1.96
3.45
0.95
Std. dev.
0.21
0.15
1.72
0.66
0.93
0.29
1000 ppm
jjig«g-1«h-1
4.04
2.91
3.44
1.23
2.21
0.79
Std. dev.
0.60
0.43
0.34
0.60
0.47
0.06
-------
95
APPENDIX 9.1
METHAPYRILENE
Table 9.1.17. Carbon dioxide efflux (u.g«g soil-Utr1) from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm methapynlene Values are the
means t standard deviations for three replicates of control
and treatment soils
MclaurinsanoY loam (MS soil) N=
Day Control
1 2.55
2 5.69
3 3.63
4 2.62
5 1.94
6 1.27
7 1.14
250 ppm
ig»g- l*h- 1
2.21
6.52
3.63
2.68
1.88
1.54
1.14
500 ppm
ug*q- |«h- 1
2.14
6.24
4.93
3.23
2.21
1.67
141
750 ppm
ug«g-1«h-l
1.01
3.09
2.21
1.61
1.14
0.67
081
lOOOp
ug*g-l'
1.27
2.08
2.95
2.55
1.61
1.07
0.81
Captinasilt loam (TNsoll) N=l
1000 ppm
g-Uh-
8
7.5
5.9
5.28
4.25
3.02
2.41
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control
ug«g- Uh- 1
9.04
7.57
6.73
5.83
4.38
3.57
3.16
250 ppm
MQ*
-------
96
APPENDIX 9.1
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
Table 9.1.18. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug*g soll-urr1) from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm methyl ethyl ketone. Values
are the means ± standard deviations for three replicates of
control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
Control
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
2
3
4
5
6
7
2.10
1.54
1.27
1.16
0.96
0.74
0.30
0.54
0.37
0.24
0. 17
0.20
0.12
0.47
0.98
1.79
1.63
1.47
1.16
1.07
0.14
0.04
0. 14
0.04
0.13
0.04
Captina silt loam
Day
Control
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3.61
3.44
3.23
,82
.50
2.
2.
M4
.88
0.17
0.52
0.24
0.41
0.21
0.07
0.07
3.49
4.17
4.45
4.59
6.15
8.76
11.76
0.95
0.65
0.47
0.49
0.72
0.88
1.73
-------
97
APPENDIX 9.1
NITROBENZENE
Table 9. 1. 19. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soil-'^rr1) from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm nitrobenzene. Values are the
means * standard deviations for three replicates of control
and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev.
2
3
4
5
6
l«h-l
1.27
1.90
1.28
1.00
1.03
0.85
0. 18
0.22
0.35
0.12
0. 10
0.08
1000 ppm
pg«g-1«h-l
0.52
0.43
0.67
0.39
0.47
0.52
Std. dev.
0. 10
0.08
0.31
0.11
0.07
0.08
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev.
1000 ppm
Std. dev.
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.98
3.61
2.95
2.48
2.46
1.97
0.69
0.79
0.64
0.36
0.45
0.21
2.86
2.26
1.96
1.93
1.94
1.61
0.28
0.33
0.46
0.31
0.29
0.24
-------
98
APPENDIX 9.1
NITROBENZENE
Table 9.1.19.1. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soil-Urr1) from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee
soil) after treatment with 500 ppm nitrobenzene. Values are
the means * standard deviations for three replicates of
control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Captina
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
silt
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
pg»g-l»h-1
2.28
2. 17
1.67
1.27
1.16
0.61
loam
Control
2.62
1.72
1.61
1.34
1.07
0.64
Std. dev.
0.37
0.53
0.43
0.37
0.26
0.19
(TN soil)
Std. dev.
0.42
0.33
0.29
0.21
0.08
0.08
500 ppm
Std. dev.
1.04
1.07
1.74
1.32
1.04
0.54
0.04
0.00
0.16
0. 17
0.04
0.00
Mean of 3 replicates
500 ppm Std. dev.
1.23
1.99
1.61
1.23
1.13
0.64
0.25
0.40
0.29
0.23
0.09
0.08
-------
99
APPENDIX 9.1
TETRACHLOROBENZENE
Table 9.1.20. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soil'Uir1) from McLaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm tetrachlorobenzene. Values
are the means * standard deviations for three replicates of
control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg«g-1»h-1
1.21
2.46
1.31
0.51
0.67
0.23
Std. dev.
1000 ppm
Std. dev.
0.13
0.47
0.17
0.04
0.53
0.03
1.12
2.01
1.58
0.57
0.74
0.31
0.33
1.11
0.68
0.05
0.24
0.12
Captina silt loam
(TNsoTI) Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg«g-l«h-l
4.36
4.07
3.37
1.84
3.20
0.87
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.44
0.10
0.05
0. 10
0.37
0.07
4.28
4.34
3.01
1.69
2.82
0.75
1.58
1.52
0.51
0.73
o.el
0.21
-------
100
APPENDIX 9.1
TETRAHYDROFURAN
Table 9.1.21. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soil-'^h-') from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captlna silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm tetrahydrofuran. Values are
the means ± standard deviations for three replicates of
control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg«g-1«h-l
1.24
1.25
1.03
0.82
0.38
0.74
Std.
/.
0.06
0. 10
0.10
0.07
0.02
0.07
1000 ppm
pg«g-l«h-1
0.80
1.36
1.27
0.92
0.38
0.69
Std. dev.
0.06
0.08
0. 18
0.04
0.04
0.17
Captina silt loam
(TN soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
I
2
3
4
5
6
Control
jag«g-l«h-l
2.13
1.6!
1.30
1.12
0.48
1.01
Std. dev.
1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.41
0.29
0.33
0.27
0.05
0.12
1.53
2.91
1.67
1.35
0.64
1.16
0.25
0.75
0.36
0.26
0.06
0.15
-------
101
APPENDIX 9.!
TOLUENE
Table 9.1.22 Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soil-Ulr1) from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm toluene. Values are the means
± standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Control
pg«g- I«h- 1
1. 18
1.59
1.36
1.03
1.24
0.81
Std.
Jev.
0.35
0.72
0. 10
0. 10
0. 16
0. 13
1000 ppm
pg«g- l«h- I
0.46
0.96
1.79
1.47
1.51
0.94
Std. dev.
0.25
0.08
0.34
0.37
0.26
0. 17
Captina silt loam
(TN-soil) Mean of 3 replicates
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
3.52
3.48
1.90
2.64
2.92
1.98
0.44
0. 17
0.78
0.04
0.31
0. 10
3.75
•3.88
3.07
3.00
3.25
2.17
0.21
0.04
0.27
0. 14
0.46
0. 12
-------
102
APPENDIX 9.1
1.2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
Table 9.1.23. Carbon dioxide efflux (iig^gsoiHatr') from McLaurin sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm 1,2,3-trichloropropane.
Values are the means ± standard deviations for three
replicates of control and treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg«g-l«h-l
1.54
1.38
0.47
0.85
0.83
0.74
(MS soil) Mean of 3 replicates
Std. dev.
1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.12
0.14
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.78
0.98
0.58
1.03
0.89
0.84
0.25
0.31
0.02
0.15
0.10
0.20
Captina silt loam
(TNsoil)
Day
2
3
4
5
6
Control
Mg«g-1«h-1
2.53
1.70
0.64
1.09
1.09
1.03
Std. dev.
0.55
0.40
0.09
0.15
0.17
0.10
Mean of 3 replicates
1000 ppm Std. dev.
0.83
1.52
0.57
1.18
1.09
0.95
0.10
0.17
0.09
0.10
0.14
0.06
-------
103
APPENDIX 9.1
E-XYLENE
Table 9.1.24 Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soil-'«rr') from Mclaurln sandy
loam (Mississippi soil) and Captina silt loam (Tennessee soil)
after treatment with 1000 ppm p-xylene. Values are the means
i standard deviations for three replicates of control and
treatment soils.
McLaurin sandy loam
(MS soil)
Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev.
2
3
4
5
6
1.09
1.17
0.98
0.83
0. 14
0.42
0. 18
0.18
0. 14
0. 17
1000 ppm
Mg«g-l«h-1
0.63
0.94
1.83
1.76
1.27
1.03
Std. dev.
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.04
Captina silt loam
(TNsoil) Mean of 3 replicates
Day
Control
Std. dev. 1000 ppm Std. dev.
2
3
4
5
6
4.18
4.00
2.91
3.01
2.66
2.32
0. 14
0.10
0.13
0.19
0.14
0.27
4.64
4.50
3.51
3.71
3.18
2.73
1.03
1.03
0.85
0.91
0.85
0.40
-------
104
APPENDIX 9.2
SOIL RESPIRATION GRAPHS
The appended graphs show the differences in carbon dioxide efflux for
treatment and control soils treated with individual chemicals at the
concentrations specified. (Standard deviations of the means for all data are
reported in Appendix 9.1.) Graphs are presented for the following chemicals:
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2 -Chloronaphthalene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
3,3 -Dichlorobenzidine
cis-1,4-DichIoro-2-butene
trjns^l ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1,2-Dichloroethane
3,3-Dimethylbenzidine
Ethylene dibromide
Fur an
Hexachlorobenzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
£-Xylene
-------
105
APPENDIX 9.2
Acrylonitrile
4 T
C02 (ug/g/h) 2
*
1 2
3456
Day
Fig. 9.2.1. Carbon dioxide efflui (ug«g soil- Un-') from soil after treatment
with acrylonitrile at 1000 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin sandy
loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 jig«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
106
APPENDIX 9.2
Acrylonitrile-500
Day
Fig. 9.2.2. Carbon dioiide efflux (ug«g soil-Ufa-*) from soil after treatment
with acrylonitrile at 500 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin sandy
loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug»g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Bach data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
107
Appendix 9.2
Benzene
C02(ug/g/h) 2
Fig. 9.2.3. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soil-••h'1) from soil after treatment
with benzene at 1000 ug«g (solid squares • McLaurin sandy
loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug»g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
108
APPENDIX 9.2
Benzidine
Fig. 9.2.4. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug»g soil-'•h'1) from soil after treatment
with benzidine at 1000 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin sandy
loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
109
APPENDIX 9.2
Carbon tetrachloride
C02 (ug/g/h) 2
Fig. 9.2.5. Carbon dioxide efflui (ug«g soii-^h'1) from soil after treatment
with carbon tetrachloride at 1000 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin
sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
110
APPENDIX 9.2
Chlorobenzene
C02 (ug/g/h)
Fig. 9.2.6. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soiH«h-i) from soil after treatment
with Chlorobenzene at 1000 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin
sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ng«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
Ill
APPENDIX 9.2
Chloroform
D
C02 (ug/g/h) 2
Day
Fig. 9.2.7. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soil-'•Ir1) from soil after treatment
with chloroform at 1000 ug»g (solid squares - McLaurin sandy
loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Bach data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
112
APPENDIX 9.2
2-Chloronaphthalene
2.5 i
2.0
C02(ug/g/h)
Day
Fig. 9.2.8. Carbon dioiide efflux (lig*g soiH«h-i) from soil after treatment
with 2-chloronaphthalene at 1000 ug«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
WJ«g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates.
(See Appendii 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
113
APPENDIX 9.2
Dichlorobenzene
4 T
C02(ug/g/h) 2 t
Fig. 9.2.9. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soiH«h-') from soil after treatment
with dichlorobenzene at 1000 iig»g (solid squares - McLaurin
sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 u.g«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
114
APPENDIX 9.2
Dichlorobenzidine
C02 (ug/g/h)
Fig.9.2.10. Carbon dioxide efflux (ug«g soil-Ufa-1) from soil after treatment
with dichlorobenzidine at 1000 |ig«g (solid squares - McLaurin
sandy loam, open squares - Caplina silt loam) and 0 |ig«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
115
APPENDIX 9.2
cis-1,4-Oichloro-2-butene
Day
Fig. 9.2.11. Carbon dioxide efflux (ng«g soil-Ufa-1) from soil after treatment
with cis-1.4-dichloro-2-butene at 1000 |ig«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
Ug«g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
116
APPENDIX 9.2
c-1.4-Dich1oro-2-butene-500
C02(pg/g/h)
Day
Fig. 9.2.12. Carbon dioxide efflux (iig«g soil-Uh-i) from soil after treatment
with cis-M-dichloro-2-butene at 500 jig«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
Ug«g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
117
APPENDIX 9.2
t-1.4-Dich1oro-2-butene
Day
Fig. 9.2.13. Carbon dioxide efflux (|ig«g soil-^h'1) from soil after treatment
with trans-l,4-dichloro-2-butene at 1000 ug«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
Ug«g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
118
APPENDIX 9.2
t-1.4-Oichoro-2-butene -500
4 T
C02(jig/g/h) 2
. 1 1 1 I
1
Day
Fig. 9.2.14. Carbon dioxide efflux (jig«g soil-Ufa-1) from soil after treatment
with trans-l,4-dichloro-2-butene at 500 ug»g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
Ug«g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
119
APPENDIX 9.2
1.2-Dichloroethane
Day
Pig. 9.2.15. Carbon dioxide efflux (u,g«g soil-Un-i) from soil after treatment
with 1,2-dichloroethane at 1000 iig*g (solid squares - McLaurin
sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 u.g«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
C02(ug/g/h)
120
APPENDIX 9.2
Dimethylbenzidine
Day
Fig. 9.2.16. Carbon dioxide efflux (tig«g soil-'«h-!) from soil after treatment
with dimethylbenzidene at 1000 ug«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
lig«g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
121
APPENDIX 9.2
Ethylena dibromide
C02(ug/g/h) 2
Fig. 9.2.17. Carbon dioxide efflui (ug»g soiH»h-i) from soil after treatment
with ethylene dibromide at 1000 ug«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
lig«g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
122
APPENDIX 9.2
Furan
C02 (ug/g/h) 2
H
6
Day
Pig. 9.2.18. Carbon dioxide efflux (jig»g soil-l«tr') from soil after treatment
with furan at 1000 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin sandy loam.
open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug*g (solid diamonds -
McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt loam). Each
data point is the mean of three replicates. (See Appendix 9.1
for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
123
APPENDIX 9.2
Hexachlorobenzene
C02 (ug/g/h)
Fig. 9.2.19. Carbon dioxide efflux (tig«g soil-Ufa-') from soil after treatment
with hexachlorobenzene at 1000 ug«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
Ug«g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-I
-------
124
APPENDIX 9.2
Methyl ethyl ketone
C02 (ug/g/h) 6
9.2.20. Carbon dioxide efflux (}ig*g soil-Ufa-') from soil after treatment
with methyl ethyl ketone at 1000 ug«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
Ug»g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
125
APPENDIX 9.2
Nitrobenzene
C02(ug/g/h) 2
1 2
3
A
5
6
Day
Fig. 9.2.21. Carbon dioiide efflux (ug«g soiH«h-i) from soil after treatment
with nitrobenzene at 1000 |ig«g (solid squares - McLaurin
sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 tig«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
126
APPENDIX 9.2
Nitrobenzene-500
C02(ng/g/h) 1.5
Day
Fig. 9.2.22. Carbon dioxide efflui (ug«g soiH«h-i) from soil after treatment
with nitrobenzene at 500 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin sandy
loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
127
APPENDIX 9.2
Telrachlorobenzene
C02 (ug/g/h)
Fig. 9.2.23. Carbon dioxide efflui (ug«g soil-|«tr|) from soil after treatment
with tetrachiorobenzene at 1000 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin
sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 (ig«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendii 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
128
APPENDIX 9.2
Tetrahydrofuran
3.0 i
V
"I
C02(ug/g/h) 1.5 9
Fig. 9.2.24. Carbon dioxide efflux (u,g»g soil-*»h-i) from soil after treatment
with tetrahydrofuran at 1000 ug«g (solid squares - McLaurin
sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
129
APPENDIX 9.2
Toluene
C02 (ug/g/h) 2
Fig. 9.2.25. Carbon dioxide efflux (u.g«g soil-Ufa-1) from soil after treatment
with toluene at 1000 u.g*g (solid squares - McLaurin sandy
loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
130
APPENDIX 9.2
\ ,2.3-Trichloropropane
Fig. 9.2.26. Carbon dioxide efflux (l*g*g soil-Ufa-') from soil after treatment
with 1,2,3-trichloropropane at 1000 iig«g (solid squares -
McLaurin sandy loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0
Ug*g (solid diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds -
Captina silt loam). Each data point is the mean of three
replicates. (See Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard
deviations).
-------
131
APPENDIX 9.2
p-Xylene
C02 (ug/g/h)
1 2
3
4
5
6
Day
Fig. 9.2.27. Carbon dioxide efflui (ug«g soil-Ufa-1) from soil after treatment
with p-iylene at 1000 iig«g (solid squares - McLaurin sandy
loam, open squares - Captina silt loam) and 0 ug«g (solid
diamonds - McLaurin sandy loam, open diamonds - Captina silt
loam). Each data point is the mean of three replicates. (See
Appendix 9.1 for actual data and standard deviations).
-------
13?
APPENDIX 9.3
SOIL SORPTION DATA
The appended tables are the data for individual experimental
determinations of chemical sorption in two test soils, a McLaurin sandy loam
and a Captina silt loam. The information provided in each column is as
follows:
Column No. Information
1 Chemical name
2 Chemical density (g/cm3)
3 Test concentration for chemical in soil (|ig/g soil, dry weight)
4 Total volume of chemical (|iL) needed to achieve the test
concentration
5 Total mass of chemical (mg) needed to achieve the test
concentration
6 Concentration of each test chemical (mg/L) in a standard
solution mixed to spike the soil (calculated)
7 Actual concentration of each chemical (mg/L) in the standard
solution (determined analytically)
8 Total amount of chemical actually added (mg) to soil (based on
chemical analysis)
9 Concentration of chemical (|ig/mL) recovered in the methanol
extract of the soil (sorbed chemical)
10 Total amount of chemical (ug) recovered in 50 ml methanol
extract of soil (total amount sorbed to 50 g soil)
11 Concentration of each chemical recovered in the aqueous phase
()ig/mL) (determined analytically)
12 Total amount of chemical (|ig) recovered in 250 mL aqueous
phase (total amount in solution)
13 Total amount of chemical (ug) recovered in both methanol and
aqueous phases
14 Total percent recovery of each chemical for the experiment
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 23'
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAN (MS soil )• Density ; Initial cone -Total
1567
chem -Total added: Std. Calc. -Std. Actual
100/75 ug/g Replicate #1 • 9/cm3 :ug/g soil* ;(ML/50g) -Calc. (rng) Scone mg/mLJ mg/mL
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH iCRCHandbk; 4/23/87 • p.
39 !(1n66wL) 1C* 5/.066jaL 91216
Chemical : : : : : :
Acrylonltn'le : 0.806 : 100 :
Furan • 0.951 : 100 •
Methyl ethyl ketone : 0.805 : 100 •
Tetrahydrofuran : 0.889 • 100 •
Benzene : 0.879 : 100 :
Toluene i 0.867 : 100 •
p-Xylene • 0.866 • 100 i
Chlorobenzene i 1 . 106 • 75 i
Chloroform : 1 .483 : 100 i
Nitrobenzene i 1 .204 : 75 :
c1s-l^4-D1ch1oro-2-butene : 1.188 : 100 •
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene : 1.305 : 75 i
1,2,3-Trlchloropropane : 1.387 i 100 :
Carbon Tetrachlorlde '. 1.594 • 75 •
2-Chloronaphthalene \ 1.138 i 75 • 3
Ethylene dibromide 2.179 : 100 i
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene i 1.858 ! 75 • 3
Hexachlorobenzene : 1.568 : 75 : 3
6.2 ! 5 ! 76 i 68
5.3 ! 5 i 76 i 73
6.2 i 5 ! 76 ! 76
5.6 i 5 ! 76 : 81
5.7 i 5 i 76 ! 73
5.8 ! 5 ! 76 : 82
5.8 i 5 i 76 i 82
3.4 ! 3.75 ! 56.8 ': 77
3.4 :' 5 i 76 i 78
3.1 i 3.75 i 56.8 i 69
4.2 i 5 i 76 i 92
2.9 ! 3.75 i 56.8 i 61
3.6 ! 5 i 76 ! 87
2.4 ! 3.75 i 56.8 iO(present)
.75**! 3.75 i 56.8 i
2.3 ; 5 ; 76 ; 71
.75**; 3.75 ; 56.8 !
.75**; 3.75 ; 56.8 =
* per dry weight of soil : i '.
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weight : i :
***Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on theoretical initial concentrations :
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total added:
Actual (mg):
C#7x.066MLi
MEOH jTotal ug in : H20iTotal in H20:..Total.M9...LI9*?.1..?.***.
ug/rnL
91216
:50 ml MEOH:
!C#9 x 50mL !
. . i . .r.e.9.9v.®.r.e!:! .
:C#1 1x250mL:C*10 +C*12 :'
r.e.99Ye.r.ed. i
C«13/C«8 i
91216
4.49
4T82
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
p
0
0.0
bib
5.02
'5735'
7
3
350
150
16
25
4000
6250
4350
6400
86.6
'.20-P!
98/6
8
4.82
5.41
15
"5
750
250
16
22
4000
'5500^
3000
4750
5750
10
11
5.41
5.08'
'sTis'
12
13
<3p50i
'3300"i
<56.4:
65.0
1
0
50
"b
3250
5750
13
23
14
5750 i
'.3?95''i
<43bbi
112.0
8374
14
5.9
<
295 i
'"<5oi
3500
-42 50
15
6.07
17
"o'
16
0
3
0
50
0
'250
0.0
199.0^
""o7o
17
5.74.
b'
45
"b
11400
o
18
0
Tg'
p
'950'
p
'"32^
5250
19
1275
'5250
....(3.1.)
112.0
"'(23U
(6.8)
20
4.69
0
173'
0
'8650
255
21
b'
"o
21
8650
'"255
22
5.
23
24
25
26
:nCLAURIN SANDY LOAN (MS soil) ~ PAGE 2
: 100/75 ug/9 Replicate #1 i
27
28
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i ;
I 3
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil)': Density -Initial cone
100/75 Mg/9 Replicate *2 • g/cm3 :yg/g soil*
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH :CRC Handbk ': 4/23/87
Chemical • :
Acrylonitrile • 0.806 ! 100
Furan • 0.951 • 100
Methyl ethyl ketone • 0.805 i 100
Tetrahydrofuran • 0.889 : 100
Benzene • 0.879 • 100
Toluene : 0.867 • 100
p-Xylene : 0.866 : 100
Chlorobenzene •
Chloroform •
Nitrobenzene •
cis-1,4-D1chloro-2-butene •
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene :
1 ,2, 3-Trichloropropane :
Carbon Tetrachloride i 1
2-Chloronaphthalene • 1
Ethylene dibromide • 2
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene • 1
Hexachlorobenzene • 1
.106 ': 75
.483 ! 100
.204 i 75
.188 ! 100
.305 ! 75
.387 i 100
.594 i 75
.138 i 75
.179 i 100
.858 i 75
.568 i 75
| |
* per dry weight of soil •
**mg (so1id)/50 9 dry weipht !
*** 1st,2nd;3rd MeOH extractions
****Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on the
'
4 5
Total chem iTotal added
(uL/50 9) iCalc. (mg)
pg. 139 !(1n 66wL)
6.2 i 5
5.3 ! 5
6.2 i 5
5.6 i 5
5.7 i 5
5.8 i 5
5.8 • 5
3.4 ! 3.75
3.4 i 5
3.1 i 3.75
4.2 ! 5
2.9 i 3.75
3.6 : 5
2.4 i 3.75
3.75**! 3.75
2.3 i 5
3.75**i 3.75
3.75**i 3.75
theoretical initial conce
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/ml
C*5/.066uL
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
56.8
76
56.8
76
56.8
76
56.8
56.8
76
56.8
56.8
ntrations
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7891
Std. Actual Total added! MEOft -Total
0 11 12
yg in i H20 -Total in H20
mg/mL Actual(mg): jjig/ml*** :50 ml MEOH: jag/mL : ug/mL
91246 C*7x.066uLi 91246 iC*9 x
13 14
Total ug -Total %****
recovered :recovered
50mL ! 91216 iCM 1x250mL:C*10 +C#1 2 • C*13/C*8
? — • Present:
? — : Present:
70 4.6 ': 0;4;0;
80 5.3 • Present:
74 4.9 •: 2;2;2i
73 4.8 • 3;3;3i
78 5.2 ': 2;4;3i
76 5 ! i;
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Z 3
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil): Density -Initial cone
500/150 ug/g Replicate *1 i g/crn3 :ug/g soil*
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH -CRC Handbk .;2/24, 26/87
Chemical : •
Acrylonitrile •' 0.806 • 500
Furan ! 0.951 \ 500
Methyl Ethyl Ketone : 0.805 : 500
Tetrah/drofuran '. 0.889 : 500
Benzene i 0.879 • 500
Toluene i 0.867 : 500
p-Xylene • 0.866 : 500
Chlorobenzene : 1.106 i 150
Chloroform • 1.483 • 500
Nitrobenzene • 1.204 • 150
cis-1 ,4-D1chloro-2-butene i 1.188 • 500
1 ,2-D1chlorobenzene • 1.305 • 150
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane • 1.387 • 500
Carbon Tetrachlorlde • 1.594 i 150
2-Chloronaphthalene • 1.138 • 150
Ethylene Dibromide • 2.179 • 500
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene • 1.858 • 150
Hexachlorobenzene i 1.568 : 150
* per dry weight of soil : :
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weipht : :
***Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on the
456
:Tota1 chem iTotal addediStd. Calc.
'(yL/SOg) iCalc. (mq) iconc mg/mL
p. 126-127 i .:C# 5/.294yL
31 i 25 ! 85
26 i 25 i 85
31 : 25 i 85
28 • 25 i 85
28 i 25 ! 85
i 29 ; 25 ! 85
i 29 i 25 i 85
; 7 ; 7.5 ; 25.5
; 17 ; 25 ; 85
i 6 i 7.5 i 25.5
! 21 i 25 ': 85
! 6 ! 7.5 ! 25.5
; 18 ; 25 ; as
! 5 ': 7.5 i 25.5
i 7.5**! 7.5 ! 25.5
i 11! 25 ! 85
: 7.5**i 7.5 ; 25.5
7.5**; 7.5 ; 25.5
theoretical initial concentrations
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 | 8 9 10 1
1 12 13 14
Std. Actual STotal added! MEOH • Total yg in :. H20 -Total in H20! Total ug Total X***
mg/mL iActuaKmg): yg/mL :50 ml MEOH: wg/mL i ug/mL : recovered recovered
91137 ;c#7x.294uL 91137 ':C»9x50mU 911
37 ;c*11x250mL:C#10+C#12 C*13/C#8
',','.'.'. •
112 i 32.9 ! 9 i 450 i
78 : 22.9 ; 16 i 800 i
80 i 23.5 ! 25 i 1250 i
80 ': 23.5 i 22 ! 1100 i
78 ! 22.9 i 22 i 1100 i
82 i 24.1 i 39 i 1950 i
79 ! 23.2 ! 73 ': 3650 i
27 ': 7.9 ': 19 i 950 !
77 i 22.6 :. 14 ! 700 i
35.5 i 10.4 :. 19 i 950 i
79 ': 23.2 i 42 i 2100 i
29 ; 8.5 ; 74 ; 3700 ;
84 i 24.7 i 57 i 2850 :
0 i 0 i 9 i 450 \
: : ,70 : 8500 :
78 ! 22.9 ! 31 ': 1550 i
135 ': 33750 ! 34200 104.0
58 i 14500 ! 15300 66.8
80 • 20000 i 21250 90.4
91 i 22750 i 23850 101.0
60 ': 15000 ! 16100 70.3
55 ! 13750 : 15700 65.2
25 i 6250 i 9900 42.7
14 i 3500 i 4450 56.3
67 i 16750 ! 17450 77.2
16 ! 4000 i 4950 47.6
52 i 13000 '. 15100 65.1
o ; o : 3700 43.5
97 ! 24250 ! 27100 110.0
13 ! 3250 ': 3700 (49.3)
0 ! 0 i 8500 (113)
76 i 19000 i 2550 89.7
_: : o : : 0 ! 0 i 0 0.0
: : 18 : gQQ i
0 i 0 :. 900 (12.0)
i : i iMCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil) — PAGE 2
! i i : 500/ 1 50 ug/g Replicate * 1
00
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil )iDensity -Initial cone
500/150 ug/g Replicate *1 :g/cm3 ijjg/g soil*
Ref . for Anal . Chem or MSH iCRC Handbk 17/1/87
Chemical : :
Acrylonitrile • 0.806 • 600
Furan • 0.951 • 0
Methyl ethyl ketone • 0.805 • 600
Tetrahydrofuran : 0.889 i 600
Benzene • 0.879 • 600
Toluene • 0.867 : 600
p-Xylene • 0.866 • 600
Chlorobenzene • 1.106 : 600
Chloroform • 1.483 • 600
Nitrobenzene • 1.204 • 600
cis-1,4-Dich1oro-2-butene : 1.188 • 600
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene • 1.305 • 600
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane • 1.387 • 600
Carbon tetrachloride • 1.594 : 600
2-Chloronaphthalene ! 1.138 : 600
Ethylene dibromide : 2.179 : 600
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene • 1.858 • 600
Hexachlorobenzene : 1.568 : 600
* per dry weight of soil • :
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weipht : :
*** 1st, 2nd-, 3rd MeOH extractions •
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on th
456
•Total chem iTotal added Std. Calc.
:(yL/50 9) iCalc. (mg) cone mg/mL
!P9. 143 !(1n .386wL) C# 5/.386yL
! 37.2 i 30 78
; o ; o o
i 37.3 i 30 78
i 33.7 i 30 78
: 34.1 ! 30 78
i 34.6 ! 30 78
i 34.6 i 30 78
i 27.1 i 30 78
i 20.2 ! 30 78
i 24.9 i 30 78
: 25.2 ! 30 78
! 23 i 30 78
! 21.6 i 30 78
: 18.8 i 30 78
i 30**: 30 78
i 13.8 i 30 78
i 30**i 30 78
: 30**; 30 78
e theoretical initial concentrations
u>
VO
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91374
8
Total added
Actual ( mg)
9
MEOH
jjg/mL***
C*7x .386wL 91374
10
Total jjg in
50 mL MEOH
C«9 xSOmL
11
H20
ug/mL
91374
12
Total in H20
ug/mL
13
Total yg
recovered
C»1 1x250mL:C*1 0-t-C*1 2
14
Total X****
recovered
C#13/C#8
55
0
71
72
76
71
82
70
71
75
70
72
70
66
73
4.2(7)
4.2(7)
21.23
0
27.41
27.79
29.34
27.41
31.65
27.02
27.41
28.95
27.02
27.79
27.02
25.48
28.18
0;0;0
0
1 1;0;0
l;0;0
32;7;0
61;12;0
82;13;0
76;14;0
0;0;0
68;19;6.5
44;0;0
85;33;22
58;0;0
0;0;0
549;111;26
29;0;0
130;229;158
53; 195; 177
0
0
550
50
1950
3650
4750
4500
0
4675
2200
7000
2900
0
34300
1450
25850
21250
112
0
1 18
136
102
71
40
60
108
91
59
19
96
62
1.1
103
0
2.5
28000
0
29500
34000
25500
17750
10000
15000
27000
22750
14750
4750
24000
15500
275
25750
0
625
28000
0
30050
34050
27450
21400
14750
19500
27000
27425
16950
11750
26900
15500
34575
27200
25850
21875
132
0
110
123
93.6
78.1
46.6
72.2
98.5
94.7
62.7
42.3
99.6
60.8
(115)
96.5
(86.2)
(72.9)
: : : :.MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM ( MS soil ) ~
500/150 t
PAGE 2
ig/g Replicate «M :
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM. (MS soil)
500/150 M9/9 Repli?ate *2
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis-1 , 4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
* per dry weight of soil
**mg (so!1d)/50 g dry weipht
***Numbers in parentheses are
2
Density
g/cm3
CRC Handbk
3
Initial cone
jjig/9 soil*
2/24/87
0.806
0.951
0.805
0.889
0.879
0.867
0 . 866
1.106
1.483
.204
.188
.305
.387
.594
.138
2.179
.858 '
.568
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
150
500
150
500
150
500
150
150
500
150
150
*
% recovery based on the 1
4 5
Total chem iTotal added
(yL/50 9) :Cak. (mg)
p. 126-127 !(1n 294yL)
31 i 25
26 ! 25
31 i 25
28 i 25
28 ! 25
29 ! 25
29 i 25
7 i 7.5
17 i 25
6 i 7.5
21 i 25
6 ! 7.5
18 i 25
5 ! 7.5
7.5**: 7.5
11 i 25
7.5**i 7.5
7.5**': 7.5
theoretical Initial concen
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C« 5/. 294^1
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
25.5
85
25.5
85
25.5
85
25.5
25.5
85
25.5
25.5
trations
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7891
Std. Actual 'Total added! MEOH iTotal
0 11 12
yg in i H20 iTotal in H20
mg/mL iActuaKmg): ug/mL :50mLMEOH: ug/mL :ug/rni_
91233 ;C#7x.294uU 91233 iC#9 x
13
Total ug
recovered
50mL i 91233 !C«1 1 x250mLC#10 +C»12
14
Total ****
recovered
C#13/C*8
".'.'.'.'.','.
70 i 20.6 ! 0 i
80 i 23.5 ! 3 i
121 i 35.6 i 27 ':
83 ': 24.4 ! 12 i
81 : 23.8 ! 20 i
75 i 22 ! 46 I
86 : 25.3 i 39 !
41 ; 12 : 16 ;
79 i 23.2 ! 10 i
29 :. 8.53 i 18.8 i
66 •: 19.4 i 16 !
38 i 11.2 i 19 i
83 ! 24.4 i 33 ':
16 I 4.7 i 0 !
— ; — ; i4i.i ;
24.7 : 24.7 ': 17 i
— ; — ; iso ;
— ; — ; i3i ;
0 i ?!
150 i 7-
1350 ! 18 • 4500
600 ! 27 ! 6750
1000 ! 37 ! 9250
2300 ! 53 ': 13250
1950 ': 25 ! 6250
800 i 22 i 5500
500 ! 26 ! 6500
940 ! 33 ! 8250
800 ': 44 : 11000
950 i 17 ': 4250
1650 : 108 i 27000
0 i 0 i 0
7055 ; o ; o
850 i 72 i 18000
7500 • 0 i 0
6550 i 0 i 0
0
150
5850
7350
10250
15550
8200
6300
7000
9190
11800
5200
28650
0
7055
18850
7500
6550
0.0
0.6
16.4
30.1
43. 1
70.7
32.4
52.5
30.2
108.0
60.8
46.4
109.0
0.0
(94.1)
76.3
(100)
(87.3)
: : : iMCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil) —
PAGE 2
: : : : 500/ 1 50 jjg/g Repl icate «2 •
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soi 1)
; Total added ;std. Calc.
:Density -Initial cone ITotal chem
ig/cm3 iug/gsoii* ;(uL/50gj ICal'c. (mg)
;CRC Handbook \ 8/17/87 ipg. 1 48 '.(in 349 uL)
550 u.g/g Replicate 1
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
iconc mg/mL
;C*5/.349uL'
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
0.806
6.951
0.805
0.889
550
550
28.9
34.2
27.5
27.5'
78.8
78.8
8
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
0.879
0.867
550
550'
30.9
3l'.3
27.5
27.5'
78.8
78.8
10
Toluene
p-Xylene
550
550
3 1.7
3l'.8
24.9
27.5
27.5
78.8
78.8
11
0.866
1.106
12
13
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
.483
1.204"
550
550
27.5
27.5
78.8
78.8
14
Nitrobenzene
els- 1,4-Dichioro-2-butene
550
550
22.8
23.2
27.5
27.5'
78.8
78.8
15
1.188
'1.305
16
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,3-frichioropropane
550
550
21.1
19.8
27.5
27.5
78.8
78.8
17
.387
.594
18
Carbon tetrachloride
2-Chloronaphthaiene
550
550'
17.2 !
27.5**;
27.5
27.5
78.8
78.8
19
1.138
2.179
20
Ethylenedi bromide
1,2,4,5-Tetrachiorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
550
550'
550
12.6 ;
27.5**;
27.5**;
27.5
27.5'
27.5
78.8
'78.8
78.8
21
22
1.858
1.568
23
* per dry weight of soil
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weight
25
26
*** 1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions ! ; ; ;
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based onjthe theoretical initial concentrations
27
28
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91509
—
59
80
82
84
83
89
84
79
70
76
61
76
74
75
8
Total added
ActuaKmg)
C*7x.349 uL
—
20.5
27.9
28.6
29.3
29
31.1
29.3
27.6
24.4
26.5
21.3
26.5
25.8
26.2
9
MEOH
ug/mL***
91509
10
iTotal ugln
.50 ml MEOH
C*9 x 50mL
:
9;0;0
18;0;0
16;0;0
25;1 1;7
37;17;13
44;17;11
46;18;14
19;0;0
19;92;72
28;0;0
58;247;89
33;0;0
24;0;0
82;256;0
25;;0;0
57;134;0
122;12;2.6
! 450
; 900
; 800
; 2150
3350
: 3600
: 3900
; 950
! 8650
• 1400
: 19700
i 1650
: 1 200
i 16900
; 1250
9550
6830
11
H20
ug/mL
91509
—
86
1 15
131
93
70
42
61
100
9.2
52
35
86
58
31
88
47
122
MCLAURINSAN
550ug/g Rep
12
Total In H20
ug/mL
C*1 1x250mL
21500
28750
32750
23250
17500
10500
15250
25000
2300
13000
8750
21500
14500
7750
22000
11750
30500
DYLOAM (MSs
licate 1
13
Total ng
recovered
0*10 +C*12
—
21950
29650
33550
25400
20850
14100
19150
25950
10950
14400
28450
23150
15700
24650
23250
21300
37330
Pil)
14
Total %****
recovered
C* 1 3/C*8
—
107
106
117
86.7
71.9
45.3
65.4
94
44.9
54.3
134
87.4
60.9
(89.6)
88.7
(77.5)
(136)
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil)
550 ug/g Replicate *2
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
els- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachlorlde
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylenedi bromide
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
* per dry weight of soil
**mg(solid)/50 g dry weight
*** 1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions
**** Numbers in parentheses are £ rec
2 | 3
Density
g/cm3
CRC Handbook
0.806
0.951
0.805
0.889
0.879
0.867
0.866
1.106
1.483
1.204
1.188
1.305
1.387
1.594
1.138
2.179
1.858
1.568
overy based on
Initial cone
ug/gsoil*
8/17/87
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
the theoretical
4
Total chem
(uL/50g)
pg. 1 48
—
28.9
34.2
30.9
31.3
31.7
31.8
24.9
18.5
22.8
23.2
21.1
19.8
17.2
27.5**
12.6
27.5**
27.5**
nitial concentr
5
Total added
Calc. (mg)
(in349uL)
—
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
ations
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C*5/.349uL
—
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91537
—
29
63
60
61
62
70
64
56
63
60
89
62
47
56
8
Total added
Actual(mg)
C-*7x.349nL
10.1
22
20.9
21.3
21.6
24.4
22.3
19.5
22
20.9
31.1
21.6
16.4
19.5
9 10
MEOH 'Total ug in
ug/mL*** iSOmLMEOH
91537 ;C*9x50ml
*
:
6;0;0i 300
9;3;2; 700
8;1;0i 450
15;4;2i 1050
33;8;4i 2250
38;11;3! 2600
44;11;5; 3000
11;0;0; 550
47;14;4.8i 3290
24;6;2i 1600
58;25;23i 5300
33;7;2; 2100
20;0;0i 1000
317;62;12; 19550
17;3;2i 1100
70;169;98i 16850
33 ; 172; i 03; 15400
|
•
1 1
H20
ug/mL
91537
56
95
1 1 1
72
59
44
56
77
72
49
26
82
45
0,6
78
0
1.9
MCLAURINSAN
550ug/gRep
12
Total in H20
ug/mL
C*1 1x250mL
14000
23750
27750
18000
14750
1 1000
14000
19250
18000
12250
6500
20500
11250
150
19500
0
475
DY LOAM ( MS s
licate * 2
13
Total uig
recovered
C*10 +C*12
—
14300
24450
28200
19050
17000
13600
17000
19800
21290
13850
11800
22600
12250
19700
20600
16850
15875
Oil)
14
Total %****
recovered
C*13/C*8
—
142
222
135
89.4
78.7
55.7
76.2
102
96.8
66.3
37.9
105
74.7
(71.6)
106
(61.3)
(57.7)
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Z 3
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAN (MS soil ^Density • Initial cone
600 wg/9 Replicate #1 :g/cm3 Jjjg/g soil*
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH iCRC Handbk :7/1/87
Chemical : :
Acrylonltrlle i 0.806 : 600
Furan • 0.951 : 0
Methyl ethyl ketone • 0.805 \ 600
Tetrahydrofuran • 0.889 i 600
Benzene • 0.879 • 600
Toluene : 0.867 • 600
p-Xylene • 0.866 • 600 •
Chlorobenzene • .106 • 600 :
Chloroform i .483 • 600 •
Nitrobenzene • .204 1 600 •
c1s-1 ,4-D1chloro-2-butene i .188 • 600 •
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene • .305 i 600 i
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane i ' .387 : 600 •
Carbon tetrachlorlde i .594 : 600 :
2-Chloronaphthalene : 1.138 : 600 :
Ethylene dlbromlde :. 2.179 : 600 i
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene i 1.858 : 600 •
Hexachlorobenzene i 1.568 : 600 •
* per dry weight of soil : : :
**mg (so!1d)/50 g dry weight : : i
*** 1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions :. •
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on th<
456
Total chem iTotal addediStd. Calc.
(uL/50g) iCalc. (mg) Iconc mg/mL
pg. 143 f i(1n .386jjtL):c« 5/.386yl
37.2 •: 30 i 78
o ; o ; o
37.3 \ 30 i 78
33.7 : 30 i 78
34.1 i 30 i 78
34.6 ! 30 ! 78
34.6 i 30 i 78
27.1 i 30 i 78
20.2 ! 30 ! 78
24.9 ': 30 : 78
25.2 :. 30 i 78
23 i 30 ': 78
21.6 i 30 ! 78
18.8 i 30 ': 78
30**i 30 ! 78
- 13.8 i 30 ! 78
30**; 30 ! 78
30**: 30 : 78
3 theoretical initial concentrations
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91374
8
Total added
Actual(mg)
C*7x .386^1
9
MEOH
ug/mL***
91374
10 1
Total yg in iH20
1 12
•Total In H20
50 mL MEOHiug/mL iug/mL
13
Total ug
recovered
C#9x50mLi 91374 :C#1 1x250mlJC#10 +C#12
14
Total *****
recovered
C*13/C#8
:::::::
55
0
71
72
76
71
82
70
71
75
70
72
70
66
73
4.2(7)
4.2(7):
21.23
0
27.41
27.79
29.34
27.41
31.65
27.02
27.41
28.95
27.02
27.79
27.02
25.48
28.18
OlOlO
0
1 1;0;0
i;0;0
32;7;0
61;12;0
82;13;0
76;H;0
0;0;0
68;19;6.5
44;0;0
85;33;22
58;0;0
0;0;0
549;iii;26
29;0;0
130;229;158
53; 195; 177
o ;
o ;
550 !
so ;
1950 i
3650 i
4750 i
4500 ':
o ;
4675 :
2200 i
7000 ;
2900 i
o ;
34300 ;
1450 ':
25850 i
21250 i
112: 28000
o ; o
118 i 29500
136 ! 34000
102 ! 25500
71 ! 17750
40 ; 10000
60 • 15000
108 • 27000
91 ! 22750
59 ! 14750
19 : 4750
96 ! 24000
62 ! 15500
1.1 ! 275
103 i 25750
0 ': 0
2.5 ! 625
28000
0
30050
34050
27450
21400
14750
19500
27000
27425
16950
1 1750
26900
15500
34575
27200
25850
21875
132
0
110
123
93.6
78.1
46.6
72.2
98.5
94.7
62.7
42.3
99.6
60.8
(115)
96.5
(86.2)
(72.9)
* .....
i .: i iMCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil) —
PAGE 2
: : : i 600 ug/g Replicate #1 : •
.p-
CO
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil ^Density -Initial cone
600 wg/9 Replicate *2 :g/cm3 iyg/g soil*
Ret. for Anal. Chem or MSH :CRC Handbod 7/1/87
Chemical : :
Acrylonitrile • 0.806 • 600
Furan • 0.951 • 0
Methyl ethyl ketone ! 0.805 : 600
Tetrahydrofuran 1 0.889 • 600
Benzene • 0.879 : 600
Toluene : 0.867 : 600
p-Xylene : 0.866 : 600
Chlorobenzene • 1 . 106 : 600
Chloroform : 1.483 i 600
Nitrobenzene : 1.204 : 600
cis-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene I 1.188 : 600
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene '. 1.305 : 600
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane : 1.387 : 600
Carbon tetrachloride • 1.594 • 600
2-Chloronaphthalene • 1.138 : 600
Ethylene dibromide i 2.179 \ 600
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene : 1.858 i 600
Hexachlorobenzene • 1.568 • 600
* per dry weight of soil : :
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weipht : i
*** 1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions :
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on th
456
Total chem iTotal addediStd. Calc.
(ML/50 9) iCalc. (mg) iconc mg/mL
pg. 143 i(in 386 yL);c#5/.386 yl
37.2 i 30 i 78
0 : 0 ! 0
37.3 : 30 ! 78
33.7 i 30 ! 78
34.1 i 30 i 78
34.6 i 30 ! 78
34.6 i 30 ! 78
27.1 ; 30 i 78
20.2 i 30 i 78
24.9 ! 30 ! 78
25.2 i 30 i 78
23 I 30 i 78
21.6 i 30 i 78
18.8 i 30 i 78
30**; 30 ! 78
13.8 .: 30 i 78
30**i 30 ; 78
30**; 30 ; 78
e theoretical initial concentrations
*
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~24
~25
'26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91405
69
0
73
73
74
72
77
71
72
83
49
89
65
64
1.3(7)
67
0
0.9(7)
8 <
Total added IMEOH
) 10
iTotal JJQ In
Actual (mg)iug/mL*** :50 mL MEOH
C#7x.386jjl; 91405 iC#9 x 50mL
;
26.63 i
o ;
28.18 !
28.18 i
28.56 i
0;0;o: 0
o ; o
I0;2;0i 600
7;0;0! 350
12;5;2i 950
27.79 i 37;12;4i 2650
29.72 i
27.41 i
27.79 !
32.04 i 55; 1
18.91 i
34.35 i 9
25.09 i
24.7 •
0 i 485;1
25.86 I
38;7;3i 2400
38;8;3! 2450
0;0;0i 0
4;6.7i 3785
19;2;0i 1050
l;35;0! 6300
33;5;0i 1900
0;0;0i 0
03;2i: ' 30450
17;0;0i 850
0 '; 174; 197; 175:' .27300
0 :94;248;I79 • 26050
11
H20
M9/mL
91405
104
0
86
98
72
67
20
80
73
104
61
23
82
35
2.1
78
0
0.9
12
Total In H20
ug/mL
13
Total yg
recovered
C#1 1x250mL:C#10+C#12
26000
0
21500
24500
18000
16750
5000
2000
18250
26000
15250
5750
20500
8750
525
19500
0
225
26000
0
22100
24850
18950
19400
7400
4450
18250
29785
16300
12050
22400
8750
30975
20350
27300 .
26275 !
14
Total X****
recovered
C#13/C*8
97.6
0
78.4
88.2
66.4
69.8
24.9
16.2
65.7
93
86.2
35.1
89.3
35.4
(103)
78.7
(91.0)
(87.6)
• '. '.•',','
': ': ': IMCLAURIN. SANDY LOAM (MS soil) —
PAGE 2
: : : : 600 ug/9 Replicate #2: :
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil) 'Density llnitialconc
650 ug/g Replicate 1 ig/cm3 iug/gsoil*
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH :CRC Handbook ! 8/ 1 7/87
Chemical i :
Acrylonitrile • 0.806 ; 650
Furan \ 0.951 i —
Methyl ethyl ketone ; 0.805 ; 650
Tetrahydrofuran i 0.889 : 650
Benzene \ 0.879 ; 650
Toluene ; 0.867 ; 650
p-Xylene i 0.866 ; 650
Chlorobenzene \ 1 . 1 06 • 650
Chloroform ; 1.483 '• 650
Nitrobenzene ; 1.204 ; 650
cls-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene \ 1.188 \ 650
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene ! 1.305 \ 650
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane '. 1.387 \ 650
Carbon tetrachlorlde \ 1.594 ; 650
2-Chloronaphthalene i 1.138 i 650
Ethylenedl bromide i 2.179 ; 650
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ; 1.858 i 650
Hexachlorobenzene ; 1.568 i 650
* per dry weight of soil i ;
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weight • \
*** 1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions ; '•
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on It he theoretical
456
i Total chem : Total added :Std. Calc.
:(uL/50g) iCalc. (mg) iconcmg/mL
ipg. 148 ;(in419uO ;C«-5/.419uL
i 40.3 ; 32.5 ! 77.6
! — i 32.5 ! 77.6
: 40.4 ! 32.5 i 77.6
i 36.6 i 32.5 ! 77.6
i 37 ! 32.5 i 77.6
i 37.5 ! 32.5 .: 77.6
; 37.5 ; 32.5 ; 77.6
; 29.4 ! 32.5 ! 77.6
i 21.9 ; 32.5 ; 77.6
; 27 ; 32.5 ; 77.6
; 27.4 ; 32.5 ! 77.6
! 24.9 ; 32.5 i 77.6
; 23.4 : 32.5 i 77.6
! 20.4 ; 32.5 ! 77.6
• 32.5**: 32.5 i 77.6
i 14.9 i 32.5 i 77.6
! 32.5** i 32.5 ! 77.6
; 32.5**: 32.5 : 77.6
initial concentrations :
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil)
650 ug/g Replicate 2
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
Chemical
Acrylonltrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis- 1 ,4-D1chloro-2-butene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylenedibromide
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
* per dry weight of soil
**mg (so11d)/50 g dry weight
*** 1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions
**** Numbers in parentheses are % re<
2
Density
g/cm3
CRC Handbook
0.806
0.951
0.805
0.889
0.879
0.867
0.866
•1.106
1.483
1.204
1.188
1.305
1.387
1.594
1.138
2.179
1.858
1.568
jovery based on
3
Initial cone
ug/gsoil*
8/17/87
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
the theoretical
4
Total chem
(uL/50g)
pg. 147
40.3
—
40.4
36.6
37
37.5
37.5
29.4
21.9
27
27.4
24.9
23.4
20.4
32.5**
14.9
32.5**
32.5**
nitial concentr
5
Total added
Calc. (mg)
(in419ul_)
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
itions
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C*5/.419uL
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
Ul
ro
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91525
92
—
82
81
83
79
89
82
77
68
78
60
79
72
71
8
Total added
Actual (mg)
C*7x.419ul
38.5
34.4
33.9
34.8
33.1
37.3
34.4
32.3
28.5
32.7
25.1
33.1
30.2
29.7
9
MEOH
ug/mL***
91525
10
Total ug in
50 ml MEOH
C*9 x 50mL
j
0;0;0
0
:
16;3;0
13;0;0
15;2;2
33;7;5
37;9;0
44;8;4
13;0;10.
51;13;7.2:
31;5;0!
43;20;18i
40;7;0!
9;0;0!
329;112;29;
17;27;0;
72;236;138i
36;153;166;
950
650
950
2250
2300
2800
1150
3560
1800
4050
2350
450
23500
2200
22300
17750
*
*
•
•
•
\
11
H20
u.g/ml_
91525
97.2
126
144
112
94
61
86
103
85
85
21
122
82
0.5
107
0
0.7
MCLAURINSAN
650ug/gRepli
12
Total In H20
ug/mL
C*1 1x250ml
24300
31500
36000
28000
23500
15250
21500
25750
21250
21250
5250
30500
20500
125
26750
0
175
DYLOAM(MSs
[ate 2
13
Total ug
recovered
C*10+C*12
24300
—
32450
36650
28950
25750
17550
24300
26900
24810
23050
9300
32850
20950
23625
28950
22300
17925
Dil)
14
Total *****
recovered
C* 13/0*8
63.1
94.3
108
83.2
77.8
47
70.6
83.3
87
70.5
37
99.2
69.4
(72.7)
97.5
(68.6)
(55.2)
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) ^Density -Initial cone iTotal
4567
chem Total added :.Std. Calc. istd. Actual
100/75 ug/g Replicate #1 :g/cm3 iug/g soil* :(jaL/50g) Calc. (mg) iconc mg/mimg/mL
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH !CRC Handbk • 4/23/87 • pg.
Chemical : : :
Acrylonitrlle :. 0.806 • 100 !
Furan • 0.951 • 100 !
Methyl ethyl ketone : 0.805 • 100 :
Tetrahydrofuran • 0.889 • 100 •
Benzene :. 0.879 • 100 •
Toiuene • 0.867 i 100 :
p-Xyiene i 0.866 ! 100 •
Chlorobenzene i 1 . 106 i 75 •
Chloroform • 1.483 • 100 :
Nitrobenzene • 1 .204 i 75 i
c1s-1,4-Dich1oro-2-butene • 1.188 i 100 ':
1,2-bichlorobenzene • 1.305 • 75 :.
1,2,3-TMchloropropane : 1.387 • 100 !
Carbon tetrachlorlde • 1.594 '. 75 \
139 (in66uL) !C# 5/.066jal 91224
6.2 5 i 76 : 67
5.3 5 ': 76 i 49
6.2 5 ! 76 ! 72
5.6 5 i 76 i 75
5.7 5 i 76 i 75
5.8 5 i 76 i 57
5.8 5 :. 76 i 69
3.4 3.75 ! 56.8 i 77
3.4 5 i 76 i 56
3.1 3.75 i 56.8 \ 60
4.2 5 i 76 i 56
2.9 3.75 ! 56.8 : 60
3.6 5 i 76 : 73
2.4 3.75 i 56.8 ': 41
2-Chloronaphthalene i 1.138 • 75 \ 3.75** 3.75 ': 56.8 •
Ethylene dibromide i 2.179 • 100 :
2.3 5 i 76 i <128
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene i 1.858 : 75 • 3.75** 3.75 : 56.8 •
Hexachlorobenzene : 1.568 • 75 : 3.75** ': 56.8 •
* per dry weight of soil : : :
**mg (solid)/50 9 dry weight ; : :
***Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on theoretical initial concentrations :
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
8
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
Total.added :MEOH
Actual (mg):ug/rnL
C#7 x. 066wl: 91224
iTotal ug in :H20 ^7.9^1 in H20:Total ug : Tptal %***
:ug/mL ^recovered
:C*1 1x250mLC«10 +C#12
recovered:
C*13/C*8:
91224
. 4.r.f.?.. :Q (present )_
3.23 :0(presentj
P;0(present)
0 iO(present)
ipCpresent) iOfpresent)
:0(present) :p(.presenO_
i b' i 650 '
0.0
0/0
5.02
4.75
13
'3
65p ;p
150 :0(present)
13.0
"3.2'
8
:0( present)
/ 0
i 0
150
450
9
4.62
4.95
450 :
<35i
0
0
0
9.7
<7. 1
10
11
4.95
3/76'
50
50
.0
.3
12
0
2
3
0
^oop i
3250
50
3000
13
4.55
5.08
0
65.9
83/8
20.
1005 j
'"<50:
IS
3.7
'.*•$$.
4/82
P.
b
p ;
!'"p"l
<2so;
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil)
100/75 ug/g Replicate *2
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis-1 , 4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-TrichloroproparYe
Carbon tetrachloride
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
* per dry weight of soil
**mg (so1id)/50 g dry weight
2
Density
g/cm3
CRC Handbk
0.806
0.951
0.805
0.889
0.879
0.867
0.866
1.106
1.483
1.204
1.188
1.305
1.387
1.594
1. 138
2.179
1.858
1.568
***1st; 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions
****Numbers in parentheses are % recovery
3
Initial cone
ug/g soil*
4/23/87
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
75
100
75
100
75
75
100
75
75
based on the
4
Total chem
(uL/50 g)
pg.139
6.2
5.3
6.2
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.8
3.4
3.4
3.1
4.2
2.9
3.6
2.4
3.75**
2.3
3.75**
3.75**
oretical init
5
Total added
Calc. (mg)
(in294yL)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3.75
5
3,75
5
3.75
5
3.75
3.75
5
3.75
3.75
al concentre
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C#5/.294wL
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
56.8
76
56.8
76
56.8
76
56.8
56.8
76
56.8
56.8
tions
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7891
Std, Actual -Total added i MEOH -Total
mg/mL :Actual(mg): jag/mL*** ;50 ml
91246 " !C*7x.294uLi 91246 \ C#9 x
0 11 12
M9 in! H20 Total in H20
MEOH: wg/mL wg/mL
13
Total jjig
recovered
SOmLi 91246 C#1 1x250mL C#10 +C*12
14
Total X****
recovered
C#13/C*8
?: : Present:
?: : Present:
70 i 4.6 i 5;4;4i
80 • 5.3 • Present:
74 • 4.9 • 4;2;2i
73 i 4.8 i 5;2;2!
78 • 5.1 • 3;1;<1:
76 : 5 : 2;<1J<1:
60 i 4 i 0 i
65.3 i 4.3 i 11;4.5;1.9!
71 ! 4.7 ! 1;<1;0:
58.6 ': 3.9 ! 23;8.9;5.5;
76 i 5 • 4;l;l:
38 i 2.5 i 0 i
; : 47;2i;7.5!
76 ! 5 i 3;0;0.:
! ! 0;21;23i
34.4?i 2.37: 12;31;16:
— : Present —
— i Present —
650 i 6 1500
! 8 2000
400 i 3 750
450 i 5 1250
<250.: 1 250
<200i 7 1750
01 1 250
870 i 12 3000
<100i Present —
1870 i 0 0
300 ! 4 1000
o ; o o
3775 :. 0 0
150 i 6 1500
2200 i 0 0
2950 i 18 4500
—
—
2150
2000
1 150
1700
<500
<1900
250
3850
<100
1870
1300
0
3775
1650
2200
7450
46.7
37.7
23.5
35.4
<9.8
<39
6.2
90
<2.1
48
26
0
(101)
33
(58.7)
(199)
; ; ; ICAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN son) ~ PAGE 2
: 100/75 yg/g Replicate
; * ." ;
#2
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) \ Density initial cone ITotal
4567
chem -Total addediStd. Calc. ;Std. Actual
500/150 ug/g Replicate #1 : g/cm3 :jjig/g soil* i(uL/50g) iCalc. ( mg) iconc mg/mL mg/mL
Ref. for Anal. Chem or NSH ':CRC Handbk .2/24, 26/87 :p. 126-127 :(1n 294uL) :C« 5/.294uL 91122
Chemical : : I
Acrylonitrile • 0.806 • 500 :.
Furan • 0.951 • 500 •
Methyl ethyl ketone • 0.805 • 500 •
Tetrahydrofuran • 0.889 i 500 •
Benzene i 0.879 i 500 •
Toluene • 0.867 • 500 •
p-Xylene • 0.866 :. 500 i
Chlorobenzene • 1.106 i 150 :
Chloroform • 1.483 • 500 •
Nitrobenzene i 1 .204 i 150 i
c1s-1,4-D1ch!oro-2-butene i 1.188 • 500 •
1,2-Dichlorobenzene : 1.305 : 150 •
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane • 1.387 : 500 •
Carbon tetrachloride • 1.594 i 150 i
2-Chloronaphthalene • 1.138 • 1 50 •
Ethylene Dibromide :. 2.179 : 500 :
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene • 1.858 :. 150 •
Hexachlorobenzene • 1.568 i 1 50 i
31 i 25 i 85 i N.Calc.
26 ! 25 i 85 i 74
31 i 25 ! 85 i 88
28 ! 25 i 85 i 87
28 :. 25 i 85 • 83
29 :. 25 i 85 i 93
29 i 25 i 85 i 96
7 ': 7.5 i 25.5 i 30
17 i 25 ! 85 ! 87
6 i 7.5 i 25.5 ': 31.5
21 i 25 i 85 ! 76
6 i 7.5 i 25.5 i 32
18 i 25 i 85 i 95
5 ; 7.5 ; 25.5 ; 27
7.5**: 7.5 i 25.5 i
11 i 25 i 85 ! 86
7.5**: 7.5 ! 25.5 :.
7.5**: 7.5 : 25.5 ':
* per dry weight of soil : : :
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weight i : :
***Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on theoretical initial concentrations :
Ul
00
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Total added
Actual(mg)
C*7x.294uL
N. Calc.
21.8
25.9
25.6
24.4
27.3
28.2
8.8
25.6
9.3
22.3
9.4
27.9
7.9
25.3
9 10
MEOH : Total ug In
ug/mL iSO ml MEOH
91122 ;c*9x50mL
11
H20
ug/mL
91122
12
Total In H20
ug/mL
C*11x250mL
17 ! 850
22 i 1,100
29 : 1,450
26 i 1,300
28 ': 1,400
72 i 3,600
139 I 6,950
45 i 2,250
20 i 1,000
7.3 ! 365
54 : 2,700
97 ': 4,850
79 i 3,950
10 i 500
179 ! 8,950
38 i 1,900:
o ; — •
20 ; 1,000;
87
52
84
94
63
60
22
17
69
5
44
o ;
108
16 :
o ;
73 ;
o ;
o ;
21750
13000
21000
23500
15750
15000
5500
. 4550
17250
1250
11000
0
27000
4000
0
18250
0
0
: : :
13
Total M9
recovered
C#10+C#12
14
Total ****
recovered
C#13/C«8
)
22600
14100
22450
24800
17150
18600
12450
6800
18250
1615
13700
4850
30950
4500
8950 :
2150 ':
0 i
1000 ;
(90.4)
64.7
86.7
96.9
70.3
68.1
44.1
77.3
71.3
17.4
61.4
(64.7)
111
57
(119)
79.6
0
(13.3)
• ICAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) -- PAGE 2
• • 500/150 ug/g Replicate #1 .:
1
15
Ui
VO
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) • Density -Initial cone
500/150 ug/g Replicate *2 : g/crn3 :ug/g soil*
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH iCRC Handbk • 2/24/87
Chemical : :
Acrylonitrile • 0.806 • 500
Furan i 0.951 : 500
Methyl ethyl ketone ': 0.805 :. 500
Tetrahydrofuran • 0.889 • 500
Benzene • 0.879 • 50,0
Toluene • 0.867 • 500
p-Xylene • 0.866 • 500
Chlorobenzene i 1. 106 i 150
Chloroform • 1.483 ': 500
Nitrobenzene i 1.204 i 150
cis-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene • 1.188 • 500
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene • 1.305 • 150
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane • 1.387 • 500
Carbon tetrachloride • 1.594 : 150
2-Chloronaphthalene • 1.138 : 150
Ethylene dibromide • 2.179 • 500
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene • 1.858 i 150
Hexachlorobenzene • 1.568 • 150
456
Total chem iTotal addediStd. Calc.
(uL/50g) iCalc. (mg) iconc mg/mL
pg. 126-127:(in 294uL) !C*5/.294ML
31 i 25 i 85
26 i 25 ! 85
31 i 25 i 85
28 i 25 i 85
28 i 25 i 85
29 • 25 ! 85
29 i 25 i 85
7 i 7.5 ! 25.5
17 i 25 i 85
6 i 7.5 i 25.5
21 i 25 i 85
6 i 7.5 ! 25.5
18 i 25 ! 85
5 i 7.5 i 25.5
7.5**! 7.5 ! 25.5
11 ; 25 ; 85
7.5**i 7.5 ; 25.5
7.5**: 7.5 i 25.5
: : : : :
* per dry weight of soil • i
**mg (solid)/50 9 dry weipht : '.
***Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on theoretical initial concentrations
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 8 <
Std. Actual iTotal added iMEOH
3 10
iTotal jjg in
mg/mL iActuaUmg): ug/mL :50 mL MEOH
91241 ;C#7x.294nL 91241 !C#9 x 50mL
1 1
H20
wg/mL
91241
12
Total in H20
ug/mL
13
Total wg
recovered
C#11x250mL:C»1 0-i-C*! 2
14
Total %***
recovered
C#13/C#8
:::::::
76 i 22.3 !
80 ! 23.5 !
82 ! 24.1 !
88 i 25.9 i
82 ; 24.1 ;
84 i 24.7 i
92 i 27 i
54 ; 15.9 ;
85 ! 25 i
30 ! 8,82 !
92 i 27 !
33 ! 9.7 !
92 i 27 ':
17 i 5 !
: :
90 i 26.5 !
: :
: :
?:
7:
48 : 2400
32 ! 1600
63 i 3150
140 : 7000
193 : 9650
48 ': 2400
30 i 1500
30.2 ! 1510 '
48 ': 2400
73 :' 3650
90 • 4500
8 i 400
123 ! 6150
55 Ti 2750
85 i 4250
1 11 i 5550
76
63
82
94
57
88
55
40
63
24
'66
0
0
8
0
74
0
0
19000
15750
20500
23500
14250
22000
13750
10000
15750
6000
16500
0
0
2000
0
18500
0
0
19000
15750
22900
25100
17400
29000
23400
12400
17250
7510
18900
3650
4500
2400
6150
21250
4250
5550
85.2
67.0
95.0
96.9
72.2
117.0
86.7
78.0
69.0
85.2
70.0
37.6
16.7
48.0
(82)
80.2
(56.7)
(74)
• ': \ iCAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) — PAGE 2
500/150 j.
ig/g Replicate *2 :
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 1 2
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) ^Density
550 ug/g Replicate * 1 ig/cm3
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH :CRC Handbook
3 4
5
Initial cone : Total chem i Total added
ug/gsotl* i(uL/50g) ICalc. (mg)
8/17/87 ipg. 148
;(in349ul)
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C*5/.349 uL
Chemical i • i i :
Acrylonltrile • 0.806 i — i — 1 — • — -
Furan '•. 0.951
Methyl ethyl ketone : 0.805
Tetrahydrofuran i 0.889
Benzene '-. 0.879
Toluene '•. 0.867
p-Xylene ; 0.866
Chlorobenzene ; 1 . 1 06
Chloroform i 1.483
Nitrobenzene i 1.204
cis-1 ,4-Dich1oro-2-butene i 1.188
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene • 1.305
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane : 1.387
Carbon tetrachloride i 1.594
2-Chloronaphthalene ; 1.138
Ethylenedi bromide i 2.179
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorotjenzene ; 1.858
Hexachlorobenzene : 1.568
550 i
550 !
550 •
550 i
550 i
550 !
550 !
550 ;
550 ;
550 !
550 ;
550 i
550 ;
28.9 ; 27.5
34.2 ; 27.5
30.9 ; 27.5
31.3 ; 27.5
31.7 ; 27.5
31.8 ; 27.5
24.9 ; 27.5
18.5 ; 27.5
22.8 ; 27.5
23.2 ; 27.5
21.1 ; 27.5
19.8 ; 27.5
17.2 ; 27.5
550 i 27.5**; 27.5
550 !
12.6 : 27.5
550 i 27.5**; 27.5
550 ! 27.5**; 27.5
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
* per dry weight of soil : : i i i
**mg(solid)/50 g dry weight : : : i :
*** 1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions : i i : :
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based onjthe theoretical initial concentrations i
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91509
—
59
80
82
84
83
89
84
79
70
76
61
76
74
75
8
Total added
Actual(mg)
C*7x.349 uL
20.6
27.9
28.6
29.3
29
31.1
29.3
27.6
24.4
26.5
21.3
26.5
25.8
26.2
9
NEOH
ug/mL***
91509
10
Total ug in
SOmLMEOH
C*-9x50mL
:
0;0;0
26;3;0
27;0;0
41;4;6
99;20;12
223;34;27
152;25;15
0;0;0
13;39;71
80;0;0
36;52;21
99;0;0
44;0;0
52;267;2.4
55;0;0
172;13;0
181;28;122
0
1450
1350
2550
6550
14200
9600
0( Trace)
6150
4000
5450
4950
2200
16070
2750
9250
16550
1 1
12
H20 iTotal in H20
ug/mL
91509
26
37
42
31
26
17
22
34
73
18
16
30
19
1.8
28
0
9.5
CAPTINASILTL
550 ug/g Re[
ug/mL
C*M 1x250mL
—
6500
9250
10500
7750
6500
4250
5500
8500
18250
4500
4000
7500
4750
450
7000
0
2375
(OAM (TNsoil)
plicate *M
13
Total ug
recovered
C*10 +0*12
—
6500
10700
11850
10300
13050
18450
15100
8500
24400
8500
9450
12450
6950
16520
9750
9250
18925
-- PAGE 2
14
Total %****
recovered
C* 1 3/C*8
—
31.6
38.4
41.4
35.2
45
59.3
51.5
30.8
100
32.1
44.4
47
26.9
(60.1)
37.2
(33.6)
(68.8)
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil)
550 u.g/g Replicate *2
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylenedibromide
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
* per dry weight of soil
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weight
*** 1 st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions
**** Numbers in parentheses are % red
2
Density
g/cm3
CRC Handbook
0.806
0.951
0.805
0.889
0.879
0.867
0.866
1.106
1.483
1.204
1.188
1.305
1.387
1.594
1.138
2.179
1.858
1.568
every based on
3
Initial cone
ug/gsoil*
8/17/87
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
the theoretical
4
Total chem
(ul/50g)
pg. 1 48
—
28.9
34.2
30.9
31.3
31.7
31.8
24.9
18.5
22.8
23.2
21.1
19.8
17.2
27.5**
12.6
27.5**
27.5**
nitial concentr
5
Total added
Calc. (mg)
(in349uL)
—
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
itions
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C*5/.349 uL
—
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
78.8
CTi
-P-
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91537
—
29
63
60
61
62
70
64
56
63
60
89
62
47
56
8
Total added
Actual (mg)
C*7x.349 uL
10.1
22
20.9
21.3
21.6
24.4
22.3
19.5
22
20.9
31.1
21.6
16.4
19.5
9
MEOH
ug/mL***
91537
10
Total ug In
50 ml NEOH
C*9 x 50mL
j
:
13;4;2
18;3;3.
950
1200
19;4;1! 1200
^46;9;6i 3056
109;17;8!
260;26;10i
139;17;14!
30;6;3i
6700
14800
8500
1950
51;11;9.2i 3560
52;10;8;
262;49;25!
65;12;8i
85;10;5!
125;43;21!
42;10;7!
21;17;27i
11;80;33i
3500
16800
4250
5000
9450
2950
3250
6200
^
;
•
•
•
|
11
H20
ug/mL
91537
37
.64
70
48
37
26
37
50
67
32
22
51
29
0.6
49
0
0.8
CAPTINASILU
550 ug/g Ref
12
Total In H20
ug/mL
C*11x250mL
—
9250
16000
17500
12000
9250
6500
9250
12500
16750
8000
5500
12750
7250
150
12250
0
200
0AM (TN soil)
licate*2
13
Total ug
recovered
C*10 +C*12
—
10200
17200
18700
15050
15950
21300
17750
14450
20310
11500
22300
17000
12250
9600
15000
3250
6400
— PAGE 2
14
Total *****
recovered
C*13/C*8
—
101
78.2
89.5
70.7
73.8
87.3
79.6
74.1
92.3
55
71.7
78.7
74.7
(34.9)
76.9
(11.8)
(23.3)
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil)
600 ug/g Replicate #1
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cls-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 ,2-D1chlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachlorlde
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dlbromlde
1,2,4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
* per dry weight of soil
**mg (solid)/50 g dry weight
*** Numbers in parentheses are
2
Density
g/cm3
CRC Handbk
0.806
0.951
0.805
0.889
0.879
0.867
0.866
1.106
1.483
1.204
1.188
1.305
1.387
1.594
1.138
2.179
1.858
1.568
3
Initial cone
yg/g soil*
7/1/87
600
0
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
% recovery based on the
4
Total chem
(yL/50g)
pg. 143
37.2
0
37.3
33.7
34. 1
34.6
34.6
27.1
20.2
24.9
25.2
23
21.6
18.8
30**
13.8
30**
30**
theoretical
5
Total added
Calc. (mg)
(in 386uL)
30
0
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
nitial concei
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C# S/.386
78
0
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
-itratlons
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91374
55
0
71
72
76
71
82
70
71
75
70
72
70
66
73"
4.2?
4.2?
8
Total added
ActuaK mg)
C»7x.386ML
21.23
0
27.41
27.79
29.34
27.41
31.65
27.02
27.41
28.95
27.02
27.79
27.02
25.48
28. 18
9
MEOH
Mg/mL
91374
22
0
23
22
70
172
391
209
42
80
87
344
108
144
248
71
93
21
10
Total Mg in
50 ml MEOH
C*9 x 50mL
1100
0
1150
1100
3500
8600
19550
10450
2100
4000
4350
17200
5400
7200
12400
3550
4650
1050
1 1
H20
Mg/mL
91374
65
0
85
99
66
49
37
42
66
78
37
23
63
36
1 .8
67
0
2.7
12
Total In H20
Mg/mL
C#1 1x250mL
16250
0
21250
24750
16500
12250
9250
10500
16500
19500
9250
5750
15750
9000
450
16750
0
675
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN
600 Mg/9 Replicate * 1
13
Total Mg
recovered
C#10 +C#12
17350
0
22400
25850
20000
20850
28800
20950
18600
23500
13600
22950
21 150
16200
12850
20300
4650
1725
soil) — PA(
14
Total %***
recovered
C*13/C*8
81.7
0
81.7
92.8
68.2
76.1
91
77.5
67.9
81.2
50.3
82.6
78.3
63.6
(42.8)
72
(15.5)
(5.8)
3E 2
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil)
600 ug/g Replicate »2
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis-1 f 4-Dichloro-2-butene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 2,3-TMchloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylene dibromide
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
* per dry weight of soil
**mg (so1id)/50 9 dry weight
2
Density
g/cm3
CRC Handbk
0.806
0.951
0.805
0.889
0.879
0.867
0.866
1.106.
1.483
1.204
1.188
1.305
1.387
1.594
1.138
2.179
1.858
1.568
***1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions
****Numbers in parentheses are % recovery
3
Initial cone
ug/g soil*
7/1/87
600
0
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
based on the
4 5
Total chem iTotal added
(ML/50 9) iCalc. (mg)
pg. 143 :(1n 386^1)
37.2 : 30
0 ! 0
37.3 i 30
33.7 ! 30
34.1 ! 30
34.6 ! 30
34.6 ! 30
27.1 : 30
20.2 ! 30
24.9 i 30
25.2 i 30
23 ': 30
21.6 ! 30
18.8 : 30
30** i 30
13.8 i 30
30**! 30
30**! 30
oretical initial concentre
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C*5/.386 wL
78
0
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
Jtions
00
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mq/mL
91399.
81
0
100
72
89
88
83
81
71
83
68
83
70
62
0
75
0
0
8
Total added
ActuaKmg)
9 1
MEOH -Total
ug/mL*** !50 ml
C*7x.386Mt 91399 iC*9 x
0 11
Up in ! H20
MEOH; wg/mi
50 ml: 91399
: : :
31.3
0.0
38.6
27.8 '
34.4 .
34.0 '
32.0 !
31.3 !
27.4 i
32.0 i
26.3 !
32.0 !
27.0 !
23.9 •
o.o ;
29.0 !
o.o ;
o.o :.
11;0;0i
o ;
48;10;4!
20;6;0i
42;l6;5i
76;35;<7i
I2l;56;4i
103;35;<6i
25;l3;0i
109;30;6.5:
69;13;2!
280;62;27i 1
89;17;3!
3l;8;0!
449;159;28i 3
48;i2;0l
77;143;31i 1
27;129;4li
550 i 73
o ; o
3100 ! 98
1300 i 89
3150 ': 78
5750 : 60
7550 i 20
7200 ! 55
1900 ! 74
7275 ! 89
4200 : 44
8450 i 13
5450 ! 32
1950 i 31
1800 i 3.4
3000 i 80
2550 ! 0
9850 ! 0
: \
12
Total in H20
ug/mL
13
Total up
recovered
C*11x250mL:C*10+C#12
18250
0
24500
22250
19500
15000
5000
13750
18500
22250
11000
3250
8000
7750
850
20000 i
o ;
o ;
18800
0
27600
23550
22650
20750
12550
20950
20400
29525
15200
21700
13450
9700
32650
23000
12550
9850
iCAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) — PAGE
: 600 jag/9 Replicate *2
: : :
14
Total ****
recovered
C*13/C#8
60.1
0
71.5
84.7
65.9
61.1
39.2
67
74.4
92.2
57.9
67.7
49.8
40.5
108.8
79.4
41.8
32.8
2
01
VO
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
71
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) iDensity ! Initial cone IT
650 ug/g Replicate *1 Ig/cm3 iug/gsoil* i(
Ref. for Anal. Chem or NSH !CRC Handbook ! 8/ 1 7/87 ip
Chemical i : :
Acrylonltrile ; 0.806 ; 650 ;
Furan I 0.951 • :
Methyl ethyl ketone ; 0.805 ; 650 •
Tetrahydrofuran ; 0.889 : 650 ;
Benzene • 0.879 : 650 \
Toluene • 0.867 ; 650 ;
p-Xylene i 0.866 : 650 :
Chlorobenzene i 1.106 i 650 •
Chloroform i 1.483 i 650 i
Nitrobenzene ; 1.204 ! 650 '-.
ds-l,4-D1chloro-2-butene '•. 1.188 i 650 '-.
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene i 1.305 : 650 •
1 ,2,3-Trlchloropropane ; 1.387 ! 650 !
Carbon tetrachloride i 1.594 ': 650 !
2-Chloronaphthalene ; 1.138 i 650 ;
Ethylenedlbromide ; 2.179 i 650 i
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene : 1.858 : 650 :
Hexachlorobenzene : 1.568 i 650 i
* per dry weight of soil i : :
**mg (so!1d)/50 g dry weight : : :
*** 1st, 2nd. 3rd MeOH extractions i ; ;
**** Numbers In parentheses are % recovery based online theoretical jr
456
otal chem \ Total added -Std. Calc.
uL/50 g) iCalc. (mg) iconcmg/mL
g. 147 i(in419uL) !C«-5/.419uL
40.3 ; 32.5 ; 77.6
— i 32.5 i 77.6
40.4 i 32.5 i 77.6
36.6 i 32.5 i 77.6
37 ; 32.5 ': 77.6
37.5 •: 32.5 ! 77.6
37.5 ; 32.5 i 77.6
29.4 ; 32.5 i 77.6
21.9 i 32.5 i 77.6
27 ! 32.5 i 77.6
27.4 ; 32.5 i 77.6
24.9 : 32.5 ; 77.6
23.4 ; 32.5 ! 77.6
20.4 ; 32.5 I 77.6
32.5**! 32.5 i 77.6
14.9 ; 32.5 : 77.6
395**: 3? 5 : 77 ft
32.5**: 32.5 ! 77.6
iltial concentrations ;
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91514
71
—
84
86
93
93
94
89
86
70
82
58
83
86
80
8
Total added
Actual (mg)
C*7x.419uL
9
MEOH
u.g/mL***
91514
10
Total ug In
50 ml MEOH
C*9 x 50mL
11
H20
ug/mL
91514
29.7
12;0;0
600
64
: : :
35.2
36
39
39
39.4
37.3
36
29.3
34.4
24.3
34.8
36
33
37;7;6
36;9;0
56;12;2
74; 16; 15
83;18;10
79;20;15
44;0;0
37;19;14
52;17;0
43;29;40
60;20;0
63;0;0
139;75;47
56;0;0
20;21;42
25;44;55
2500
2250
3500
5250
5550
5700
2200
3500
3450
5600
4000
3150
13050
2800
4150
6200
96
110
.43
41
25
34
39
89
38
17
72
27
1.4
50
0
1.1
CAPTINASILH
650 ug/g Re|
12
Total In H20
ug/mL
C*1 1x250mL
13
Total ug
recovered
C*10+C*12
14
Total *****
recovered
C* 1 3/C*8
16000
16600
55.9
: :
24000
27500
10750
10250
6250
8500
9750
22250
9500
4250
18000
6750
350
12500
0
275
26500
29750
14250
15500
11800
14200
11950
25750
12950
9850
22000
9900
13400
15300
4150
6475
75.3
82.6
36.5
39.7
29.9
38.1
33.2
87.9
37.6
40.5
63.2
27.5
(41.2)
46.4
(12.8)
(19.9)
0AM (TN soil)
)11cate*1
— PAGE 2
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
CAPTI NA SILT LOAM (TN Soil)
650 ug/g Replicate* 2
Ref. for Anal. Chem or MSH
Chemical
Acrylonitrile
Furan
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Benzene
Toluene
p-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Nitrobenzene
cis- 1 ,4-D1ch)oro-2-butene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Carbon tetrachloride
2-Chloronaphthalene
Ethylenedi bromide
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
* per dry weight of soil
**mg ( solid)/50 g dry weight
*** 1st, 2nd, 3rd MeOH extractions
**** Numbers in parentheses are % rec
2
Density
g/cm3
CRC Handbook
0.806
0.951
0.805
0.889
0.879
0.867
0.866
1.106
1.483
1.204
1.188
1.305
1.387
1.594
1.138
2.179
1.858
1.568
overy based on
3
Initial cone
ug/gsoil*
8/17/87
650
___
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
6SO
6SO
650
650
650
650
650
the theoretical
4
Total chem
(ul/50g)
pg. 147
40.3
40.4
36.6
37
37.5
37.5
29.4
21.9
27
27.4
24.9
23.4
20.4
32.5**
14.9
32.5**
32.5**
nitial concentr
5
Total added
Calc. (mg)
(1n419ul)
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
ations
6
Std. Calc.
cone mg/mL
C*5/.419uL
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
77.6
-------
APPENDIX 9.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. Actual
mg/mL
91525
92
—
82
81
83
79
89
82
77
68
78
60
79
72
71
8
Total added
ActuaKmg)
C-*7x.419uL
38.5
34.4
33.9
34.8
33.1
37.3
34.4
32.3
28.5
32.7
25.1
33.1
30.2
29.7
9
MEOH
ug/ml***
91525
10
Total ug In
50 ml MEOH
C*9x50mL
•
7;0;0
350
:
27;8;5
26;6;2
5;12;8
62;20;13
155;26;14
132;23;15
8;0;0
78;17;11
92;10;5
162;30;22
11 1;17;8
0;0;0
116;70;45
48;45;68
14;25;15
5.6;32;45
2000
1700
1250
4750
9750
8500
400
5300
5350
10700
6850
0
11550
8050
2700
4130
•
|
*
CAPTINASllTLQAMCTNso
i 650 ug>
11
H20
ug/mL
91525
103
118
134
110
84
47
74
104
62
77
13
118
73
0
112
0
0
1) -- PAGE 2
g Rep 11 cQte*2
12
Total in H20
ug/ml
C*11x250mL
25750
29500
33500
27500
21000
11750
18500
26000
15500
19250
3250
29500
18250
0
28000
0
0
13
Total ug
recovered
C*10 +C*12
26100
—
31500
35200
28750
25750
21500
27000
26400
20800
24600
13950
36350
18250
11550
36050
2700
4130
14
Total %****
recovered
C* 1 3/C*8
67.8
91.6
104
82.6
77.8
57.6
78.5
81.7
73
75.2
55.6
110
60.4
(35.5)
121
(8.3)
(12.7)
-------
174
APPENDIX 9.4
SOIL DEGRADATION DATA
The appended tables are the data for individual experimental
determinations of chemical degradation in two test soils, a McLaurin sandy
loam and a Captina silt loam. The information provided in each column is as
follows:
Column No. Information
1 Chemical name
2 Chemical density (g/cm3)
3 Test concentration for chemical in soil (|ig/g soil, dry weight)
4 Total volume of chemical (|iL) needed to achieve the test
concentration
5 Total mass of chemical (mg) needed to achieve the test
concentration
6 Concentration of each test chemical (mg/L) in a standard
solution mixed to spike the soil (calculated)
7 Actual concentration of each chemical (mg/L) recovered from a
100 |ig/mL standard solution (determined analytically)
8 Total amount of chemical actually added (mg) to soil (based on
chemical analysis)
9 Concentration of chemical ((ig/mL) recovered in first methanol
extract of the soil (determined analytically)
10 Total amount of chemical ()ig) recovered recovered in first
methanol extract of the soil (based on chemical analysis)
11 Concentration of chemical ((ig/mL) recovered in second
methanol extract of the soil (determined analytically)
12 Total amount of chemical (|ig) recovered recovered in second
methanol extract of the soil (based on chemical analysis)
-------
175
APPENDIX 9.4
SOIL DEGRADATION DATA (Contd)
13 Concentration of chemical (^g/mL) recovered in third methanol
extract of the soil (determined analytically)
14 Total amount of chemical (ug) recovered recovered in third
methanol extract of the soil (based on chemical analysis)
15 Total amount of chemical (jig) recovered in methanol extracts
16 Total percent recovery of each chemical for the experiment
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil ^Density Mnitial cone
Extraction efficiency #1 :g/cm3 :jag/g soil**
Ref. for Anal. Chem or TAA ;CRC Handbk : 8/10/87
Chemical : :
Acrylonitrile • 0.806 • 100
Furan : 0.951 : 100
Methyl ethyl ketone : 0.805 : 100
Tetrahydrofuran • 0.889 : 100
Benzene • 0.879 ; 100
Toluene ; 0.867 : 100
p-Xylene i 0.866 ; 100
Chlorobenzene : 1 . 106 • 100
Chloroform : 1.483 • 100
Nitrobenzene : 1.204 : 100
cis-1?4-Dichloro-2-butene • 1.188 i 100
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 1.305 • 100
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane : 1.387 • 100
Carbon tetrachloride : 1.594 : 100
2-Chloronaphthalene \ 1.138 i 100
Ethylene dibromide • 2.179 • 1,00
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene • 1.858 • 100
Hexachlorobenzene ! 1.568 : 100
*Results of chem. extraction from soil with methanol pre
** per dry weight of soil : :
***mg (solid)/50 g dry weight : ;
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on th
456
Total chem iTotal addediStd. Calc.
(uL/50g) iCalc. (mg) iconc mg/mL
pg. 27, #3 i(in70jjL) iC»5/.070yL
6.2 i 5 ! 71
5.26 i 5 i 71
6.21 ; 5 ; 71
5.62 : 5 i 71
5.69 i 5 i 71
5.77 ; 5 ; 71
5.77 ; 5 i .71
4.52 i 5 i 71
3.37 ! 5 i 71
4.15 ; 5 i 71
4.23 i 5.1 i 73
3.83 i 5 ! 71
3.6 i 5 i 71
3.14 ; 5 ; 71
5.0***; 4.9 i 70
2.29 i 5 i 71
5.0***; 5 ; 71
5.0***; s ; 71
jliminary to degradation experiments
8 theoretical initial concentrations
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
8910
Std. 100 pprrTotal added MEOH #1 iTotal wg In
mg/mL
18720-183
Actual ( mg ) wg/mL :3.7mLMEOH
C«7x.070 ML 8708 10-21 4 !C#9 x 3.7mL
11 12 13
iMEOH #2 iTotal nq in MEOH #3
:jjg/mL :8.4mLMEOH ug/mL
i870810-215;C#11 x8.4mL 870810-216
7-22-87 i i ! !
7:7 7:7:7:7 7
7 i 7 ? : 7 : 7 : 7 ?
68
71
68
?
70
7
67
81 :
64 i
76 i
64 i
69 !
o ;
64 !
0 :
0.4 i
4760 296 ': 1095.2
4970 281 i 1039.7
4760 287 ! 1061.9
4970 359 i 1328.3
4900 429 i 1587.3
4970 403 i 1491.1
4690 278 i 1028.6
5670 393 ! 1454.1
4480 463 i 1713.1
5320 287 i 1061.9
4480 418 : 1546.6
4830 266 ! 984.2
5000 322 ! 1191.4
4480 385 ! 1424.5
5000 104 : 384.8
5000 35 : 129.5
i. 124 i 1041.6 62
i 1 19 i 999.6 52
: 131 i 1100.4 38
: 160 : 1344 83
! 189 i 1587.6 92
! 167 i 1402.8 124
• 124 i 1041.6 44
! 176 i 1478.4 89
: 144 i 1209.6 109
i 166 i 1394.4 80
i 171 ! 1436.4 109
i 120 i 1008 28
• 149 i 1251.6 81
i 158 i 1327.2 81
i 65 i 546 51
! 50 : 420 83
: : : :
: : iMCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil) — PAGE 2
: : iExtraction efficiency #1 •
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Total wg in jTotal jug in jTotal .*****.
17.9 ml MEOH:
MEOH
+i2 +14
;.r?.9.0.Y?.re
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Z 3
MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil )!Density ilnltlal cone
Extraction efficiency* *2 ig/cm3 :wg/g soil**
Ref. for Anal. Chem or TAA iCRC Handbk • 8/18/87
Chemical : :
Acrylonitrile • 0.806 • 100
Furan • 0.951 ! 100
Methyl ethyl ketone • 0.805 .; 100
Tetrahydrofuran • 0.889 • 100
Benzene • 0.879 • 100
Toluene : 0.867 : 100
p-Xylene • 0.866 : 100
Chlorobenzene : 1.106 : 100
Chloroform • 1.483 : 100
Nitrobenzene : 1.204 : 100
cis-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene • 1.188 ! '100
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene • 1.305 : 100
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane • 1.387 : 100
Carbon tetrachloride ; 1.594 : 100
2-Chloronaphthalene i 1.138 • 100
Ethylene dibromide • 2.179 ': 100
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene : 1.858 • 100
Hexachlorobenzene • 1.568 • 100
*Resu1ts of chem. extraction from soil with methanol pr
** per dry weight of soil : :
***mg (solid)/50 g dry weight : :
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on U
456
iTotal chem iTotal addediStd. Calc.
:(uL/50g) iCalc. (mg)iconc mg/mL
!p9. 27, *3 :(in70u.L) !C#5/.070 uL
; 6.2 ; s ; 71
! 5.26 : 5 ! 71
: 6.21 : 5 ; 71
; 5.62 ; s ; 71
; 5.69 i 5 i 71
i 5.77 i 5 ! 71
; 5.77 ; 5 ; 71
; 4.52 ; s ; 71
; 3.37 ; s ; 71
i 4.15 i 5 ! 71
; 4.23 ; 5.1 ; 73
• 3.83 i 5 i 71
i 3.6 i 5 ! 71
; 3.14 ; s ; 71
: 5.0***i 4.9 : 70
i 2.29 ! 5 i 71
i 5.0***: 5 ': 71
; 5.0***; s • 71
ellminary to degradation experiments
le theoretical initial concentrations
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 8
Std. 100 pprrTotal added
mg/mL :Actual(mg)
18720-183 :C*7x.070 uL
7-22-87 i
? : ?
? ; ?
68 • 4760
71 i 4970
68 :. 4760
? i 4970
70 i 4900
? i 4970
67 i 4690
81 ': 5670
64 i 4480
76 i 5320
64 : 4480
69 ! 4830
0 i 5000
64 : 4480
0 ': 5000
0.4 ! 5000
9 10
MEOH #1 iTotal wg in
iig/mL -2.6 ml MEOH
870818-153!C#9 x 2.6mL
11
MEOH »2
jjg/mL
870818-154
? : ? : ?
? : ? • 7
308 ! 800.8
297 i 772.2
288 i 748.8
391 ! 1016.6
466 ! 1211.6
446 i 1159.6
281 i 730.6
438 ! 1138.8
611 ! 1588.6
314 i 816.4
495 i 1287
315 ! 819
324 ! 842.4
409 i 1063.4
135 i 351
50 ! 130
150
144
159
210
240
230
148
223
281
160
240
185
170
207
90
47
• \
iMCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS
iExtraction efficiency *2
12
Total jag in
6.0 mL MEOH
C*11 x6.0mL
?
?
900
864
954
1260
1440
1380
888
1338
1686
960
1440
1110
1020
1242
540
282
soil) -- PAG
13
MEOH #3
ug/mL
870818-155
?
?
82
86
81
114
123
122
92
128
132
105
122
32
98
105
85
74
E 2
00
o
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Total up in
21.4
15 16 17 18 19 ZO 21
Total yq in -Total *****; • . . • i i
MEOH irecovered • • • i •
C*13 x21.4rr1l:C*11 + 12 +14 ;C#15/C#8 • • • i •
?;?;?; ; • ; ' i
?:?:?: J i : :
1754.8
1840.4
3455.6 ! 73 i i i ': ':
3476.6 :. 70 i i i i ' !
1733.4 i 3436.2 i 72 i i i ! ':
2439.6
2632.2
2610.8
1968.8 '
2739.2 ;
2824.8 ':
2247 ;
2610.8 i
684.8 !
2097.2 ;
2247 i
4716.2 : 95 : i : i i
i
5283.8 : ( 108): : : : :
5150.4 i 104 : ': ': ': ':
3587.4 ! (76)1 i i i !
5216 ; 92 ; ; ; ; ;
6099.4 ; 136 ; ; ; ; ;
4023.4 ; 76 ; ; ; ; ;
5337.8 ; 119 ; ; ; ; ;
2613.8 ; 54 ; ; ; ; ;
3959.6 ; (79); i ! ! " i
4552.4 ; 102 ; ; ; ; ;
1819 i 2710 ! (54)i ' i .! ! ':
1583.6 i
1995.6 ; (40); ; ; ; ;
'. '.'.','.','•
: ::::::
i i i ;MCLAURIN SANDY LOAM (MS soil) — PAGE 3
: : : :Ext raction efficiency #2 : ;
00
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 2 3
CAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) ^Density -Initial cone
Extraction efficiency #1 :.g/cm3 :^g/g soil**
Ref. for Anal. Chem or TAA ICRC Handbk i 8/10/87
Chemical • :
Acrylonitrlle : 0.806 ; 100
Furan ': 0.951 : 100
Methyl ethyl ketone • 0.805 \ 100
Tetrahydrofuran : 0.889 : 100
Benzene • 0.879 : 100
Toluene 1 0.867 : 100
p-Xylene • 0.866 i 100
Chlorobenzene : 1.106 i 100
Chloroform :. 1.483 i 100
Nitrobenzene : 1.204 : 100
cis-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene : 1.188 : 100
1 ,2-D1chlor*obenzene : 1.305 : 100
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane : 1.387 • 100
Carbon tetrachlorlde i 1.594 : 100
2-Chloronaphthalene i 1.138 • 100
Ethylene dlbromlde • 2.179 • 100
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene : 1.858 • 100
Hexachlorobenzene : 1.568 : 100
*Results of chem. extraction from soil with methanol pn
** per dry weight of soil : '
***mg (so11d)/50 g dry weight • •
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on th
456
iTotal chem -Total addediStd. Calc.
;(nL/50g) ICalc. (mg) iconc mg/mL
ipg. 27, #3 i(1n70jjiL) ;c»5/.070Ml
! '. '•
• 6.2 i 5 i 71
i 5.26 i 5 i 71
; 6.21 : 5 ; 71
; 5.62 ; 5 ; 71
; 5.69 :. s ; 71
; 5.77 : 5 ; 71
: 5.77 ; 5 : 71
; 4.52 ; 5 ; 71
: 3.37 i 5 ': 71
; 4. is ; 5 ; 71
i 4.23 ; 5.1 :. 73
: 3.83 ; 5 i 71
; 3.6 •: 5 ; 71
i 3. 14 i 5 i 71
: 5.0***: 4.9 : 70
2.29 I 5 ! 71
5.0***; 5 • 71
: 5.0***; 5 : 71
slimlnary to degradation experiments
e theoretical initial concentrations
00
K>
-------
APPENDIX 9.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Std. 100 ppm
mg/mL
18720-183
7-22-87
?
?
68
71
68
7
70
?
67
81
64
76
64
69
0
64
0
0.4
8 | 9
Total added
Actual(mg)
C»7x.070 Ml
?
?
4760
4970
4760
4970
4900
4970
4690
5670
4480
5320
4480
4830
5000 '
4480
5000
5000
MEOH «1
Mg/mL
870810-217
?
?
193
181
175
228
261
302
175
227
309
155
278
176
139
248
23
? .9
10 1 11 12
Total jjg in
5.7 mLMEOH
C#9 x 5.7mL
?
rt
1100.1
1031.7
997.5
1299.6
1487.7
1721.4
997.5
1293.9
1761.3
883.5
1584.6
1003.2
792.3
1413.6
131. 1
45.03
MEOH #2 iTotal M9 In
Mg/mL -11.4 mL MEOH
870810-218;c#11 x 11.4m
? i ?
• ? : ?
94 : 1071.6
90 ! 1026
93 ! 1060.2
136 ': 1550.4
141 i 1607.4
180 i 2052
93 ! 1060.2
120 : 1368
155 ': 1767
89 i 1014.6
147 ! 1675.8
91 i 1037.4
95 ! 1083
125 • 1425
20 i 228
24 ': 273.6
)
CAPT INA SILT LOAM (TN soil) ~ PAGE 2
Extraction efficiency #1 :
13
MEOH #3
Mg/mL
870810-218
?
?
46
54
36
62
59
88
58
60
50
57
63
34
50
45
14
46
CO
OJ
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Total yg In
27.9 ml MEOH
15
iTotal yg In
i MEOH
C#13x27.9mliC*11 + 12 +14
? : ?
? : ?
1283.4
1506.6
1004.4
1729.8
1646.1
2455.2
i'618.2
1674
139.5
i590.3
1757.7
948.6
1395
1255.5
390.6
1283.4
i 3455.1
': 3564.23
i 3062.1
4579.8
! 4741.2
: 6228.6
3675.9
4335.9
: 4923.3
3488.4
5018.1
2989.2
3270.3
4094.1
749.7
1602.03
16
Total *****
recovered
C*15/C#8
?
?
73
r72"
64
(92)
97
(125)
78
76
110
66
112
62
(65)
91
(15)
(32)
17 18 19 20 | 21
'• '•
: : :
; ' |
iCAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) -- PA(
iExtraction efficiency #1 :
3E 3
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 23
CAPTtNA SILT LOAM (TN soil) . iDensity ilnitlalconc
Extraction efficiency #2 :o,/cm3 :wg/g soil**
Ref. for Anal. Chem or TAA !CRC Handbk • 8/10/87
Chemical : :
Acrylonitrile : 0.806 : 100
Furan : 0.951 • 100
Methyl ethyl ketone • 0.805 : 100
Tetrahydrofuran . 0.889 : 100
Benzene • 0.879 • '-100
Toluene 1 0.867 : 100
p-Xylene • 0.866 • 100
Chlorobenzene : 1.106 : 100
Chloroform • 1.483 • 100
Nitrobenzene • 1.204 • 100
cis-1 ,4-D1chloro-2-butene : 1.188 : 100
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene i 1.305 • 100
1 ,2,3-TNchloropropane • 1.387 : 100
Carbon tetrachloride : 1.594 : 100
2-Chloronaphthalene \ 1.138 • 100
Ethylene dibromide • 2.179 : 100
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene : 1.858 : 100
Hexachlorobenzene : 1.568 : 100
*Resu1ts of chern. extraction from soil with methanol pr<
** per dry weight of soil : :
***m9 (solid)/50 9 dry weight : :
**** Numbers in parentheses are % recovery based on th
456
Total chem iTotal addediStd. Calc.
:(jaL/509) :Ca1c. (mg) iconc mg/mL
:pg. 27, #3 :(in70jaL) !C«5/.070 uL
6.2 i 5 i 71
5.26 i 5 i 71
i 6.21 i 5 i 71
: 5.62 i 5 i 71
! 5.69 i 5 i 71
; 5.77 ; 5 ; 71
5.77 i 5 i 71
; 4.52 ; 5 ; 71
: 3.37 i 5 ! 71
: 4.15 i 5 i 71
; 4.23 ; 5.1 ; 73
! 3.83 ; 5 i 71
•: 3.6 ; 5 ; 71
! 3.14 i 5 ! 71
: 5.0***i 4.9 ': 70
2.29 !• • 5 : 71
5.0***: 5 : 71 \
i 5.0***; 5 ; 71
sliminary to degradation experiments
e.theoretical initial concentrations
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 8 9 10
Std.lOOppm -Total addediMEOH #1 -Total up in
mg/mL ;Actua1(mg);ug/mL i4. 4 ml MEOH
18720-183 ;C#7x.070 uL: 870810-1 50iC#9 x4.4mL
11 12 13
MEOH #2 iTotal yp in iMEOH «3
ug/mL :9.8 mL MEOH :ug/mL
870810-151 !C*11 x9.8mU 870810-152
7-22-87 ; i ; ; ;
7:7:7:7 7:7:7
7:7:7:7 7:7:7
68 i 4760 i 168 i 739.2
71 ': 4970 ! 162 i 712.8
68 • 4760 ': 123 i 541.2
? ! 4970 ': 183 i 805.2
70 : 4900 ': 220 ': 968
? ! 4970 ! 220 ! 968
67 : 4690 ! 122 i 536.8
61 i 5670 i 232 ': 1020.8
64 ': 4480 : 280 i 1232
76 i 53,20 :. 155 i 682
64 ': 4480 i 255 : 1122
69 : 4830 ': 90 : 396
o ; 5000 ; 133 : 585.2
64 i 4480 i 208 i 915.2
0 i 5000 • 31 • 136.4
0.4 ! 5000 ! 46 ': 20.24
91 i 891.8 i 55
85 i 833 ! 55
84 i 823.2 ': 47
122 i 1195.6 :. 67
138 ': 1352.4 i 79
135 ! 1323 i 74
80 i 784 ! 49
136 i 1332.8 i 81
158 i 1548.4 i 82
115 ': 1127 ! 71
144 i 1411.2 i 81
81 i 793.8 ! 96
108 • 1058.4 ; 69
120 i 1176 i 61
66 i 646.8 i 40
15 ': 147 ! 34
; ; t ; ; ;
! ! iCAPTINASILT
LOAM (TN soil) — PAGE 2:
: : iExtraction eff ciency *2 • i
-------
APPENDIX 9.4
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Total ug in iTotal
30.8 mi MEOH;
C#13 x30.8rhLC*11-
jap in
MEOH
H2 +14
iTotal %****; i i .:
Recovered : : : •
;c*i5/c«8 ; ; ; ;
7:7:7: ': : :
?;?;?; ; ; ;
1694 ;
1694 ;
1447.6 ;
2063.6 i
2433.2 ;
2279.2 ;
1509.2 ;
2494.8 ;
2525.6 J
2186.8 ;
2494 ;
2956.8 ;
2125.2 :
1878.8 ;
1232 ;
1047.2 ;
3325
3239.8
2812
4064.4
4753.6
4570.2
2830
4848.4
5306
3995.8
5028
4146.6
3768.8
3970
2015.2
1214.4
; 70 ; ; ; ;
; 65 ; ; ; ;
; 59 ; ; ; ;
; 82 ; ; ; ;
; (97); ; ; ;
; 92 ; ; ; ;
; (eo); : ; ;
; 86 ; ; ; ;
; us ; ; ; ;
; 75 ; ; ; ;
; 112 ; ; ; ;
; 86 ; ; ; ;
; (75); ; ; ;
; 89 ; ; ; ;
; (40); ; ; ;
(24); ; ; ;
; ; iCAPTINA SILT LOAM (TN soil) ~ PAC
i i i iExtraction efficiency #2 i
3E 3
-------
188
APPENDIX 9.5
SOIL DEGRADATION GRAPHS AND CHARTS
The appended figures show the rate of disappearance of test chemicals
from sterile and nonsterile soils and the distribution of recovered chemicals
between vapor traps and soil. Degradation data are presented for the
following chemicals:
Benzene
Carbon tetrachlonde
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2 -Chloronaphthalene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
tis_il ,4-Dichloro-2 -butene
1,2-Dichloroelhane
Ethylene dibromide
Hexachlorobenzene
Methyl ethyl kelone
Nitrobenzene
p_-Xylene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
-------
189
APPENDIX 9.5
Benzene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
Q>
o
u
O>
CC
2
o
2.2
2.0
— 1.8-
y- 1.6856-0.1256X r -0.83
y-1.623-0.1268x r -0.77
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.1.1. Disappearance of benzene applied at 100 ug/g (dry weight) to
aonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy loam. Each
data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
190
APPENDIX 9.5
Benzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
Q)
O
o
O)
tr
100-
80-
60-
40-
20 -
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.1.2. Percent recovery of benzene by solvent extraction of nonsterile
McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries
are the means of two independent determinations. The
extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points (see
Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
191
APPENDIX 9.5
Benzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
100 -
c
-------
192
APPENDIX 9.5
O
Benzene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
y-1.5998-0.0897x t -0.62
y-1.4991 -0.0974X r -0.54
i
2
4
Day
Q Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.1.4. Disappearance of benzene applied at 100 jig/g (dry weight) to
nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam. Each data
point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
193
APPENDIX 9.5
Benzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
Q>
O
o
o
""""""*
Nonsterile soil
Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.1.5. Percent recovery of benzene by solvent extraction of nonsterile
Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries are
the means of two independent determinations. The extraction
efficiency has been factored into all data points (see Appendix
9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
194
APPENDIX 9.5
Benzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
Sterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.1.6. Percent recovery of benzene by solvent extraction of sterile
Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries are
the means of two independent determinations.The extraction
efficiency has been factored into all data points (see Appendix
9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
195
APPENDIX 9.5
Carbon Tetrachloride Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.2
y«1.6903-0.1259x r =0.82
2.0 -i i
1.8-
1.6 ^
1.4 H
1.2-
1.0-
0.8
y-1.5796-0.1183x r -0.70
i
2
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.2.1. Disappearance of carbon tetrachloride applied at 100 jig/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy
loam. Each data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
196
APPENDIX 9.5
Carbon Tetrachloride Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
• Nonsterile soil
0 Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.2.2. Percent recovery of carbon tetrachloride by solvent extraction of
nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
197
APPENDIX 9.5
Carbon Tetrachloride Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
Sterile soil
Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.2.3. Percent recovery of carbon tetrachloride by solvent extraction of
sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
198
APPENDIX 9.5
Carbon Tetrachloride Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
O)
o
o>
>
0)
oc
5!
o
»-
1 -
y=1.5636-0.085x r =0.57
y - 1.4231 -0.0937x r -0.48
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.2.4. Disappearance of carbon tetrachloride applied al 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam.
Each data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
199
APPENDIX 9.5
Carbon Tetrachloride Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
0)
o
o
d>
cc
15
mffffmm
• Nonsterile soil
E3 Trap1
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.2.5. Percent recovery of carbon tetrachloride by solvent extraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
200
APPENDIX 9.5
Carbon Tetrachloride Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
100 -
0^_
>x
DC
"ro
O
Sterile soil
Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.2.6. Percent recovery of carbon tetrachloride by solvent extraction of
sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
201
APPENDIX 9.5
Chlorobenzene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
en
£ 24
0)
o
u
-------
202
APPENDIX 9.5
Chlorobenzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
0)
o
o
d>
DC
jro
O
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.3.2. Percent recovery of Chlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
203
APPENDIX 9.5
Chlorobenzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
6>
o
DC
Sterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.3.3. Percent recovery of chlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The eitraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
O)
:§. 2 •< i
o>
8
0)
cc
o 1 -
204
APPENDIX 9.5
Chlorobenzene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
y « 1.5807- 0.1132x r =0.65
y- 1.5807-0.1132x r =0.65
4
Day
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.3.4. Disappearance of Chlorobenzene applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam.
Each data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
205
APPENDIX 9.5
Chlorobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
• Nonsterile soil
E3 Trap
3
Day
7-
Fig. 9.5.3.5. Percent recovery of chlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
206
APPENDIX 9.5
Chlorobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
100 -
o>
o
u
0)
DC
Is
o
Sterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.3.6. Percent recovery of chlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The eitraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
207
APPENDIX 9.5
Chloroform Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
0)
o
u
01
CC.
o 1 -
y-1.7196-0.1392x r -0.86
4
Day
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.4.1. Disappearance of chloroform applied at 100 ug/g (dry weight) to
nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy loam. Each
data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
208
APPENDIX 9.5
Chloroform Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
o>
o
o
2
o
100 -
80 -
60 H
40 i
20 -
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.4.2. Percent recovery of chloroform by solvent extraction of
nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
209
APPENDIX 9.5
Chloroform Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
o
(J
0)
oc
~2
o
• Sterile soil
E2 Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.4.3. Percent recovery of chloroform by solvent eitraction of sterile
McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries
are the means of two independent determinations. The
extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points (see
Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
ra
O
210
APPENDIX 9.5
Chloroform Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
O)
o 2 -i
o
8
o>
CC
1 -
y = 1.6844-0.0911x r =0.73
y-1.4776-0.109x r =0.56
i
4
Day
Q Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.4.4. Disappearance of chloroform applied at 100 ug/g (dry weight) to
nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam. Each data
point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
211
APPENDIX 9.5
Chloroform Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
100 -
o>
o
o
a>
CC
Nonsterile soil
Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.4.5. Percent recovery of chloroform by solvent extraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
212
APPENDIX 9.5
Chloroform Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
100 -
S. 80-
o
DC
2
o
60-
40 -
20 -
Sterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.4.6. Percent recovery of chloroform by solvent extraction of sterile
Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries are
the means of two independent determinations. The extraction
efficiency has been factored into all data points (see Appendix
9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
213
APPENDIX 9.5
2-Chloronapthalene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.0
1.9H
o
u
S 1.8-
o
1.7
y = 1.9905-0.0333x r =0.97
y - 2.0022 - 0.0377x r - 1.00
4
Day
Q Nonsterile soil
* Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.5.1. Disappearance of 2-chloronaphthalene applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy
loam. Each data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
214
APPENDIX 9.5
2-Chloronaphthalene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.5.2. Percent recovery of 2-chloronaphthalene by solvent extraction
of nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor
traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
215
APPENDIX 9.5
2-Chloronapthalene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
0)
o
cc
"5
o
Sterile soil
Trap
Fig- 9.5.5.3. Percent recovery of 2-chloronaphthalene by solvent extraction of
sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
216
APPENDIX 9.S
2-Chloronaphthalene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
y= 1.9677-0.0181X r -0.82
y- 1.9513-0.0141X r -0.51
1.8
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.5.4. Disappearance of 2-chloronaphthalene applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam.
Each data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
217
APPENDIX 9.5
2-Chloronaphthalene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
0>
§
o
a>
CC
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.5.5. Percent recovery of 2-chloronaphthalene by solvent extraction
of nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
218
APPENDIX 9.5
2-Chloronaphthalene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
o
tr
15
o
• Sterile soil
E3 Trap
Fig. 9.5.5-6. Percent recovery of 2-chloronaptuhalene by solvent extraction
of sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
219
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.2
O>
O
O
O
o>
cc
-------
220
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
• Nonsterile soil
0 Trap
Fig. 9.5.6.2. Percent recovery of 1,2-dichlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
221
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene : McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
Ou-
Sterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.6.3. Percent recovery of 1.2-dichlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
222
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
y = 2.006 - 0.0458X r = 0.86
y-1.9747-0.0324x f =0.56
1.5
Q Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.6.4. Disappearance of 1,2-dichlorobenzene applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam.
Each data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
223
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
100 -
2_-
>.
a>
o
o
cc
• Nonsterile soil
E3 Trap
Fig. 9.5.6.5. Percent recovery of 1.2-dichlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendii 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
224
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
• Sterile soil
E3 Trap
Fig. 9.5.6.6. Percent recovery of 1.2-dichlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The eitraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendii 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
225
APPENDIX 9.5
cis-.1,4-Dichloro-2-butene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.5
2.0
O)
o
§ 1-5
E
a
O
1.0-
0.5
y-1.8733-0.1625x r -0.97
_ y-1.9699-0.l624x r -0.99
4
Day
Q Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5-7.1. Disappearance of cis-l,4-dichloro-2-butene applied at 100 ng/g
(dry weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin
sandy loam. Each data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
226
APPENDIX 9.5
cis 1,4,-Dichloro-2-butene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
100 -
0>
o
o
0)
DC
• Nonsterile soil
0 Trap
Fig. 9.5.7.2. Percent recovery of cis-l,4-dichloro-2-butene by solvent
extraction of nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
227
APPENDIX 9.5
cis 1,4-Dichloro-2-butene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
£^
>.
O
O
0)
DC
• Sterile soil
E3 Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.7.3. Percent recovery of cis-l,4-dichloro-2-butene by solvent
extraction of sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
en
O
0)
8
a
(0
'o
228
APPENDIX 9.5
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
2.2
0.8
2.0-f y= 1.8714 -0.1557x r =0.97
1.8
1.6
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
y-1.8589-0.1224x r =0.89
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.7.4. Disappearance of cis-l,4-dichloro-2-butene applied at 100 ug/g
(dry weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt
loam. Each data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
229
APPENDIX 9.5
cis 1,4-Dichloro-2-butene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
£ 80-
QJ
§ 60
ra
O
• Nonsterile soil
E3 Trap
Fig. 9.5.7.5. Percent recovery of cis- l,4-dichloro-2-butene by solvent
extraction of nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
230
APPENDIX 9.5
els 1,4-Dichloro-2-butene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
• Sterile soil
0 Trap
Fig. 9.5.7.6. Percent recovery of cis-l.4-dichloro-2-butene by solvent
extraction of sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor
traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.-4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
231
o
o
o
u
to
OC
re
O
APPENDIX 9.5
Ethylene Dibromide Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.2
2.0
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
0.8
y - 1.7536-0.152x r =0.90
y= 1.8412-0.1577x r -OT94
Q Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.8.1. Disappearance of ethylene dibromide applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy
loam. Bach data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
232
APPENDIX 9.5
Ethylene Dibromide Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
0)
o
cc
2
o
120
100 -
80 -
60-
40 -
20 -
Nonsterile soil
Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.8.2. Percent recovery of ethylene dibrotnide by solvent extraction of
nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
233
APPENDIX 9.5
Ethylene Dibromide Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
>.
0)
o
o
0>
-------
234
en
O
0)
o
u
CD
cc
5?
2.2
2.0
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
0.8
APPENDIX 9.5
Ethylene Dibromide Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
y-1.7445-0.1246x r =0.87
y - 1.6841 - 0.0979x r - 0.67
4
Day
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.8.4. Disappearance of ethylene dibromide applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam.
Each data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
235
APPENDIX 9.5
Ethylene Dibromide Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.8.5. Percent recovery of ethylene dibromide by solvent extraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
236
APPENDIX 9.5
Ethylene Dibromide Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
• Sterile soil
E2 Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.8.6. Percent recovery of ethylene dibromide by solvent extraction of
sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
237
APPENDIX 9.5
Hexachlorobenzene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.0
g1 1.9 H
-------
238
APPENDIX 9.5
Hexachlorobenzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
100 -
o
u
&
<0
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.9.2. Percent recovery of heiachiorobenzene by solvent extraction of
nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
239
APPENDIX 9.5
Hexachlorobenzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
100-
o
u
o
Sterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.9.3. Percent recovery of heiachlorobenzene by solvent er tract ion of
sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
240
APPENDIX 9.5
Hexachlorobenzene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
2.0
o>
o
0)
o
o
-------
241
APPENDIX 9.5
Hexachlorobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
d^
>.
0>
O
DC
To
o
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.9.5. Percent recovery of hexachlorobenzene by solvent extraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
242
APPENDIX y.5
Hexachlorobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
100 -
d^
>,
i.
0)
O
o
0)
o:
• Sterile soil
E3 Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.9.6. Percent recovery of hexachlocobenzene by solvent extraction of
sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9 4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
243
8
4)
cc
APPENDIX 9.5
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.0
1.9
o 1.8
1.7-
1.5-
1.4
y = 2.0037 - 0.0729X r - 1.00
y-1.9765-0.0727x r -0.99
4
Day
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.10.1. Disappearance of methyl ethyl ketone applied at 100 ng/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy
loam. Each data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
244
APPENDIX 9.5
2^.
>,
>
O
o
0>
oc
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
100 -
80 -
60 -
Nonsterile soil
Trap
40 -
20-
Day
Fig. 9.5.10.2. Percent recovery of methyl ethyl ketone by solvent extraction
of nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor
traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
245
APPENDIX 9.5
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
100-1
o
o
0)
cc
"m
Sterile soil
Trap
20 H
Day
Fig. 9.5.10.3. Percent recovery of methyl ethyl ketone by solvent eitraction
of sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
246
APPENDIX 9.5
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
2.0213-0.0374x r -0.99
y-1.9667-0.0461 x r -0.97
1.6
0 Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.10.4. Disappearance of methyl ethyl ketone applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam.
Each data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
247
APPENDIX 9.5
Methyl Ethyl Ketone: Captina Silt Loam
120
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.10.5. Percent recovery of methyl ethyl ketone by solvent extraction
of nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
248
APPENDIX 9.5
Methyl Ethyl Ketone: Captina Silt Loam
120
100 -
-------
249
APPENDIX 9.5
Nitrobenzene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.0
a)
0>
tr
1.9-
1.8-
1.7-
1.6
D y-2.031 - 0.0518x r -0.97
y-1.9704-0.0517x r -0.98
4
Day
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.11.1. Disappearance of nitrobenzene applied at 100 jig/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy
loam. Each data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
250
APPENDIX 9.5
Nitrobenzene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.11.2. Percent recovery of nitrobenzene by solvent extraction of
nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into.all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
251
APPENDIX 9.5
Nitrobenzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
Sterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.11.3. Percent recovery of nitrobenzene by solvent extraction of
sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
en
o
o
o
a
a:
2
o
2.1
2.0
1.9-
1.8-
1.7
252
APPENDIX 9.5
Nitrobenzene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
Q y-2.0226-0.0128x r =0.80
y-1.9783-0.0269x r -0.97
4
Day
Q Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
Pig. 9.5.11 A. Disappearance of nitrobenzene applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam.
Each data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
253
APPENDIX 9.5
Nitrobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
• Nonsterile soil
E3 Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.11.5. Percent recovery of nitrobenzene by solvent eitraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The eitraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
254
APPENDIX 9.5
Nitrobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
100 -
0)
o
o
0>
DC
"ro
O
Sterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.11.6. Percent recovery of nitrobenzene by solvent extraction of
sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
O)
£ 2
>.
8
0)
tr
255
APPENDIX 9.5
p-Xylene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
1.6157-0.159X r .0.83
y= 1.7918-0.1875X r -0.94
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.12.1. Disappearance of p-iylene applied at 100 ug/g (dry weight) to
nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy loam. Each
data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
en,
-------
256
APPENDIX 9.5
p-Xylene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
<£•
>.
-------
257
APPENDIX 9.5
p-Xylene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
-------
258
APPENDIX 9.5
p-Xylene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
O) _ .
o 2-ii
£•
0)
o
o
o>
oc
y-1.6004-0.157x r .0.82
y-1.5085-0.1073x r -0.57
Q Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.12.4. Disappearance of p-iylene applied at 100 ug/g (dry weight) to
nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam. Each data
point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
259
APPENDIX 9.5
p-Xylene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.12.5. Percent recovery of p-iylene by solvent extraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.-4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
260
APPENDIX 9.5
p-Xylene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
Sterile soil
Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.12.6. Percent recovery of p-xylene by solvent extraction of sterile
Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries are
the means of two independent determinations. The extraction
efficiency has been factored into all data points (see Appendix
9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
en
O
o>
O
n
"o
261
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
2.4
2.2-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2
y - 2.0089 - 0.0477X r -0.57 •
y - 2.0048 - 0.0632x r -0.56
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.13.1. Disappearance of 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene applied at 100
Ug/g (dry weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved)
McLaurin sandy loam. Each data point is the mean or two
independent determinations.
-------
262
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorochlorobenzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
200
01
§
cc
"a
o
100-
• Nonsterile soil
E3 Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.13.2. Percent recovery of 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene by solvent
extraction of nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The eitraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendii 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
263
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
100 -
£.
>.
u
o
o
• Sterile soil
E3 Trap
Fig. 9.5.13.3. Percent recovery of 1.2.4.5-tetrachlorobenzene by solvent
extraction of sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The eitraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendii 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
264
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,4 ,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
en
° 2
0)
o
o
2 , ,
o 1
y = 1.9715-0.0242X r =0.43
y-2.0165-0.173x r .0.62
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.13.4. Disappearance of 1,2.4,5-tetrachlorobenzene applied at 100
Ug/g (dry weight) to nonslerile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina
silt loam. Each data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
265
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
• Nonsterile soil
Z3 Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.13.5. Percent recovery of 1.2.4.5-tetrachiorobenzene by solvent
extraction of nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
266
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
• Sterile soil
E2 Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.13.6. Percent recovery of 1,2.4,5-tetrachlorobenzene by solvent
extraction of sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor
traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendii 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
267
APPENDIX 9.5
Tetrahydrofuran Degradation:McLaurin Sandy Loam
oi
o
0)
o
g
1.7 J
2
t>
1.6-
1.5
y - 2.0369 - 0.0629x r -0.99
y-1.9663-0.063x r -0.97
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.14.1. Disappearance of telrahydrofuran applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy
loam. Each data point Is the mean of two Independent
determinations.
-------
268
APPENDIX 9.5
Tetrahydrofuran Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
2-
0)
o
K
cc
*a
o
100 -
80-
60-
40-
20-
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Pig. 9.5.14.2. Percent recovery of tetrahydrofuran by solvent extraction of
nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
269
APPENDIX 9.5
Tetrahydrofuran Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
Q)
O
cc
• Sterile soil
E3 Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.14.3. Percent recovery of tetrahydrofuran by solvent extraction of
sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
2.0
en
o
>.
0)
o
u
JO
"5
1.9-
1.8-
1.7-
1.6
270
APPENDIX 9.5
Tetrahydrofuran Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
y - 2.0337 - 0.028x r =0.94
y-1.9568-0.0406X r -0.92
4
Day
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.14.4. Disappearance of telrahydrofuran applied at 100 ug/g (dry
weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam.
Each data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
271
APPENDIX 9 J
Tetrahyrofuran Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.14.5. Percent recovery of tetrahydrof uran by solvent extraction of
nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
272
APPENDIX 9.5
Tetrahydrofuran Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
• Sterile soil
E3 Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.14.6. Percent recovery of tetrahydrofuran by solvent extraction of
sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps.
Recoveries are the means of two independent determinations.
The extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points
(see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
273
APPENDIX 9.5
Toluene Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
0)
at
o
3
o
2.5
2.0
1.5-
1.0-
0.5
y- 1.7245-0.1358X r =0.78
y-1.7166-0.1503X r -0.89
4
Day
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.15.1. Disappearance of toluene applied at 100 ug/g (dry weight) to
nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) McLaurin sandy loam. Each
data point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
274
APPENDIX 9.5
Toluene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
0>
o
o
0>
oc
15
»-
o
• Nonsterile soil
E3 Trap
Fig. 9.5.15.2. Percent recovery of toluene by solvent extraction of nonsterile
McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries
are the means of two independent determinations. The
extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points (see
Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
275
APPENDIX 9.5
Toluene Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
0>
o
o
0>
oc
• Sterile soil
E3 Trap
3
Day
Fig. 9.5.15.3. Percent recovery of toluene by solvent extraction of sterile
McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries
are the means of two independent determinations. The
extraction efficiency has been factored into all data points (see
Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
276
APPENDIX 9.5
Toluene Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
O)
£ 2
>.
0)
8
0)
OC
y-1.6105-0.1204x r - 0.74
y-1.4514-0.061 x r -0.32
4
Day
Nonsterile soil
Sterile soil
Fig. 9.5.15.4. Disappearance of toluene applied at 100 lig/g (dry weight) to
nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt loam. Each data
point is the mean of two independent determinations.
-------
277
APPENDIX 9.5
Toluene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.15.5. Percent recovery of toluene by solvent extraction of nonsterile
Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries are
the means of two independent determinations. The extraction
efficiency has been factored into all data points (see Appendix
9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
278
APPENDIX 9.5
Toluene Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
0>
o
u
O
DC
o
• Sterile soil
0 Trap
Fig. 9.5.15.6. Percent recovery of toluene by solvent extraction of sterile
Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor traps. Recoveries are
the means of two independent determinations. The extraction
efficiency has been factored into all data points (see Appendix
9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
279
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,3-Trichloropropane Degradation: McLaurin Sandy Loam
Q)
8
-------
280
APPENDIX 9
1,2,3-Trichloropropane Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
en
o
0)
o
o
0)
cc
ra
o
Nonsterile soil
Trap
Day
Fig. 9.5.16.2. Percent recovery of 1.2.3-trichloropropane by solvent
extraction of nonsterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
281
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,3-Trichloropropane Recovery: McLaurin Sandy Loam
120
o
o
Sterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.16.3. Percent recovery of 1,2,3-trichloropropane by solvent
extraction of sterile McLaurin sandy loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
282
O)
o
8
a
O
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,3-Trichloropropane Degradation: Captina Silt Loam
2.2
2.0
1.8-
1.6 H
1.4 H
1.2 H
1.0
y = 1.9456-0.124x ( -0.98
y-1.9157-0.0753x r =0.87
a Nonsterile soil
• Sterile soil
4
Day
Fig. 9.5.16.4. Disappearance of 1,2,3-trichloropropane applied at 100 ug/g
(dry weight) to nonsterile and sterile (autoclaved) Captina silt
loam. Each data point is the mean of two independent
determinations.
-------
283
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,3-Trichloropropane Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
0)
o
o
0>
DC
• Nonsterile soil
E3 Trap
Fig. 9.5.16.5. Percent recovery of 1,2.3-trichloropropane by solvent
extraction of nonsterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal
vapor traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The eitraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
284
APPENDIX 9.5
1,2,3-Trichloropropane Recovery: Captina Silt Loam
120
tf^
>»
0>
o
o
cc
75
o
Sterile soil
Trap
Fig. 9.5.16.6. Percent recovery of 1.2.3-trichloropropane by solvent
extraction of sterile Captina silt loam and from charcoal vapor
traps. Recoveries are the means of two independent
determinations. The extraction efficiency has been factored into
all data points (see Appendix 9.4 for actual percent recoveries).
-------
285
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
ORNL-6451
1-2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
T.
R.
J.
N.
J.
M.
C.
C.
w.
s.
D.
P.
C.
M.
M.
D.
A.
B.
H.
T.
L.
P.
W.
W.
H.
H.
D.
-Y.
P.
E.
L.
E.
Anderson
Craig
Cushman
Edwards
Epler
Farrell
Francis
Gehrs
Griest
Hildebrand
Huff
Lu
McGinnis
Mitchell
Poutsma
Reichle
18. T. H. Row
19. S. H. Stow
20. L. E. Stratton
21. J. S. Suffern
22. S. S. Talmage
23. T. Tamura
24. J. R. Trabalka
25. R. I. Van Hook
26. W. Van Winkle
27-28. B. T. Walton
29. Central Research Library
30-44. ESD Library
45-46. Laboratory Records Dept.
47. Laboratory Records-RC
48. ORNL Patent Section
49. ORNL Y-12 Technical Library
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
50. Associate Director, Ecosystem Studies Program, Room 336,
1800 G Street, NW, National Science Foundation, Washington,
DC 20550
51. T. L. Bulman, Soil Scientist, Residue Management, Wastewater
Technology Centre, Environmental Protection Service, Canada
Centre for Inland Waters, Environment Canada, Burlington,
Ontario L7R 4A6
52. R. R. Colwell, Director, Maryland Biotechnology Institute,
Microbiology Building, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742
53. R. A. Conway, Senior Research Fellow,
Corporation, P.O. Box 8361 (770-341),
WV 25303
54. W. E. Cooper, Department of Zoology, College of Natural
Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
55. S. Feldstein, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 3HW 16,
841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107
56. G. J. Foley, Director, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, MD-75, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
57. J. P. Giesy, Jr., Michigan State University, 201 Pesticide
Research, East Lansing, MI 48824
Union Carbide
South Charleston,
-------
286
58. T. D. Hayes, Coordinator, Biotechnology Applications, Gas
Research Institute, 8600 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Chicago,
IL 60631
59. T. C. Hazen, Research Microbiologist, Environmental Sciences
Division, Building 773-442A, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken,
SC 29808
60. G. E. Likens, Director, The New York Botanical Garden,
Institute of Ecosystem Studies, The Mary Flagler Gary
Arboretum, Box AB, Millbrook, NY 12545
61. R. C. Loehr, University of Texas, Civil Engineering
Department, 816 ECJ Hall, Austin, TX 78712
62. C. J. Mankin, Director, Oklahoma Geological Survey, The
University of Oklahoma, 830 Van Vleet Oval, Room 163, Norman,
OK 73019
63-77. J. E. Matthews, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
P.O. Box 1198, Ada, OK 74820
78. Helen McCammon, Director, Ecological Research Division, Office
of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy
Research, ER-75, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
DC 20545
79. Theodore Mill, Stanford Research Institute, PS-273,
333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025
80. R. A. Minear, Director, Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of Illinois, 408 S. Goodwin, Urbana, IL 61801
81. I. Murarka, Electrical Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview
Avenue, P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303
82. E. F. Neuhauser, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, 300 Erie
Boulevard West, Syracuse, NY 13202
83. D. Preble, Baskerville Donovan Engineers, 316 S. Baylen
Street, Suite 300, Pensacola, FL 32501
84. R. C. Sims, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Utah State University, Logan, UT 78712
85. R. A. Stanley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW (PM-223), Washington, DC 20460
86. Frank J. Wobber, Ecological Research Division, Office of
Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research,
ER-75, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
87. Office of Assistance Manager for Energy Research and
Development, Oak Ridge Operations, P.O. Box 2001, U.S.
Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8600
88-97. Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1989 648-119/00039
------- |