&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/2-78-152
August 1978
Research and Development
Assessment of Bacteria
and Virus Emissions
at a Refuse Derived
Fuel Plant
and Other Waste
Handling Facilities
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This ciocurnenf is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-152
August 1978
ASSESSMENT OF BACTERIA AND VIRUS EMISSIONS AT A REFUSE DERIVED
FUEL PLANT AND OTHER WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES
by
D. E. Flscus
P- G. Gorman
M. P. Schrag
L. J. Shannon
Environmental Systems Section
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1871
Project Officer
Carlton C. Wiles
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publi-
cation. 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
recommendations for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land
are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The
complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components re-
quire a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and search-
ing for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the preservation and treatment of
public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social,
health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the
products of that research, a most vital communications link between the re-
searcher and the user community-
The St. Louis-Union Electric-Environmental Protection Agency refuse fuel
project was the first demonstration of the use of solid waste as a supplemen-
tary fuel in power plant boilers for generating electricity. In addition to
the demonstrations, research tasks were conducted to evaluate the relative
levels of airborne bacteria and virus at the St. Louis Refuse Processing
Plant. This report presents the results of these evaluations. It provides
data on in-plant and property line concentrations as well as comparisons to
concentrations at other waste handling facilities.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of work carried out by Midwest Research
Institute for the Environmental Protection Agency to determine relative lev-
els of bacteria in order to compare these levels at the St. Louis Refuse Pro-
cessing Plant with those at four other types of waste handling facilities
(i.e., an incinerator, a waste transfer station, a wastewater treatment plant,
and a landfill). This work also included testing to determine bacterial re-
moval efficiency of the Environmental Protection Agency mobile fabric filter
(baghouse) operating on a slipstream drawoff of the exhaust duct from the air
classifier at the St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant.
The results showed that airborne bacterial levels, both in plant and at
the property line, are generally higher for the refuse processing plant than
for the other types of waste handling facilities that were tested. A fabric
filter system applied to a primary source of dust emission (the air density
separation exhaust) at the refuse derived fuel plant can significantly reduce
particulate and bacteria emissions.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1871 by
Midwest Research Institute under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables viii
Acknowledgments xii
1. Summary 1
Bacteria and virus emissions 2
Trace element emissions 5
Particulate emissions and fabric filter performance ... 6
2. Introduction 7
3. Test Plan 9
4. Results and Discussion 13
Bacteria and virus emissions 13
Trace metals 62
Air classifier particulate emission and mobile fabric
filter efficiency 65
5. Conclusions and Recommendations 68
Conclusions 68
Recommendations 69
References 70
Appendices
A. Detailed description of test plan 72
B. Field test methodology 91
C. Laboratory analysis methodology for bacteria and virus .... 108
D. IITRI report on asbestos analysis 116
E. Particulate test results for air classifier discharge and EPA
mobile filter 122
F. Trace element analysis procedures and analytical results . . . 130
G. Tabulation of sampling data for Hi-Vols and meteorological
data 139
H. Tabulation of Hi-Vol bacteria results and morphological char-
acteristics of isolates from Hi-Vol and Andersen samples . . 145
I. A literature review of the health aspects of airborne micro-
organisms in waste treatment industries
-------
FIGURES
Number FaSe
1 In-plant Hi-Vol samples (total bacteria count) 24
2 In-plant Hi-Vol samples (total coliform) 25
3 In-plant Hi-Vol samples (fecal coliform) 26
4 In-plant Hi-Vol samples (fecal streptococci) 27
5 Ambient Hi-Vol samples (total bacteria count) 28
6 Ambient Hi-Vol samples (total coliform) 29
7 Ambient Hi-Vol samples (fecal coliform) 30
8 Ambient Hi-Vol samples (fecal streptococci) 31
9 Average in-plant and ambient Hi-Vol results (total bacteria
count) 34
10 Average in-plant and ambient Hi-Vol results (total coliform) . . 35
11 Average in-plant and ambient Hi-Vol results (fecal coliform) . . 36
12 Average in-plant and ambient Hi-Vol results (fecal
streptococci) 37
13 Andersen data for upwind and downwind locations (bacteria -
total plate counts) 42
14 Andersen data for in-plant locations (bacteria - total plate
counts) 43
15 Summary of statistical difference between plants for upwind
Hi-Vol samples 49
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
16 Summary of statistical difference between plants for downwind
Hi-Vol samples 50
17 Summary of statistical difference between plants for in-plant
Hi-Vol samples 51
18 Summary of statistical difference between plants for receiving
area Hi-Vol samples 52
19 Summary of statistical difference between plants 54
B-l Layout of incinerator and RDF plant 94
B-2 Layout of wastewater treatment plant 98
B-3 Layout of waste transfer station 101
B-4 Layout of sanitary landfill 103
E-l Flow diagram of EPA mobile bag filter 123
E-2 Baghouse outlet cumulative size distribution 127
E-3 Fractional efficiency curve 128
1-1 Qualitative representation of microorganism obstacles 165
1-2 Deposition versus particle size of inhaled particles in the
upper respiratory tract and in the lungs of the guinea pig
and monkey compared with man 170
1-3 Survival of airborne bacteria as a function of aerosol age . . . 173
1-4 Effectiveness of ventilation in removing small particles .... 189
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Ranking of Plants Based on Average Ambient Bacterial Levels from
Hi-Vol Samples 4
2 Ranking of Plants Based on Average In-Plant Bacterial Levels
from Hi-Vol Samples 4
3 Analysis Spectrum for Bacteria and Virus 11
4 Shredded Refuse Samples - Bacteria Results 14
5 Bacteria Results for Air Classifier Discharge and Mobile Filter
Samples 16
6 Hi-Vol Data 18
7 Ranking Based on Average Bacterial Levels in Descending Order
for Hi-Vol Testing Sites 33
8 Andersen Samples Data 38
9 Analysis of Variance Comparisons 45
10 Classification of In-Plant Locations for Use at Site in the
Analysis of Variance 46
11 Results of Analysis of Variance for Hi-Vol Samples 48
12 Locales Whose Bacteria Concentrations Were Not Statistically
Different from Those at the RDF Processing Plant 56
13a Summary of 1975 Test Data for Bacteria and Virus 59
13b Summary of 1975 Test Data for Bacteria and Virus (Emissions in
Storage Bin) 60
13c Summary of 1975 Test Data for Bacteria and Virus (Tests on
Ambient Air, 25 km West of Plant) 61
viii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
14 Trace Element Concentrations for Hi-Vol Ambient Air Samples . . 63
15 Trace Element Results for Air Classifier Discharge Samples . . 64
A-l Sampling Locations and Types of Samplers 73
A-2 Analyses to Be Performed on Hi-Vol and Andersen Samples Taken
Daily at Each Plant 74
A-3 Daily Samples at Each Plant (3 Test Days) Hi-Vols, and
Andersens with Backup Impingers, Impingers, and Refuse
Samples 75
A-4 Identification of Analysis Spectrum 80
A-5 Summary of Sampling and Analysis Plan 82
A-6 Field Laboratory Log for Hi-Vol Samples 86
A-7 Field Laboratory Log for Andersen Impactor Samples 87
A-8 Field Laboratory Log for RDF Plant Samples 88
A-9 Label for Hi-Vol Samples „ 89
A-10 Label for Andersen Impactor Samples „ 89
A-ll Sample of Label 90
C-l Flow Sheet for Viral Concentration Procedures of Aerosol Sam-
ples on Hi-Vol Filters (Hydroxyapatite Method) 112
C-2 Flow Sheet for Viral Concentration Procedures of Aerosol Sam-
ples on Hi-Vol Filters (Phase Separation Method) 114
D-l Analysis of Sample Air Classifier-4-1 for Asbestos Fibers . . . 119
D-2 Analysis of Sample Air Classifier-2-4 for Asbestos Fibers . . . 120
E-l EPA Mobile Bag Filter 125
E-2 Comparison of MRI and Monsanto Particulate Data 126
ix
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
F-l Summary of Parameters for Metal Analysis 131
F-2 Elemental Analysis Results 135
F-3 Elemental Concentrations of Standard Reference Materials ... 138
G-l Week No. I—Incinerator « • 140
G-2 Week No. 2--RDF Plant 141
G-3 Week No. 3—Wastewater Treatment Plant 142
G-4 Week No. 4--Waste Transfer Station 143
G-5 Week No. 5--Sanitary Landfill 144
H-l Incinerator 146
H-2 Processing Plant 147
H-3 Waste Transfer Station 148
H-4 Wastewater Treatment Plant 149
H-5 Sanitary Landfill 150
1-1 Comparative Size of Microorganisms and Cells 152
1-2 Some Widely Used Samplers for Airborne Microorganisms 157
1-3 New Developments in Airborne Sampling of Microorganisms .... 158
1-4 Microbiological Population in Different Environments 159
1-5 Infections and Diseases Caused by Microorganisms 161
1-6 Survival Time of Various Organisms 164
1-7 Droplet Evaporation Rates 168
1-8 Effect of Cloud Age of Infectivity 172
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
1-9 Specific Dose/Response Relationships for Various Microorganisms
and Subjects 175
1-10 Composition of Solid Waste 178
I-11 Physical Characteristics of Municipal Refuse 179
1-12 Concentration of Microorganisms 181
1-13 Bacteria and Virus Found in Sewage 182
1-14 Particle Sizes of Aerosols Associated with Aerated Wastewater
Processes 185
1-15 Bacterial Levels Resulting from Irrigation with Wastewater . . 186
1-16 Relative Vulnerability of Individual Cells to Ultraviolet Radi-
ation in the 2.537 x 10~7 M Wave Band When E_. coli Equals
Unity 190
XL
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-02-1871. It describes an investigation of bacteria and virus
emissions conducted by Midwest Research Institute at the St. Louis Refuse Pro-
cessing Plant, and at four other waste handling facilities during the period
November 1 to December 1, 1976, and discusses related information based on a
search of the technical literature. The report also includes results of anal-
ysis for trace metal and asbestos emissions from the air classifier system at
the St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant and an evaluation of a pilot scale bag-
house for control of particulates and bacteria and virus emissions from the
air classifier system.
Mr. Doug Fiscus, Mr. Paul Gorman, Mr. M. P. Schrag, and Dr. L. J. Shannon
were the principal authors of this report, with assistance from Dr. Frank
Wells, Dr. William Spangler, Mr. M. Fletcher, Mr. Girish Desai, Mr. R. White,
Mr. Stan Reigel, Mr. Bruce DaRos, and Mr. P. Reider.
This program involved sampling at several different plants, and we would
like to express our appreciation to those plant personnel who gave their per-
mission for Midwest Research Institute to conduct testing and gave their as-
sistance in that effort. We especially want to thank Mr. Jim Shea and Mr. Nick
Young of the St. Louis Processing Plant for their special efforts and coopera-
tion in carrying out this program. We also want to recognize the assistance
of Monsanto personnel, in particular Mr. John Synder, who operated the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency mobile filter, and our subcontractor (IIT Research
Institute) for asbestos analysis.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
L. J. Shannon, Director
Environmental and Materials Sciences
Divis ion
February 21, 1978
xii
-------
SECTION 1
SUMMARY
Tests were carried out in November and early December of 1976 to deter-
mine relative bacteria and virus levels at the property lines and at in-plant
locations for the St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant* and a number of other
related waste handling facilities. The primary purposes of the tests were to:
a. Provide data for comparison of airborne bacterial and viral levels
at the refuse processing plant with those other facilities.
b. Determine any correlation between bacteria concentration and particu-
late particle size.
c. Obtain data for comparison of airborne trace element and asbestos
concentrations at each facility.
d. Evaluate fabric filter collection efficiency for bacteria.
The facilities tested were:
* A municipal incinerator;
* The St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant;
* A wastewater treatment plant;
* A refuse transfer station; and
* A sanitary landfill.
In addition to the above facilities, testing was also carried out in
downtown St. Louis. Bacterial levels were also ascertained for a refuse col-
lection packer truck.
* The St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant was a 272 Mg/day test facility that
operated from 1972 to 1976. The plant produced refuse derived fuel (RDF)
for use by the Union Electric Company.
-------
The test activity was supplemented by a comprehensive search of the tech-
nical literature to define the current state of knowledge on bacteria and
virus emissions from waste handling facilities.
Three days of testing were carried out at each of the above facilities
with Hi-Vol ambient air filters and Andersen agar plate impactors at the
property lines (one upwind and three downwind) and at three in-plant loca-
tions. In addition, supplemental tests were conducted at the RDF plant to
evaluate emissions of particulate trace metals, asbestos, and microorganisms
from the air classifier system, and removal efficiency of particulates and mi-
croorganisms by a pilot scale mobile filter unit (baghouse) provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Each of the Andersen impactor stages (agar plates) was examined to de-
termine total bacteria colony counts. The Hi-Vol filters were assayed for the
following:
Bacteria
Total aerobic bacteria
Salmonella
Staphylococcus aureus
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Klebsiella sp.
Virus (by one cell line)
Adenoviruses
Enteroviruses
Test methodologies and analysis procedures are described in the report.
BACTERIA AND VIRUS EMISSIONS
Bacteria and virus assays of the property line and in-plant Hi-Vol fil-
ters, plus the total bacteria colony counts from the Andersen impactors, were
the focal point of this program. The primary purpose in obtaining these data
was to make a comparison of the data for the processing plant with that of
the other four facilities. The Hi-Vol filter sampling methodology was utilized
because it provides long-term high flow rate sampling capability. However,
bacteria/virus concentrations must not be considered as absolute values be-
cause this type of sampling method probably produces considerable die-off of
bacteria and viruses. Realizing this, the data best serve only the intended
purpose, a comparison of facilities.
-------
It was intended that comparisons be made for both bacteria and virus.
However, all virus assays were negative so no virus comparisons are possible.
We could not ascertain that sampling methods did not adversely affect viruses
that might have been present or that levels were below detection limits.
Therefore, it is not possible to draw any definite conclusions regarding rel-
ative virus levels.
A comparison of bacteria levels at each of the plants was carried out,
using both the Hi-Vol sample results and the Andersen impactor results for
four of the seven species tested. No results are presented for Salmonella
sp. , Staphylococcus aureus, and Klebsiella sp. because almost all were nega-
tive and from this it is inferred that their number or viability is low. Re-
sults for the other four species, based on the Hi-Vol samples, showed in gen-
eral, that the range of airborne bacterial levels was highest downwind of the
RDF plant. Detected levels at all of the plants covered a rather broad range
in most cases. We do not know the reason for these large differences but it
does make interpretations and intercomparisons very difficult. Also, it is not
possible to be certain that downwind and in-plant samples at the RDF plant
were not influenced by the nearby incinerator operations. There was also the
unfortunate circumstance that upwind bacterial levels were highest during the
tests at the RDF plant. Numerically, the higher upwind levels could not ac-
count for the higher downwind values but interpretation of the results is
more complicated.
The ambient Hi-Vol results did show the highest downwind levels at the
processing plant, for all four species of bacteria. A rank ordering of the
facilities given in Table 1 showed lowest downwind levels at the landfill or
wastewater treatment plant depending on species of bacteria.
In-plant Hi-Vol results shown in Table 2 yielded roughly the same rela-
tive ranking of facilities as did the ambient results.
The in-plant sites included the packer truck which had bacterial levels
comparable with the highest of the other locations that were actually located
within the plants. In-plant levels at the RDF plant are lower than the levels
measured during packer truck sampling.
Andersen agar plate impactor samples taken at the same upwind/downwind
and in-plant locations showed the same general trend in total bacteria colony
counts as did the Hi-Vol results. That is, the downwind levels were highest
at the RDF plant and lowest at the landfill, while the in-plant levels were
about equally high at the RDF plant, incinerator, and waste transfer station.
One of the interesting findings of the in-plant Andersen tests was that
by far the highest level of total bacteria colony counts occurred in the press-
room basement of the wastewater treatment plant. These Andersen samples were
-------
TABLE 1. RANKING OF PLANTS BASED ON AVERAGE AMBIENT BACTERIAL LEVELS
FROM HI-VOL SAMPLESa/
Upwind^/
Downwind]!/
Total bacteria
count
RDF plant
Incinerator
Downtown
Waste transfer
WWTP
Landfill
RDF plant
Incinerator
Downtown
WWTP
Waste transfer
Landfill
Total
coliform
RDF plant
Downtown
Incinerator
WWTP
Waste transfer
Landfill
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
Downtown
WWTP
Fecal
coliform
RDF plant
Downtown
Waste transfer
Incinerator
WWTP
Landfill
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
WWTP
Downtown
Landfill
Fecal
Streptococci
RDF plant
Incinerator
Waste transfer
Downtown
WWTP
Landfill
RDF plant
Incinerator
Waste transfer
Downtown
WWTP
Landfill
£/ Statistical comparisons of bacterial levels are included later in this
report.
b_/ Downtown location has been included in both groups (upwind and downwind)
for comparison purposes.
TABLE 2. RANKING OF PLANTS BASED ON AVERAGE IN-PLANT BACTERIAL
LEVELS FROM HI-VOL SAMPLES
Total bacteria
count
RDF plant
Packer truck
Incinerator
Waste transfer
WWTP
Landfill
Total
coliform
Packer truck
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
Fecal
coliform
Packer truck
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
Fecal
Streptococci
Waste transfer
Packer truck
RDF plant
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
-------
specifically taken at this location during the time when the operators were
dumping the solid residue (filter cake) from the filter presses.
Results of the Andersen impactor tests were not directly comparable with
the Hi-Vol results because of the differences in sampling times and sampling
rates, the expected die-off of bacteria on the Hi-Vol filters, and the fact
that Andersen results were only colony counts. In fact, the major reason for
doing the impactor tests was to obtain information on the number of bacteria
containing particles as a function of particle size. The results for the air
sampled at most locations did not show a decrease in the number of bacteria
containing particles with decreasing particle size. Although it is reasonable
to assume that the mass of particulate matter per unit volume of air would de-
crease with decreasing size, these data indicate that the number of bacteria
containing particles did not decrease with decreasing size.
A statistical analysis of the Hi-Vol and Andersen bacteria data was car-
ried out and confirmed the results discussed above.
In an effort to obtain additional information that would aid in assess-
ing the significance of the bacteria and virus results, a comprehensive search
of the literature was carried out as part of this program. This search re-
vealed that concentrations of bacteria colonies in air may range from 200/m^
in a laboratory up to 700,000/m-^ in a sewage treatment plant, while more com-
mon locations (offices, factories, and streets) may range from 2,000 to
4,000/nH. However, nothing in the literature search provided a basis for
judging whether these or any other levels are, or are not, hazardous. The
single conclusion that can be drawn is: if the relative levels measured at
the RDF plant are significantly higher than at other related facilities, then
this is probably not desirable, and efforts should be made to reduce airborne
bacterial levels. Controls could include use of control devices on emission
sources (e.g., fabric filters) or process modifications.
TRACE ELEMENT EMISSIONS
Trace element concentrations were determined for the discharge of the
air classifier system and for the upwind/downwind Hi-Vol samples. Lead (Pb)
and Zinc (Zn) were the trace elements having the highest concentration in the
particulate emitted from the air classifier system. However, all trace ele-
ments measured in this stream were below their respective threshold limit
values (TLVs) .
Trace element analyses of the property line Hi-Vol samples showed that
there was an increase in the concentration of certain elements between the
upwind/downwind samples at some of the facilities. In an effort to assess the
significance of these concentrations, they were compared with 1/100 of the
-------
respective TLVs,* and it was found that all were below this value, except for
Pb. Downwind Pb concentrations exceeded 1/100 of TLV at the incinerator and
RDF plant and were just equal to 1/100 of TLV at the waste transfer station.
It appeared that handling of refuse at these plants, or some other plant ac-
tivity, may have contributed significantly to the burden of Pb in downwind
ambient air. Indications of Pb in air might have been due to the vehicular
traffic in such plants (e.g., refuse collection trucks) but this seemed to be
negated by the samples taken at the downtown location which showed Pb concen-
trations about the same as upwind values at the plants, even though the down-
town location had high vehicular traffic nearby.
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS AND FABRIC FILTER PERFORMANCE
Results of the particulate tests on the air classifier system at the RDF
plant showed uncontrolled particulate emissions of 14.2 to 17.8 kg/hr (0.26 to
0.36 g/dNm3). The pilot scale mobile filter, taking a sidestream drawoff
(0.05 dNm3/sec) from the air classifier discharge, achieved an overall mass
efficiency of 99.95% for removal of that particulate. Samples of the particu-
late discharged from the air classifier system were analyzed for bacteria and
were found to contain average total bacteria of 5.3 x 10' counts/g, which was
about the same as that found in the shredded raw refuse. Bacteria samples
taken by impingers at the inlet and outlet of the mobile filter indicated a
removal efficiency of 99.67» for total bacteria and at least 99.97=, for spe-
cific types of bacteria (e.g., total coliform). This result confirmed the ex-
pectation that a filter system on the air classifier discharge should be able
to provide high removal efficiency for particulate and associated bacteria.
Particulate matter collected at the discharge of the air classifier sys-
tem was also analyzed for asbestos. Results of the asbestos analysis indicated
that asbestos fibers were present, composing as much as 1.67, of the emitted
particulate. However, the data revealed that the number concentration of
emitted asbestos was only 0.10 fiber/cc of air. This concentration, in the
air classifier discharge itself, was considerably below the TLV for asbestos
(5 fibers/cc).
TLVs refer to airborne concentrations of substances and represent condi-
tions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeat-
edly exposed day after day without adverse effect. (11) The TLVs used
refer to time-weighted concentrations for an 8-hr workday and 40-hr work-
week.
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
Under contract to EPA, Midwest Research Institute (MRI) has been in-
volved in an EPA supported program for testing and evaluating of the EPA-City
of St. Louis-Union Electric Company RDF demonstration project since December
of 1973. These equipment and environmental evaluations have covered both the
refuse processing plant (1) and the Meramec Power Plant. (2)
Most of the environmental evaluations at both facilities were directed
to particulates, gases, and trace metals. The tests on particulate emissions
from the air classifier system at the RDF plant also included an initial anal-
ysis for bacteria and virus. Since these particulates consist basically of
municipal solid waste (MSW), it was not surprising that findings showed the
presence of bacteria and virus in the emissions. However, these findings did
warrant further testing to determine bacteria and virus levels at the property
line of the RDF plant, at certain in-plant locations, as well as similar test-
ing at other types of waste handling facilities.
The plan that was developed for carrying out such testing was intended
to be more expansive and complex than the initial bacteria and virus tests.
Development of this plan included submission of the preliminary plan to a num-
ber of experts in the field for their comments and suggestions. These were
incorporated into the final plan wherever possible. Some reviewers did com-
ment on the shortness of the tests (3 days at each plant) but the testing
could not be expanded because time and funds were limited, and it was felt
that the plan would still allow intercomparisons to be made.
The data acquired allowed intercomparison of levels and provided a means
of evaluating relative significance of refuse processing operations. The work
included an extensive search of the literature in an effort to compile all
available information that might be useful in evaluating the test data for
these waste handling facilities.
Actual field testing took place in November and early December 1976, with
3 days of testing at each of five waste handling facilities as follows:
-------
* A municipal refuse incinerator;
* The St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant;
* A sewage treatment plant;
* A refuse transfer station; and
* A sanitary landfill.
In addition to the above plants, testing was also carried out in down-
town St. Louis. Bacterial levels were also ascertained for a refuse collec-
t ion packer truck.
The test plan for the sampling and a description of the actual sampling
and analysis methodology are presented in the next sections of this report.
These descriptions are followed by the presentation and discussion of test
results, and an interpretation of those results incorporating information
compiled in a search of the literature in the areas of airborne bacteria and
virus .
-------
SECTION 3
TEST PLAN
The sampling and analysis plan (test plan) was developed through the
joint efforts of EPA and MRI. The sampling and analysis plan was based on re-
view of the available existing information, previous results and discussions
relative to the preliminary work done at St. Louis, and what could be con-
ducted within the framework of available time and funding. A draft of the
sampling and analysis plan was sent to certain knowledgeable people for their
review so that suggested revisions could be incorporated into the final test
plan. Specific details of the entire test plan are given in Appendix A. The
appendices also include a description of the field test methodology (Appendix
B) and the laboratory analysis methodology (Appendix C). MRI will also be
preparing a separate report in the near future to explain in more detail the
sampling and analysis methodologies used in this program and to make addi-
tional recommendations for future work needed in these areas.
The sampling equipment used during the three test days at each plant
were Hi-Vol ambient air samplers, which provide high sampling rates of approx-
imately 19 liters/sec (40 cfm) for relatively long periods of time (6 hr).*
These were supplemented by Andersen agar plate impactors with backup imping-
ers, to obtain information on the size distribution of the bacteria containing
particles and determine if any viruses penetrated the impactor into the im-
pinger.
The locations of the equipment at the test sites were as follows: (a)
Hi-Vol samplers, one upwind and three downwind; (b) Hi-Vol with precyclone
samplers, three in-plant; and (c) Andersen impactors, one upwind, one down-
wind, and three in-plant. All upwind and downwind locations were at the prop-
erty lines.
Sampling time of 6 hr was arbitrarily selected. There were no existing
data available to determine sampling time for optimizing bacteria counts
(i.e., bacteria counts as a function of sampling time). Also, no back-
ground sampling was performed since upwind samples were being taken each
day. Other sampling techniques were also considered (AGI impingers) but
not selected because of various disadvantages (e.g., low sampling rates).
-------
The placements of the downwind Hi-Vol samplers were a primary location
directly in line with the wind direction from the plant and two secondary lo-
cations, one on each side of the primary to include approximately a 30 degree
angle from the upwind location. This placement allowed for normal slight var-
iations in wind direction. The wind direction was constantly monitored by a
strip chart recorder which was checked hourly by the test crew. When a major
change in wind direction occurred, the Hi-Vols were moved to be in line with
the wind. The Andersen impactor samples were taken at the same locations as
the upwind and primary downwind Hi-Vols.
The locations of the in-plant Hi-Vols were selected for each test site
to sample the areas where the bacterial and viral counts were suspected to
be at the highest levels. The Andersen impactors were operated at the same
in-plant locations as the Hi-Vols. One 30-sec Andersen sample was taken at
each of the three in-plant locations on each test day.
The sample period for the Hi-Vols was approximately 6 hr at all loca-
tions. The sample period for the Andersen impactors was 10 min for the upwind
and downwind locations and 30 sec for the in-plant locations. The sampling
times for the in-plant and property line Andersens were different because of
the suspected higher concentrations of in-plant bacteria and because it is
undesirable to overload the agar plates in the Andersen sampler.
During the sampling periods for the incinerator and the RDF plant, ad-
ditional Hi-Vol samples were taken in downtown St. Louis, Missouri. These sam-
ples were taken as representative of an urban location. Additionally, two Hi-
Vol samplers were attached to the back of a 15 m^ (20 yd^) packer truck and
were operated on 3 days when the crew was picking up MSW on three different
collection routes.
Tests to define the performance of a mobile fabric filter on the air
classifier exhaust stream were also conducted during the sampling activity
at the RDF plant. These tests involved:
* A Hi-Vol sampler in the air classifier exhaust duct.
* Impinger samplers at the inlet and outlet of a mobile filter on a
sidestream taken from the air classifier exhaust duct.
* Refuse grab samples taken on the product discharged from the hammer-
mill.
Selection of the bacterial and viral analyses that were to be performed
on the property line and in-plant Hi-Vol samples was an important part of the
test plan development. Ultimately, it was decided that each sample would be
analyzed for the bacteria and virus types shown according to the Level 1
10
-------
analysis listed in Table 3 and that some selected samples would be further
subjected to Level 2 analysis in order to generate data which are of epidemic-
logical interest to this program and which may be used as reference values
for any future tests.
TABLE 3. ANALYSIS SPECTRUM FOR BACTERIA AND VIRUS
Level 1 testsJL/
Bacteria
Total aerobic plate count
Salmonellae
Staphylococcus aureus
(direct plate count)
Total coliform (MPN)
Fecal coliform (MPN)
Fecal Streptococci
(direct plate count)
Klebsiella sp. (est. from
selective media)
Virus
Estimations of population
sizes of adenoviruses and
enteroviruses. To be done
using two cell lines and
determining
Level 2 tests—'
Relative changes in predominant morpho-
logical groups
(1) Determine serotypes
(2) Antibiotic sensitivity
(1) Coagulase production
(2) Antibiotic sensitivity)
(3) Bacteriophage typing
No additional assays
Enteropathogenic serotype of E. coli
No additional assays
Serotype for pathologically significant
groups
Serological identification of the rela-
tive populations of adenoviruses (hu-
man type) , polioviruses (vaccine and
wild types), coxsakie viruses (A and
B), and echoviruses.
a/ Level 2 tests for bacteria and virus include all analysis shown in Level
1 column plus additional analysis shown in the Level 2 column.
11
-------
In addition to the bacterial and viral analyses listed above, other
analyses were performed on some samples. Specifically, a part of the upwind
and primary downwind Hi-Vol samples taken during a single day at each of the
plants was analyzed to determine trace metals and microbial morphology. Sim-
ilarly, the Andersen impactor samples taken at the same two locations during
one test day were analyzed to determine microbial morphology on each stage,
and virus (Level 1) in the backup impinger.
12
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The bacteria and virus sampling activities were the major components of
this test program and the results of these activities are presented in this
section. Supplementary information on particle morphology, trace element emis-
sions, and the performance of the mobile fabric filter is discussed after the
bacteria and virus presentation.
BACTERIA AND VIRUS EMISSIONS
Previous testing conducted at the St. Louis Processing Plant in 1975 (1)
included some bacteria and virus assays on particulate emission sources, pri-
marily the air classifier discharge. In the air classifier discharge, it was
found that the emitted particulate contained bacteria concentrations of about
the same order as raw refuse, as might be expected. Evaluation of these re-
sults indicated that the bacteria and virus emissions might be of concern, but
the 1975 tests did not include any samples taken at in-plant or property line
locations. As discussed previously, the test plan for this program was de-
signed to obtain data at both in-plant and property line locations. Results
of tests of bacteria and virus emissions are presented in separate subsec-
tions .
Bacteria Emissions
The discussion of bacteria emissions is arranged in three subsections:
1. Refuse samples;
2. Air classifier discharge samples and mobile filter samples; and
3. Hi-Vol and Andersen samples at property lines and in-plant.
Refuse Samples--
Results of the bacteria analysis on the shredded refuse from the hammer-
mill are given in Table 4. These data show an average of 4 x 10' total bac-
teria counts per gram, which is in reasonable agreement with values reported
13
-------
TABLE 4. SHREDDED REFUSE SAMPLES - BACTERIA RESULTS
(Counts per gram of material)
Sample
RS-1
RS-2
RS-3
RS-4
RS-5
RS-6
RS-7
RS-8
RS-10
RS-11
RS-12
Date
11/8/76
11/8/76
11/8/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
Total Bacteria
count
6.9 x 107
3.3 x 107
4.2 x 107
3.9 x 107
1.7 x 107
2.2 x 10?
2.0 x 107
7.5 x 106
8.4 x 107
6.0 x 107
4.8 x 107
Total
coliform
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
Fecal
coliform
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
> 2.40 x 105
0.92 x 105
0.24 x 105
0.92 x 105
0.079 x 105
0.92 x 105
> 2.4 x 105
> 2.4 x 105
0.92 x 105
Fecal
Streptococci
2.7 x 105
1.8 x 105
0.57 x 105
2.0 x 105
0.60 x 105
0.67 x 105
0.67 x 105
4.3 x 105
1.9 x 105
2.8 x 105
0.53 x 105
Average
4.6 x 107
> 2.4 x 105
1.45 x 105 1.68 x 105
-------
by Peterson. (3) The fecal coliform counts of 240,000/g are in similar agree-
ment. No comparison data were available for fecal Streptococci but the range
of the values (5.3 x 10^ to 4.3 x 105) seems high in relation to total coli-
form and fecal coliform. The analyses did not indicate the presence of
Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, or Klebsiella in any of the 11 refuse sam-
ples.
Air Classifier Discharge and Mobile Filter Samples--
Test data for bacteria in the particulate emitted from the air classifier
system are given in Table 5, with all species having about the same concentra-
tions as in the shredded refuse. These data verify previous results and indi-
cate that the discharged particulate is similar to the shredded refuse itself
in terms of bacterial levels.
Data for the impinger sampling done at the inlet and outlet of the EPA
mobile filter (see Appendix E) are included in Table 5. Bacteria data were
obtained for only one of the three test days but the results do show a sig-
nificant decrease in bacteria levels across the mobile filter, indicating a
removal efficiency of 99.6% for total bacteria and at least 99.9% for total
coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal Streptococci.
The data in Table 5 have an interesting aspect in that they provide a
means of comparing bacteria values determined by two methods. That is, one
can compare the results of the Hi-Vol stack sampler used in the air classi-
fier discharge with the impinger sampler used at the inlet of the mobile fil-
ter. These samplers were essentially sampling the same stream but the im-
pinger sampler was operated for approximately 6 hr while the air classifier
Hi-Vol was operated for only about 1/2 hr. Conversion of the data for the
air classifier discharge, for November 11, 1976, to counts per cubic meter,
shows the following:
Concentrations in counts /or*
Fecal
Total bacteria Total coliform Fecal coliform Streptotocci
Impinger - mobile
filter inlet 5.25 x 108 3.36 x 106 4.62 x 105 2.25 x 10$
Hi-Vol - air classi-
fier discharge 0.12 x 108 > 0.07 x 10& 0.28 x 1Q5 0,22 x 106
Although there was only one mobile filter inlet sample, the above compar-
ison may be indicative of increased die-off, on the order of 90 to 9770, for
the Hi-Vol filter samples (air classifier discharge) as opposed to impinger
samples (mobile filter inlet). This would not be unexpected but is important
15
-------
TABLE 5. BACTERIA RESULTS FOR AIR CLASSIFIER DISCHARGE AND MOBILE FILTER SAMPLES
Sample
Air classifier 1
Air classifier 2
Air classifier 3
Average
Air classifier discharge - (counts per gram of particulate)
Total bacteria
Date
11/9/76
count Total coliform Fecal coliform Fecal Streptococci
> 240,000 > 240,000 6.7 x 105
92,000
92,000
> 240,000
> 240,000
8.0 x 105
7.3 x 105
7.3 x 105
(2.2 x 105)a./
6.2 x 107
11/10/76 5.9 x 107
11/11/76 3.9 x 107
5.3 x 107 ( > 240,000 | > 140,000
(1.6 x 107)*/ ((> 72,000)£/ ((> 42,000)a/
Mobile filter (counts/m3 of air)
Mobile filter inlet 11/11/76 5.25 x IQS/m3 3.36 x 106/m3 4.62 x I05/m3 2.25 x 106/m3
Mobile filter outlet 11/11/76 2.1 x 106/m3 3.57 x 102/m3 2.3 x 102/m3 2.1 x 103/m3
a] Values in parentheses are counts/m3 of air, based on counts per gram and average particulate con-
centrations of 0.30 g/m3.
-------
in regard to the values indicated for the in-plant and property line samples
obtained with Hi-Vol filters.
Hi-Vol and Andersen Samples at Property Lines and In-Plant--
Sampling at property lines and in-plant locations was performed using
Hi-Vol and Andersen samplers. The results from each system are presented sep-
arately in the following subsections.
Hi-Vol test results (property lines and in-plant)--Hi-Vol filter sam-
plers (~ 1 m-Vmin) were operated for 6 hr during three (or more) test days at
each plant in the locations listed below:
RDF plant
Upwind (1)
Downwind (3)
Control room
Incinerator
Upwind (1)
Downwind (3)
Scale room
Packer station Crane
Tipping floor Tipping floor
Packer truck (2)
Waste transfer Wastewater
station treatment plant
Upwind (1)
Downwind (3)
Truck ramp
Tipping floor
Tipping floor
Upwind (1)
Downwind (3)
Pri. settling
basin
Aeration basin
Pressroom
Pressroom
basement
Sanitary
landfill
Upwind (1)
Downwind (3)
Scale
Working face
Working face
Downtown
Downtown
Results for all of the Hi-Vol samples are shown in Table 6. This table
does not include three of the bacteria types because all results were negative
for Salmonella and Staphylococcus, and Klebsiella was detected in only four
samples at levels just above the sensitivity of the analysis methods (i.e.,
1 count/g of filter, or approximately 0.008 counts/m^ of air sampled).* Com-
panion data for the results given in Table 6 (e.g., sampling rates and meteo-
rological conditions) are tabulated in Appendix G. Most of the meteorological
conditions during testing were good, with dry bulb temperatures between -4
and 22°C, moderate to low wind speeds, and relative humidity between 40 and
60%.
It was noted in Table 6 that fecal Streptococci counts were relatively high
compared to fecal or total coliform counts. The reason for this is not
known but may reflect selective survival of different bacterial types in
the Hi-Vol sampling method. However, a similar finding was made in work
by personnel at the University of California (Berkeley) in. the Richmond
Field Station Resource Recovery System. (12)
17
-------
TABLE 6. HI -V01. DATA —
Upwind
West or
"*" ' North
Dw - prim
East or
Dw -
South
Scale room
Crane
Tipping floor
Downtown
Packing truck
Left
Right
, a/
INCINERATOR - BACTERIA COUNT/CUBIC METER (Count/mJ) MPtJ-
Test date
Test day
ToLal plate count
11-1
0
<1,51C
34,800
59,700
59,900
11-2
1
470
1,900
2,910
1,960
'(7,000
!-.8s
No5
<497
.06 x
105
1.09 x
105
11-3
2
6,045
5,420
3,820
8,610
47,800
66,950
41,100
<497
1.14 x
105
Spread
11-4
3
1,950
2,740
2,958
12,400
Mold
1.115
x 105
15,300
1,820
81,000
13,500
Total coliform
11-1
0
<0 . 06 1
1.64
4.88
18.6
11-2
1
0.019
1.18
0.768
0.225
0.416
3.30
1.18
0.486
-> 352
-, 352
U-3
2
0.191
5.16
1.51
4.68
0.163
2.11
0.468
0.655
251
3.76
11-4
3
0.225
1.19
1.62
0.038
<0.017
0.295
0.204
0.199
> 324
> 324
Fecal coliform
11-1
0
--0 . 06 1
0.676
1.60
4.86
11-2
1
0.019
<0.020
0.224
0.049
0.416
3.30
1.18
0.328
>352
>352
11-3
2
0.020
0.316
<0.020
0.134
0.020
0.316
0.468
<0.020
14.7
1.24
11-4
3
<0.02(
0.120
0.093
.-0.020
<0.017
<0.01f
<0.01!
0.039
4.72
3.24
Fecal Streptococci
11-1
0
5.75
261
<2.13
261
11-2
1
0.940
<0.952
1.95
1.96
166
363
230
1.99
420
792
11-3
2
7.64
5.73
2.87
1.91
3.82
100
411
<0.99?
470 .
235
11-4
3
<0.975
3.67
1.87
1.91
1.48
72.3
66.7
0.907
486
446
oo
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Upwind
North or
Dw -
West
l)w - prim
South or
Dw - ,.
liast
Control room
I'ucker station
Tipping floor
Downtown
PROCESSING PLANT - BACTERIA COUNT/CUBIC METER (COUNT/m3) lira-''
Test date
Test day
Total plate count
11-8
0
2,900
8,480
3,790
3,780
1.63
x 106
2.67
x 105
2.60
x KT
1,300
11-9
1
11,900
9,04t
40 , 70C
78,800
29, IOC
24,800
90,600
7J2
11-10
2
14 ,400
8,130
30,60(
28,700
28,00<
3,820
93.00C
< 956
11-11
3
2,830
14.70C
7,600
949
20,500
10,800
50,300
213
>208
0.590
11-9
1
2.33
33.9
>233
3.45
5.16
12.4
86.8
0. 380
11-10
2
0.761
17.2
334
15,3
3.34
0.755
88.0
0.029
11-11
3
0.312
51.2
2.28
0.104
10. 'i
3.34
15.2
0.04£
Fecal coliform
11-8
0
<0 . 02(
0.462
0.066
'0.02(1
3.16
21.3
30.4
<0.025
11-9
1
0.767
4.45
33.9
0.079
3.34
1.63
10.4
-0.019
11-10
2
0.068
8.98
153
3.34
2.30
0.755
5.16
<0.029
11-11
3
<0.02(
12.3
0.209
•-0,02C
4.39
2.30
1.52
<0.02
Fecal Streptococci
11-8
0
2.90
*
24.5
22.8
7 SS
135
478
417
1.20
11-9
1
38.9
57.1
378
31.5
40.2
31.6
270
0.95
11-10
2
12.5
20.0
590
19.1
1H.?
10.5
229
0.956
11-11
3
5.68
44.6
32.2
0.949
43.9
39.1
287
<0.956
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Upwind
West or
1X7 " North
Dw - prim
East or
IV - South
Truck ramp
Tipping floor - E.
Tipping floor - N.
a/
WASTE TRANSFER STATION - ItAOTEKIA COUNT/ CUBIC METER (Count/m->) MPN
Test date
Test day
Total plate count
11-22
1
< 477
C 469
1,430
< 478
>2,900
30,550
56,800
11-23
2
< 491
3,820
478
< 477
30,550
7,830
14.04C
11-24
3
2,910
< 952
<469
714
6,340
2,870
20.00C
Total coliforra
H-22
I
0.020
0.131
0.220
1.63
2.29
153
3.34
11-23
2
cO.020
22.9
0.325
0.163
3.34
2.26
15.9
11-24
3
0.224
0.02C
2.26
0.315
2.07
3.34
22.9
Fecal coliform
11-22
1
<0.02(
:0.018
<0.020
dO.020
0.458
8.98
2.30
11-23
2
<0.020
3.34
<0.020
<0.16:
2.30
1.22
10.3
11-24
3
0.048
<0.020
0.311
<0.02<
0.143
0.439
0.702
Fecal Streptococci
11-22
1
C0.953
=0.953
<0.95(
<0.956
107
203
126
11-23
2
<0.98:
3.82
-------
TABUi 6 (continued)
Upwind
_ West or
"" North
Dw - Prim
Last or
DW - South
Prim set. B.
Deration R-
Pressroom
Pressroom basement
WASTLWATER TREATMENT I'LANT - BACTERIA COUNT/CUBIC METER (Count/m3) MPN-^
Test date
Test day
Total plate count
H-15
1
2,700
<1,590
3,980
1,560
<833
«1,790
<1,530
<1,50C
11-16
2
517
478
<477
<952
<477
<477
<478
<473
11-17
3
<477
5,720
477
478
<478
<478
2,380
478
11-18
4
<492
<478
492
<478
1.74 x
105
1,750
3,820
< 956
Total coliform
11-15
1
0.447
0.350
1.05
0.170
0.134
0.036
0.061
0.120
11-16
2
0.021
0.048
^0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0 . 020
11-17
3
-0.02C
0.048
<0.02C
<0.02(
0.029
0.038
0.077
0.077
11-18
4
0.020
<0.020
0.03'.
0.02C
0.020
C0.020
0.755
0.020
Fecal coliform
11-15
1
0.027
^0.031
<0.026
<0.031
<0.034
;0.036
<0.061
<0.03(
11-16
2
<0.021
<0.020
<0.020
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
Upwind
I>w - East
Dw - Prim
Dw - West
Working face
East
Working face
West
Scale
Test date
Test day
a/
SANITARY LANDFILL - BACTERIA COUNT/CUBIC METER ( Count /mJ) MPN
Total plate count
11-29
1
< 478
<478
1,430
'478
2,190
<536
<478
U-:30
2
239
239
200
1,390
;95.6
143
<95.6
12-1
3
944
203
99.7
<95.2
1,680
2,490
<95.6
Total coliform
11-29
1
0.211
<0.020
0.316
3.16
0.536
<0.021
0.048
11-30
2
: 0.020
<0.020
0.048
0.048
;0.020
< 0.020
<0.020
12-1
3
<0.02C
<0.021
<0.02C
C0.02C
3.16
16.3
<0.02C
Fecal coliform
11-29
1
<0.020
<0.02(1
0.020
).325
3.360
<0.021
cO.020
11-30
2
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
12-1
3
cO.020
<0.021
<0.020
<0.020
0.163
16.3
<0.020
Fecal Streptococci
11-29
1
=0.956
: 0.956
<0.95(
<0.95(
<1.09
<1.07
<0.95<
11-30
2
<30.956
<0.956
<0.956
<0.956
<0.956
<0.95(
<0.95(
12-1
3
<0.94^
<1.01
<0.99;
'0.952
<0.95f
6.70
<0.95(
£/ See Appendix C for discussion of analysis methodology.
-------
Testing was carried out at both the incinerator and the processing plant,
which are side by side. The processing plant was not in operation during the
tests at the incinerator. However, the incinerator was required to be in op-
eration during the tests at the processing plant, and the closeness of these
two facilities is such that one cannot be sure that the downwind samplers at
the processing plant were not affected by the incinerator. However, the up-
wind sampler was always located where it would not be affected by the incin-
erator. It is unlikely that the in-plant samplers at the processing plant
were significantly affected by the incinerator because of the layout of the
two facilities and the wind direction existing during the tests.
Since the purpose of this program was to compare bacterial levels, the
Hi-Vol results shown in Table 6 are expressed in counts per cubic meter of
air, at each test site. To facilitate making comparisons using the numerous
entries in Table 6, the data are presented in graphical form in Figures 1
through 8. Figures 1 through 4 are for in-plant samples and Figures 5 through
8 for ambient samples. Downwind ambient results shown in Figures 5 through 8
and the respective averages include all three downwind samplers that were in
operation on each test day.
The data in Table 6 and Figures 1 through 8 should be utilized only for
purposes of making relative comparisons. Individual values should not be con-
sidered absolute because the long-term Hi-Vol sampling method may have re-
sulted in a high die-off rate for many types of bacteria collected on the fil-
ter during sampling.*
It should also be recognized that property line bacterial levels, as
shown in Figures 5 through 8, are not strictly comparable because distances
from the source(s) to the property lines were different for each plant and may
even have been different on separate test days at any one plant, depending on
wind direction. Nevertheless, the purpose of this program was to make rela-
tive comparisons based on property line levels, regardless of these distance
considerations.
The Hi-Vol data on total bacteria counts, both in-plant and ambient (Fig-
ures 1 and 5), show the same general trend; i.e., the processing plant has the
highest average count and the landfill, the lowest. In the case of the ambient
samples (Figure 5), the processing plant had the highest average downwind value
but it also had the highest average upwind value. This fact makes it more dif-
ficult to say that the processing plant has a greater effect on downwind bac-
terial levels than the other types of waste handling facilities.
It has been suggested that bacterial growth might occur on the Hi-Vol fil-
ters, as opposed to die-off. This may be a possibility but it is consid-
ered to be highly unlikely.
23
-------
10'
106
-o 105
j;
0.
o
'o 104
c
s
U T
103
102
10
— -| — (— -i — i — r ~i — i — 1~ ~i i r" i
TOTAL BACTERIA COUNT
r I
i- ^ 'A k i
an
: u 3 n Q I
n*s. 1 1 /n L \
U XrX \
r I1 ^
: u ll
__
; A Average Value, for
- Number of Samples
Shown at Bottom of
Figure. Top and
— Bottom of Bars are
: Highest and Lowest
- Value.
32 444 333 443 4
1 III II! Ill 1
-5 » '^
> o o
_ ^> ^^
"£ o»
o " .£
Zo —
uj i~
i- • E i_ " °- "Si
O£i2 0 o § o c <"
^Ji_ OQjg o .5 ^
"-.o u. u. rr«, ^~
*• jj*^ -^ "-dJiu D
i S .a- a § .a- .a- s *• i "8 1
-J 0£ 1-Q.U (-t-,- PUJ1! 0.
_| |_ | | | | 1 | | | |
PACKER RDF WASTE INCINER- W
TRUCK PLANT TRANSFER ATOR
ill I I I ;
;
-.
—.
•
fl 1
VJ
HL D" :
\D A--I
U D 0 \ :
\fl '
R "
u n •
U U _
~
_
444 333
III 'II
U) *-
® «
>- O
. 5- iu
•^ C 3) (U
£ M O U
<2 • £ £
! «i «! .1 I
n m « -* _i^ J!i
c "i "> ^ u ^
4)
-------
102
1 'o
o
I/}
o
n
j
10-'
Iff
,-2
\
3 3
444
~r n : i
TOTAL COLIFORM
333
M
Average Value, for
Number of Samples
Shown at Bottom of
Figure. Top and
Bottom of Bars are
Highest and Lowest
Value.
444
4444
333
13 .2
—i a:
PACKER
TRUCK
RDF
PLANT
J J
U_ d)
— (D
U J
I I I
WASTE INCINER-
TRANSFER ATOR
i
fr! J J
i 2 a S
~ 3 g g
Q- < Q_ Q.
I I I I
W.W.T.P.
V) •»-
Q) w>
^ O
> UJ
<1> 4)
O o
O O
O) O)
15 15 j;
003
i I I
SANITARY
LANDFILL
Figure 2. In-plant Hi-Vol samples (total coliform).
25
-------
10°
102
3S 10
a.
J
<
>^_
o
f
§ 1.0
-------
104
CL
O
<
'o
10'
I I
1 I I I I I
TOTAL BACTERIA COUNT
I T
4 12
I I
4 9
I I
3 9
Average Value, for Number of
Samples Shown at Bottom of
Figure. Top and Bottom of
Bars are Highest and Lowest
Value.
3 4
12
I
3 U
I I?
c
1 '1
5 ?
a. o
a a
RDF
PLANT
c
1 1
I !
D Q
I I _J L
INCINERATOR WASTE
11
a, I
:D a
-a
c.
1
5
o. o
Z) Q
I _ 1
? 1
11
DOWN- W.W.T.P. SANITARY
TRANSFER TOWN
LANDFILL
Figure 5. Ambient Hi-Vol samples (total bacteria count).
28
-------
I I
I I
102
10
CL
a
<
"o
i i.o
o
U
10-1
TOTAL CO LI FORM
Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars are Highest and
Lowest Value.
4 12
4 9
3 9
10-2
3 4
4 12
J I
-a
1 I
5 5
a. o
o a
-a
c
1 1
'* i
a- o
o a
J I
TD
1 I
J
j
a. i
3 a
J I
J I
11
13 a
RDF
PLANT
INCINERATOR WASTE
TRANSFER
DOWN- W.W.T.P. SANITARY
TOWN LANDFILL
Figure 6. Ambient Hi-Vol samples (total coliform)
29
-------
102
10
•o
-2
Q.
o
1.0
c
3
O
u
10-1
ICT'
\ I
\\
\I
FECAL COLIFORM
12
I
Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars are Highest and
Lowest Value.
3 4
O)
c
ro ~
c
-------
102
o.
o
i/l
O
CO
!,„
o
u
1.0
I I \ T
FECAL STREPTOCOCCI
4 12
J I
N i
4 9
J I
3 9
J I
A Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars are Highest and
Lowest Value.
3 4
w
12
I
A—A —
3 9
I I
o> t;
C V
-a
c
1 1
1 I
D a
RDF
PLANT
11
0. O
3 Q
J I
11
55
Q- o
D Q
-o
c
S. I
D Q
T3
C
1 1
I I
INCINERATOR WASTE
TRANSFER
DOWN-
TOWN
I I I I
W.W.T.P. SANITARY
LANDFILL
Figure 8. Ambient Hi-Vol samples (fecal streptococci)
31
-------
It can be seen in Figures 5 through 8 that the processing plant had the
highest average downwind levels for all four bacteria groups (total bacteria,
total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal Streptococci) while the sewage
treatment plant and landfill generally had the lowest average values for each
group.
For purposes of making relative comparisons it is important to note that
with the exception of total coliform, the upwind and downwind levels were
about the same for the sewage treatment plant and the landfill. By contrast,
the average downwind values for the processing plant were always higher than
the upwind values for all four bacteria groups. With one exception (fecal
Streptococci) the average downwind value for the incinerator was higher than
the upwind value. The waste transfer station indicated a higher average down-
wind value for two of the groups. Table 7 presents a rank ordering of the
plants based on both ambient and in-plant Hi-Vol results for each bacteria
group.
The in-plant Hi-Vol results (Figures 1 through 4) show roughly the same
relative relationship from plant to plant as did the ambient Hi-Vol results.
However, the in-plant sites include the packer truck, which turned out to
show bacterial levels comparable with the highest of the other locations that
were actually located within a plant. Although workers in the RDF plant may
be exposed to bacterial levels somewhat higher than at the incinerator (e.g.,
fecal coliform), they are about the same as, or lower than, those to which
the packer truck operators may be exposed.
A comparison of the average values of the in-plant and ambient Hi-Vol
data for each plant tested is shown in Figures 9 through 12. This comparison
does show that the in-plant bacterial levels were generally higher than, or
about equal to, the ambient downwind levels. Notably, the in-plant values for
total bacteria count at the RDF plant, incinerator, and waste transfer station
were considerably higher than the downwind values. The in-plant and downwind
Hi-Vol samples at the RDF plant were about the same order of magnitude for
the other three groups of bacteria.
Andersen samples—Andersen agar plate impactor tests were made during
each test day at each plant, at the same locations as the Hi-Vol samplers, in
order to obtain additional data relative to the size distribution of bacteria
containing particles (total bacteria count on each stage). Results of those
tests are given in Table 8. These results do, in general, show higher colony
counts on each stage for the in-plant samples than for the upwind samples.
32
-------
TABLE 7. RANKING BASED ON AVERAGE BACTERIAL LEVELS IN DESCENDING ORDER FOR HI-VOL TESTING SITES
Total bacteria
count
Total
coliform
Fecal
coliform
Fecal
Streptococci
In-plant samples
u>
to
Upwind (and downtown)
RDF plant
Packer truck
Incinerator
Waste transfer
WWTP
Landfill
Packer truck
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
Packer truck
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
Ambient samples
Waste transfer
Packer truck
RDF plant
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
RDF plant
Incinerator
Downtown
Waste transfer
WWTP
Landfill
RDF plant
Downtown
Incinerator
WWTP
Waste transfer
Landfill
RDF plant
Downtown
Waste transfer
Incinerator
WWTP
Landfill
RDF plant
Incinerator
Waste transfer
Downtown
WWTP
Landfill
Downwind (and downtown)
RDF plant
Incinerator
Downtown
WWTP
Waste transfer
Landfill
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
Downtown
WWTP
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
WWTP
Downtown
Landfill
RDF plant
Incinerator
Waste transfer
Downtown
WWTP
Landfill
-------
IN-PLANT SAMPLES
RDF WASTE PACKER
PLANT INCINERATOR TRANSFER TRUCK W
--|||"- III III r 1 1
^~ C
i i s
> $ a
o » .£
Ml ? J J J i !
"-52 "-»«, "• "- .* _S
.Jt-tt .C— 5 • • U _C£
a. o £ Q_, o o a. a. 3 i*. a> •—
,;** n O ._ •- u .— .— w n. .— ».
fHa-O f^Utn H- t— h- J3o£ o-
10°
105
T,
41
Q_
E
0
1 104
en
2
S
?
3
O
U
103
if)2
'III iii iii ii i
444 443 333 32 4
— A
= TOTAL ^
I A BACTERIA
/ COUNT
U /
.W.
1
£
J
C
O
'S
4
i
4
A
O
T.P.
r i
1
S
ea
E E
S S
v «
£ i
i i
4 4
In-Piant -
Ambient -
Number
SANITARY
LANDFILL
1 i 1
I S
> UJ
u u S
o a ._
U_ U_ i£
a> ro o
^5-2
> > 8
i i i
333
3 Day Average
3 Day Average
of Samples
— ;
-
-
/ Represented by the
- \ A_^
Average
are Shown
__
= M " — A at Too and Bottom ;
\, A °' F'gure -
I 2> T
/^° \^ \
*• Cf^ n \
; (J O
/
: /
J>-3
~s"^
CT
J\ /
r "\ ^
4444 4333 3333 4
- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I
XX X x X X
-2x° °>^o a^o
^w"0 TJX-g -gX-o
o|o o S § o?o
Vi-V U i_ 4) 4) ~ (1)
1^1 *fc (/I OO^t/1 I/) OB t/1
iii iii iii
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 -a
J|J* jsll illl '?
0.000 0.000 0.000 a.
ZJQOO DQQQ OQOQ 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 till 1
RDF INCINERATOR WASTE W
PLANT TRANSFER
\
\
\
\
^
4
I
a
§
u
V
i
Downwi
1
.W.
VL
H
\
4 4
1 !
X
- 1
£ u
i J!
i i
I I
1 1
a a
i i
T.P.
°~K
V"
3333
1 1 1 1
X X
-o x -§
S i i
u - u
V '~ V
on Q. t/1
i i i
I 1 i 1
J S S 5
f- c§ 5 &
i i i I
SANITARY
LANDFILL
-i
-
-
—
~
-
-
~
—
~
AMBIENT SAMPLES
Figure 9. Average in-plant and ambient Hi-Vol results
(total bacteria count).
34
-------
IN-PLANT SAMPLES
RDF
PLANT
I I
103
s
3
i i r
444
102
-o
j)
g- 10
I i.o
o
U
10-'
10-''
444
I I I
INCINERATOR
I i I
: i .2
=-23
f= u Ji
"i I r
444
WASTE
TRANSFER
i
Z 3= a
j I I
I I I
333
TOTAL
COLIFORM
333
I I I
PACKER
TRUCK
W.W.T.P.
SANITARY
LANDFILL
I
c
J
\
x. o o "
C -~ cz oe
S "5 £ £
— 5 u a>
£ < <£ <£
i i r
333
A In-Plant - 3 Day Average
O Ambient - 3 Day Average
Numbers of Samples
Represented by the
Average are Shown
at Top and Bottom
of Figure
i r
3 .s
-? 1
1 I
D Q
J I
c —
I &
RDF
PLANT
!
I. I
P °
.S
-------
IN-PLANT SAMPLES
RDF
PLANT
I
§ %
.9-85
h- a. U
~T i r
444
INCINERATOR
1 I I
o
&
g .2
a a
0 A
\I
4 4
WASTE
TRANSFER
0 «
8 8
\ I I
333
PACKER
TRUCK
W.W.T.P.
SANITARY
LANDFILL
I I T
333
10*
c.
10
3 1-°
10-'
10-^
FECAL
COLIFORM
4333
I I I I
X
A In-Plant - 3 Day Average
O Ambient - 3 Day Average
Numbers of Samples
Represented by the
Average are Shown
at Top and Bottom
of Figure
4444
I I I I
-I
|
-i -i
*
I
1
1
nii
o o o
3 a o
1
RDF
PLANT
1
'5
i ^ -2°
vi u. t/l
| i i
I I I
i i i i
INCINERATOR
-§>>-§
o | o
o .5 u
V i. U
IO Ck (/^
I I I
"8 1 •§
tin
Q- 0 O O
~} Q Q Q
I I i i
WASTE
TRANSFER
AMBIENT SAMPLES
-S >- -S
8 i §
<0 '~ V
<~rt Qm (st
iii
c c c
Jo o
a a
i i i
W.W.T.P.
•S £- -§
SJSJ
Q.OOO
DQQQ
SANITARY
LANDFILL
Figure 11. Average in-plant and ambient Hi-Vol results
(fecal coliform).
36
-------
IN-PLANT SAMPLES
10J-
E ig^;
j
10 —
1.0 —
10
RDF
PLANT INCINERATOR
III III
o 8 w £
J Z « J |
J i "- » «
.i t 1 .9- i "s
I- a. U £= U iX
= 111 III
: 444 444
FECAL
STREPTOCOCCI
4444 4333
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
>- x x x
•8 >• 1 -§>••§
oil § i 1
V 'C 4) 41 ™ 4)
iii iii
I i i i I i i 1
111! 1 1 1 1
— ) Q Q Q ZJQQQ
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
RDF INCINERATOR
PLANT
WASTE PACKER
TRANSFER TRUCK
1 1 1 I T
> o
* S
5 1>
z ^ a
1 J 1
"-"-.*
« . o ^_ -c
a. Q. s C o>
EZ £ £ J S
1 1 1 | |
333 33
f
1
-A
3333
1 1 1 1 II
X X
-8 >^ -1
0 I 0
u .E u
Wl Ct LO
1 1 1
•Q ~a -a
c c c
1 I 1 1
1 J 1 1
1 1 1 I
WASTE
TRANSFER
AMBIENT SAMPLES
11_
W.W.T.P.
SANITARY
LANDFILL
1
c
8
(S
I
"^
i/i
X
I
i
1
4
1
c
0
ca
c
JO
1
V
1
4
1 1
"c
1
m
£ E
Jo
o
as
y x
O 4)
£ £
1 1
4 4
o 5 «
° J ~
g> g> O
o 6 "g
~T 1 T
333
^ In-Plant - 3 Day Average
O Ambient - 3 Day Average
Number of Samples
Represented by the
Average are Shown
at Top and Bottom
of Figure
II
333
I I I
-S x -S
§ i s
u c u
1/1 a. t/i
i i i
l "g 1
-s
§
>-
5
a.
I
Q Q
_] L
W.W.T.P.
I
Jill
1 I I I
D Q Q Q
I I I I
SANITARY
LANDFILL
Figure 12. Average in-plant and ambient Hi-Vol results
(fecal streptococci).
37
-------
TABLE 8. ANDERSEN SAMPLES DATA
00
Location
Incinerator Data
Tipping Floor
Upwind
Downwind
Tipping Floor
Scale Office
Crane
Upwind
Downwi nd
Tipping Floor
Scale Office
Crane
Upwind
Downwind
Tipping Floor
Scale Office
Crane
RDF Plant
Upwind
Downwind
Tipping Floor
Control Room
Packer Station
Upwind
Downwind
Tipping Floor
Control Room
Packer Station
Upwind
Downwind
Tipping Floor
Control Room
Packer Station
Upwind
Downwind
Tipping Floor
Control Room
Packer Station
Teat
day Da
Sample
te Mo.
0 U/l/76 001
1 11/2/76 005
1
1
1
006
002
' 003
1 11/2/76 004
2 11/3/76 008
2
2
2 \
007
009
/ 010
2 11/3/76 Oil
3 11/4/76 012
3
3
3
013
015
/ 014
3 11/4/76 016
0 11/8/76 020
0
0
0
021
017
, 018
0 11/8/76 019
1 11/9/76 022
1
1
1
026
023
i 024
1 11/9/76 025
2 11/10/76 031
2
2
2
030
027
, 028
2 11/10/76 029
3 11/1
3
3
3 x
1/76 036
035
032
3 11/11/76 034
Sample
L i mi1
(ml n)
1.0
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
Dry
bulb R.H.
Ib
11
21
17
17
-
14
1 1
14
14
15
'i
3
6
22
6
Not
1 j
21
14
?2
16
111
11
9
18
7
2
3
3
M.
1 (%)
44
48
48
55
55
-
19
29
18
18
21
48
48
36
19
41
Taken
40
26
37
27
32
38
'W
37
23
42
45
53
53
L ukuii
1
-92m
2,290.0
68.0
118.0
4,860.0
644.0
1,860.0
Spreader
372.0
6,870.0
2,000.0
5,440.0
75.0
68.0
1,650.0
1,860.0
215.0
290.0
89.0
5,870.0
501.0
358.0
193.0
225.0
1,790.0
930.0
1,290.0
Spreader
Spreader
Mold
1,140.0
501.0
Spreader
443.0
5,790.0
1,290.0
Mold
S
2
5.5-9.2
1,070.0
28.6
89,4
3,720.0
787.0
1,430.0
415.0
318.0
Spreader
Spreader
3,790.0
54.0
86.0
715.0
1,650.0
358.0
172.0
54.0
4,860.0
715.0
358.0
186.0
136.0
1,930.0
358.0
358.0
Spreader
Mold
5,440.0
2,580.0
644.0
350.0
368.0
3,150.0
1,000.0
2,360.0
Total b.icu
3
3.3-5.5
1,180.0
32.2
85.8
Spreader
71.5
Mold
426.0
243.0
2,930.0
715.0
3,000.0
89.0
47.0
644.0
1,430.0
Mold
18.0
68.0
2,000.0
644.0
4,510.0
365.0
243.0
3,650.0
1,360.0
930.0
222.0
279.0
4,680.0
1,790.0
429.0
Spreader
372.0
Mold
1,930.0
2,790.0
rla count (counL.s/in )
4 5
2.0-3.3
1,040.0
53.6
107.0
1,650.0
572.0
Mold
Mold
Mold
Mold
1,860.0
Mold
32.0
78.0
429.0
1,430.0
930.0
140.0
100.0
1,430.0
2,220.0
358.0
408.0
89.0
1,290.0
858.0
644.0
232.0
383.0
Mold
2,360.0
286.0
519.0
497.0
Mold
1,790.0
1,790.0
1.0-2.0
751.0
21.5
42.9
3,000.0
215.0
501.0
154.0
154.0
1,720.0
1,360.0
Mold
32.0
50.0
1,220.0
Mold
501.0
97.0
36.0
1.220.0
1,070.0
Mold
250.0
261.0
1,860.0
2,070.0
858.0
100.0
200.0
6,440.0
1,430.0
72.0
325.0
243.0
5,510.0
1,430.0
Mold
6
< 1.0 U.QI
322.0
7.2
7.2
4,860.0
143.0
71.5
25.0
25.0
787.0
Mold
1,430.0
4.0
4.0
358.0
1.J60.0
2,220.0
18.0
14.0
1,220.0
1,860.0
2,720.0
21.0
140.0
1,220.0
1,570.0
143.0
21.0
125.0
3,500.0
1,070.0
143.0
190.0
21.0
3,150.0
644.0
429.0
Total
count/m^
6,653.0
211.0
422.0
18,090.0
2,433.0
3,863.0
1,020.0
1,112.0
12,307.0
5,935.11
13,660.0
286.0
333.0
5,016.0
6,300.0
4,224.0
735.0
361.0
16,600.0
7,010.0
8,304.0
1,423.0
1,094.0
11,740.0
7,146.0
4,223.0
575.0
987.0
20,060.0
10,370.0
2,075.0
1,384.0
3,328.0
17,600.0
8,084.0
7,369.0
-------
TABU. 8 (continued)
u>
VO
- ~ .
Total bacti-ria count (counts/m^)
Location
Test
day
Date
Sample
No.
Sample
time
(min)
Dry
bulb
CO
VJastewater Treatment
Upwind
Downwind
Prim. Set.
Press Room
Aeration
Upwind
Downwind
Press Room
Pr. Rm. Bsmt.
Prim. Set.
Aeration
Upwind
Downwind
Press Room
PI. Rm. Bsmt.
Prim. Set.
Aeration
Upwind
Downwl nd
Press Room
Pr. Rm. Bsuit.
Prim. Set.
Aeration
Waste Transfer St.
Upwind
Downwind
Truck Ramp
Tipping Floor -
East
Norlli
Upwind
Downwind
Truck Ramp
Tipping Floor
East.
North
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
ition Data
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
11/15/76
' '
11/15/76
11/16/76
V
11/16/76
11/17/76
V
11/17/76
11/18/76
V
11/18/76
11/22/76
V
11/22/76
11/23/76
V
11/23/76
054
051
050
052
053
056
055
057
058
059
060
064
066
065
063
061
062
070
068
072
069
067
071
076
073
074
075
077
079
082
080
081
078
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
9
8
8
15
9
6
3
18
15
12
12
16
16
18
15
4
6
19
13
23
23
8
25
4
5
4
4
4
i
3
5
6
2
Stages and particle size Aim)
R.H.
('/.)
26
33
45
29
23
62
73
40
48
38
38
32
36
35
47
78
70
49
49
27
26
60
24
38
47
47
34
46
82
74
54
70
82
1
> 9.2 M.PI
29.0
290.0
215.0
0.0
2,500.0
7.0
29.0
0.0
57,200.0
143.0
358.0
36.0
68.0
501.0
TNTC I/
Mold
71.0
89.0
161.0
715.0
9,440.0
1,570.0
215.0
125.0
18.0
TNTCi/
143.0
3,290.0
Spreaders
379.0
715.0
TNTCS/
3,290.0
2
5.5-9.2
7.0
308.0
215.0
0.0
1,220.0
7.0
0.0
143.0
51,500.0
143.0
214.0
29.0
61.0
858.0
TNTC^
215.0
71.0
79.0
64.0
71.0
9,300.0
644.0
215.0
50.0
50.0
TNTC2/
501.0
1,570.0
25.0
165.0
71.0
Spread
1,570.0
3
3.3-5.5
7.0
165.0
72.0
0.0
1,860.0
0.0
11.0
143.0
17,800.0
71.0
143.0
Mold
36.0
501. 0
TNTC2/
143.0
215.0
86.0
111.0
215.0
12,100.0
358.0
286.0
72.0
18.0
TNTCl'
215.0
1,650.0
57.0
125.0
71.0
Spread
1,860.0
4
2.0-3.3
7.0
211.0
143.0
0.0
2,500.0
0.0
0.0
143.0
17,900.0
0.0
286.0
89.0
46.0
572.0
22,500.0
286.0
286.0
Mold
Mold
286.0
12,950.0
572.0
143.0
50.0
46.0
5,650.0
71.0
1,650.0
72.0
207.0
0.0
Spread
1,500.0
5
1.0-2.0
0.0
157.0
0.0
644.0
1,070.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10,500.0
0.0
0.0
61.0
72.0
215.0
6,220.0
143.0
71.0
32.0
111.0
286.0
7,730.0
286.0
215.0
36.0
32.0
6,800.0
71.0
1,000.0
64.0
79.0
0.0
14,200.0
429.0
6
^ 1.0 n.m
57.0
125.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
71.0
215.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
29.0
0.0
286.0
0.0
0.0
54.0
21.0
0.0
1,500.0
143.0
215.0
0.0
7.0
2,580.0
71.0
644.0
21.0
21.0
0.0
14,700.0
215.0
Total
count/m3
107.0
1,256.0
645.0
644.0
9,150.0
14.0
40.0
500.0
155,115.0
357.0
1,001.0
226.0
315.0
2,647.0
29,006.0
787.0
714.0
340.0
468.0
1,573.0
53,020.0
3,573.0
1,289.0
333.0
171.0
15,030.0
1,072.0
9,804.0
239.0
976.0
857.0
28,900.0
8,864.0
-------
TAlil-E 1 (conLinuod)
Lucali on
W.isti- Transfer SLatii
lipwi nd
Downwind
Truck Ramp
Tipping Floor
East
North
Sanitarv Landfill DaL
Upwind
Downwind
Scale Off id-
Working Face
East
West
Upwind
Downwind
Scale Office
Working Face
East'
West
Upwind
Downwt nd
Scale Office
Working Face
East
West
Test
Sample
day Date No.
n Data (Contii
niu )
3 11/24/76 087
j
3
3 v
086
OH4
/ 083
3 11/24/76 OH5
a
1 11/29/76 094
1
1
1 v
090
091
, 092
1 11/29/76 093
2 11/30/76 096
2
2 1
2 4
098
095
099
2 11/30/76 097
3 12/1/76 100
3 1
3
3 4
103
101
104
3 12/1/76 102
Sample
time
(mi n)
1(1.0
10.0
0.5
U. 5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
Dry
bulb
(°C)
16
17
12
10
16
-4
-2
-4
-4
-4
-1
0
-7
0
-1
-3
-1
-3
-
-1
Total bac
tcria count (counts/m3)
Stages and particle size (urn)
R.I1.
C/,)
J6
:)4
42
43
)5
72
66
72
72
61
56
68
69
68
56
63
67
63
-
67
1
;. 9.2 LUII
72.0
I9J..1
Spread
Spread
1,160.0
82.0
39.0
6,580.0
215.0
71.0
82.0
211.0
215.0
71.0
215.0
68.0
36.0
501.0
787.0
286.0
2
5.5-9.2
72.0
Spread
Mold
1,650.0
1,000.0
36.0
11.0
429.0
143.0
71.0
14.0
61.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
18.0
14.0
358.0
358.0
215.0
3
3.3-5.5
75.0
190.0
2,150.0
2,500.0
1.9JO.O
29.0
18.0
572.0
143.0
71.0
21.0
Spread
143.0
215.0
215.0
0.0
7.0
143.0
215.0
71.0
4
2.0-3.3
36.0
Spread
Mold
1,650.0
858.0
46.0
29.0
787.0
143.0
0.0
7.0
82.0
0.0
71.0
143.0
11.0
21.0
71.0
644.0
0.0
5
1.0-2.0
18.0
107.0
Mold
1,070.0
787.0
11.0
14.0
215.0
71.0
143.0
29.0
29.0
0.0
358.0
0.0
4.0
7.0
71.0
215.0
71.0
6
< 1.0 u.m
21.0
29.0
715.0
215.0
71.0
18.0
7.0
71.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
14.0
0.0
286.0
71.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
358.0
71.0
Total
count/m-*
294.0
519.0
2,865.0
7,085.0
0,006.0
222.0
118.0
8,654.0
715.0
356.0
171.0
397.0
429.0
1,072.0
715.0
105.0
85.0
1,144.0
2,577.0
714.0
a/ TJTTC = Too numerous to count.
-------
As far as the distribution of counts on each stage is concerned, the
results at first seem to show, unexpectedly, a rather erratic distribution
rather than decreasing counts with decreasing size. Certainly, if one were
measuring size distribution based on mass of particles, there would normally
be less mass of smaller particles present than of larger ones. At the same
time, however, the number of smaller particles could still be the same as, or
greater than, the number of larger particles. Also, it is theorized that bac-
teria are not free-floating but are carried in air by carrier particulate mat-
ter. In view of this, the results in Table 8 should not be unexpected because
the agar impactor test is more indicative of the number of particles contain-
ing bacteria within each size range rather than the mass of the particles.
Consequently, these data tend to show that the air sampled at most locations
did not contain decreasing numbers of bacteria with decreasing size. Thus, a
receptor breathing such air might have most of the larger particles removed
in the nasal passages, but the number of bacteria containing particles pene-
trating further into the respiratory tract would not be reduced to the same
degree. However, little can be said about the number of bacteria associated
with each particle size because the Andersen impactor data are not indicative
of the number of bacteria associated with each particle. That is, one large
particle and one small particle could well contain grossly different numbers
of bacteria but each would still produce only one colony count on the two re-
spective agar impactor stages.
A comparison of the Andersen data for each plant was made in a manner
similar to that discussed above for the Hi-Vols. A direct comparison of
Andersen data with Hi-Vol data was not valid because the Andersen agar impac-
tor sampling involved much lower sampling rates and sampling times than the
Hi-Vol.
A comparison of the ambient and in-plant data for the Andersen samplers
is shown in Figures 13 and 14. The ambient data (upwind/downwind) in Figure 13
show the same general trend from plant to plant. The RDF plant has the high-
est average downwind value. The Andersen data confirm the previous finding
from the Hi-Vols, that the RDF plant also had the highest upwind values. The
average upwind value at the RDF plant was greater than the average downwind
value at any of the other four plants.
In-plant Andersen data (Figure 14) indicate that the number of bacteria
containing particles was about the same for the RDF plant, incinerator, and
waste transfer station, but was somewhat less for the sewage treatment plant
and landfill. The pressroom basement at the treatment plant was one very ob-
vious departure from this. Andersen samples were taken in the pressroom base-
ment during the time filter cake was being dumped and this activity produced
the highest values of any in-plant location. A similar effect is not seen in
the Hi-Vol results taken at the same location, presumably because the Hi-Vol
41
-------
icr
0.
D
<
'"O
C
u
10
, Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars are Highest and
Lowest Value.
Note: Data Presented is a
Summation of
Bacterial Counts
for All Anderson
Stages
RDF INCINERATOR WASTE W.W.T.P.
PLANT TRANSFER
STATION
Figure 13. Andersen data for upwind and downwind locations
(bacteria - total plate counts).
42
-------
io5 -
i«
IU
IO3
V
Note: Data Presented as a Summation
of Bacterial Counts for all
Anderson Stages.
A Average Value, for Number of Samples Shown at Bottom of
Figure. Top and Bottom of Each Bar are
Highest and Lowest Value.
444
I I l
5 2 J
o ^ _
V
-i
u
o
Q.
I
c
o
u
I
RDF
PLANT
3
I
o
_o
u.
_£.
|
MCI
3
1
4)
C
2
u
i
NER
3
i
J
_i
o
u
|
ATOR
3 3
i i
^
1 s
i *V
0 0
-2 .2
_
.a. a.
i— P
i i
WASTE
3
1
t
_3
~
H^
1
4
i
_c
M
C)
^
~
t
o
c
a.
1
W
4
|
c
63
5
•5
CJ
t
.''V
4
I
J
«/i
a)
c.
1
.T.P
3
1
c
•~\
J
wf
2
1
3
I
1
u
o
U-
01
^
0
1
3
i
a
UJ
V
(J
0
L^.
O5
H
1
i
LANDF!
3
i
jj
o
1
LL
TRANSFER
STATIOi
M
Figure 14. Andersen data for in-plant locations
(bacteria - total plate counts).
43
-------
sampling covers a much longer period of time (6 hr), during most of which the
operators are not dumping the cake, so the overall effect is not nearly so
great.
Morphological characteristics of bacteria samples—To further categorize
the isolates into morphological groups, some of the Hi-Vol and Andersen mi-
crobial isolates were examined microscopically to ascertain their morphologi-
cal characteristics and gram reaction. This was conducted to provide more qual<
itative information about the microflora contained in the samples. Results of
this work are presented in Appendix H. Morphological characteristics were
found to consist mainly of gram-positive and gram-negative rods with some
gram-negative cocci and also some actinonycetalis, which are predominantly
soil type bacteria. The morphological analysis also included culturing of
samples on agar plates for future reference and identification if needed.
In an effort to check the preceding observations relative to the Hi-Vol
and Andersen bacteria data and to provide a more precise comparison of plants,
a statistical analysis of the data was carried out as discussed in the next
section.
Statistical Analysis of Hi-Vol and Andersen Bacteria Results--
Evaluation of the test results revealed that there were wide ranges in
the bacteria concentrations. In some cases, the individual counts per cubic
meter at a particular sampling location varied by several orders of magnitude.
A statistical treatment was applied to determine if, in light of this wide
variation, differences did exist between the various plants.
Statistical methods used--Because tests at each sampling location were
replicated either three or four times, the mean (X) and the standard deviation
(Sx) of the test replications were calculated. The means then were compared to
the standard deviations using a curve fit computer program. It was found that
the mean was proportional to the standard deviation [(Sx = k (X)J with greater
than 90% correlation. Therefore, the distribution was not normal as would be
the case if Sx = a constant. It has been postulated by Peterson (4) that the
concentrations of microorganisms in solid materials follows a Poisson distri-
f\ ^^
bution where Sxz = X. However, this was not the case for the concentrations in
air of the species of microorganisms investigated in this study.
Since Sx = k(X) where k is a constant, the distribution is empirical. To
stabilize its variances, the log normal transformation of the test results as
recommended by Johnson (5) was performed. Next, an analysis of variance was
conducted on the transformed data using an analysis of variance computer pro-
gram capable of accepting data from unbalanced experimental designs.
44
-------
For those categories that were statistically significant as shown by the
analysis of variance, it was then necessary to perform posteriori tests to
distinguish which of the individual categories were different. Winer (6) dis-
cusses the various methods, including a method developed by Newman and Keuls
that may be used for this purpose. The Newman-Keuls method (modified Q Test)
as presented by Snedecor (7) was used because this method gives good protec-
tion against erroneous claims of significance.
Statistical comparisons--The primary objective of this research program
is to compare the RDF plant to other waste handling facilities as well as to
ascertain whether bacteria concentrations differ with particle size. Table 9
lists the comparisons used for the analysis of variance. Analysis of variance
was conducted individually for each of the four bacteria species (total bac-
teria count, total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal Streptococci) and in-
dividually for the Andersen impactor samples, and the Hi-Vol samples for the
upwind, downwind, and in-plant locations.
TABLE 9. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE COMPARISONS
Test Number of treatments
Andersen impactor • 6 impactor stages (total bacteria count only)
Hi-Vol sampler
Upwind • 5 locales (5 plants)
Downwind • 6 locales (5 plants and 1 downtown)
2 sites - primary and secondary (downtown
considered a primary site)
In-plant • 5 locales (5 plants)
3 sites (receiving area, process area, control
area)
Receiving area • 6 locales (5 plants and 1 packer truck)
Note: Separate comparisons made for total bacteria count, total coliform,
fecal coliform, and fecal Streptococci.
For comparative purposes, the downtown location was considered a downwind
location because its bacteria concentration could be expected to be affected
by the various pedestrian, motor vehicle, and commercial activities in the
downtown area. The in-plant sampling locations were divided into three cate-
gories of sampling sites: receiving area, process area, and control area.
Table 10 presents a listing of the classification of each sampling location.
45
-------
TABLE 10. CLASSIFICATION OF IN-PLANT LOCATIONS FOR USE AT SITE
IN THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Site classification
Plant
RDF plant
Incinerator
Waste transfer station
Wastewater treatment
plant
Sanitary landfill
Receiving area
Tipping floor
Tipping floor
Tipping floor -
north
Primary settling
basin
Working face -
east
Working face -
west
Process area
Packer station
Crane
Truck ramp
Aeration basin
Pressroom
basement
Control area
Control room
Scale room
Tipping floor
east
Pressroom
Scale
-------
The sampling location entitled "tipping floor - east" at the waste trans-
fer station was separated from the main tipping floor by a half-wall approxi-
mately 1.5 m high. Several electrical controls and a stairway leading to the
truck ramp were at this location. Therefore, it was classified as a control
area, although the operation of the plant did not require this area to be oc-
cupied a high percentage of the plant operating time. The sampling location
entitled "pressroom" at the wastewater treatment plant was a location adjacent
to the operator *s control panel. While it was physically in the pressroom, it
was classified as a control area. Because the packer truck involved no process
or control areas, a separate comparison was made. The packer truck results
were included only with the plant receiving areas to determine if significant
differences exist.
Statistical results—The analysis of variance performed on the Andersen
impactor data showed that the total bacteria count is not a function of par-
ticle size. The F-ratio calculated from the analysis of variance was 1.27 for
impactor stages, and at the 9570 confidence level there was no significant dif-
ference in counts per stage for the Andersen impactor samples. Therefore, the
number of bacteria containing particles in air are randomly dispersed through-
out the particle size range represented by the Andersen stages, which is from
1 Jim to greater than 7 jam.
Table 11 presents the results of the analysis of variance of the Hi-Vol
samples. At the 95% confidence level, there is a significant difference be-
tween locales (plants) for all bacteria species and all tests. The one excep-
tion is fecal coliform where there is no significant difference between plants
for upwind samples.
For the downwind and in-plant tests where two levels of treatment (locale
and site) were examined, there was no significant difference due to site for
all bacteria samples. The single exception was fecal Streptococci for downwind
samples. For downwind samples, the site was composed of primary samples versus
secondary samples. An analysis of the individual fecal Streptococci results
from each test day revealed that there was little difference between primary
downwind and secondary downwind samples except for the RDF plant. The primary
downwind values were much higher on test days 2 and 3 at the RDF plant. These
two test days were sufficient to raise the mean value to 256 counts/m3 versus
a mean value of 26 counts/m^ for the downwind secondary samples. Thus, the
analysis of variance showed a significant difference due to site.
Because there were significant differences due to locale, the Q test was
used next to determine what individual locales were different from each other
and were causing the analysis of variance to show that locale has a signifi-
cant effect. Figures 15 through 18 present the results of the Q test, showing
at the 95% confidence level which plants are significantly different from each
other.
47
-------
TABLE 11. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR HI-VOL SAMPLES
Test.
Upwind
Downwind
Downwind
In-Plant
In-Plant
Receiving
Area
Bacteria Species
Total bacteria count
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Total bacteria count
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Total bacteria count
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Total bacteria count
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Total bacteria count
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Total bacteria count
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Treatment
Locale
Locale
Locale
Locale
Locale
Locale
Locale
Locale
Site
Site
Site
Site
Locale
Locale
Locale
Locale
Site
Site
Site
Site
Locale
Locale
Locale
Locale
F value
4.34
4.00
1.14
4.53
17.81
12.46
7.58
35.40
0.14
0.50
0.46
3.53
29.21
29.14
23.22
37.46
0.73
1.53
0.93
1.72
3.86
12.77
6.49
107.01
Statistically
significant
at 95%
confidence
level
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
48
-------
l;ijj;;ji:iil = Statistically Significant Difference at the 95% Confidence Level
PP = RDF Processing Plant
INC = Incinerator
WTS = Waste Transfer Station
SL = Sanitary Landfill
WWTP = Waste Water Treatment Plant
PKTK = Packer Truck
Total Bacteria Count S/
PKTK
PP
WTS
INC
SL
WW
PT
Fecal Coliform
PKTK
\
PP
\
WTS
\
INC
\
SL
\
WW
TP
\
PP
INC
PKTK
WTS
SL
WW
PT
PP
PKTK
WTS
INC
SL
WW
PT
Total Co li form
PP
\
PKTK
\
WTS
\
INC
\
SL
\
WW
TP
\
Fecal Streptococci
PP
INC
PKTK
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Total Bacteria Count
Figure 15. Summary of statistical difference between plants
for receiving area Hi-Vol samples
49
-------
|i:;;iii!i::| = Statistically Significant Difference at the 95% Confidence Level
PP = RDF Processing Plant
INC = Incinerator
WTS = Waste Transfer Station
SL = Sanitary Landfill
WWTP = Waste Water Treatment Plant
PP
INC
WTS
SL
ww
TP
PP
WTS
INC
SL
WW
TP
Total Bacteria Count
PP
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Fecal Coliform
WTS
INC
SL
WW
TP
INC
PP
WTS
SL
WW
TP
PP
WTS
INC
SL
WW
TP
Total Coliform
INC
PP
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Fecal Streptococci"
PP
WTS
INC
SL
V/W
TP
Figure 16. Summary of statistical difference between plants for
in-plant Hi-Vol samples.
50
-------
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
DT
IjJHJHiHI = Statistically Significant Difference at the 95% Confidence Level
PP = RDF Processing Plant
INC = Incinerator
WTS = Waste Transfer Station
SL = Sanitary Landfill
WWTP = Waste Water Treatment Plant
DT = Downtown
pp
INC
SL
WW
TP
WTS
DT
Total Bacteria Count
PP
\
INC
\
SL
\
WW
TP
\
WTS
1; Hi ;;; l\
\
DT
: :::;::::;::
\
PP
' Fecal Coliform
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
DT
PP
INC
WTS
DT
SL
WW
PT
PP
\
\
INC
\
\
Total C
WTS
\
oliform
DT
\
SL
\
WW
TP
\
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
DT
Fecal Streptococci
PP
\
INC
\
WTS
\
SL
\
WW
TP
\
DT
\
Figure 17. Summary of statistical difference between plants for
downwind Hi-Vol samples.
51
-------
f:i;:::jj::j = Statistically Significant Difference at the 95% Confidence Level
PP = RDF Processing Plant
INC = Incinerator
WTS = Waste Transfer Station
SL = Sanitary Landfill
WWTP = Waste Water Treatment Plant
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
a/
Total Bacteria Count
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Fecal ColiformS/
No Significant Difference Between
Locations for Fecal Coliform
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
PP
Total Coliform
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Fecal Streotococci
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Figure 18. Summary of statistical difference between plants
for upwind Hi-Vol samples.
52
-------
Figure 19 is a summary of these results presented in a different format for
clarity where all the data from Figures 15 through 18 are presented in Figure
19.
The following discussion compares the RDF plant to other locales.
Upwind counts per cubic meter of bacteria in air were not affected by
the individual plant. However, for total coliform and fecal Streptococci, the
RDF plant upwind samples had statistically significantly higher counts than
any of the other plants. For total bacteria count, the RDF plant was higher
than all other plants except the incinerator. The other four plants were not
significantly different from each other for all bacteria species. What affect
the higher upwind concentrations at the RDF plant had on the downwind and in-
plant samples is unknown.
For downwind samples, the RDF plant had significantly higher concentra-
tions than all other locales for all bacteria species. For total bacteria
count and to a lesser extent, for total coliform, there were several signif-
icant differences between the other locales. However, for fecal coliform and
fecal Streptococci, there were no statistically significant differences be-
tween the other locales including the downtown location.
Analysis of the in-plant samples showed several differences between
plants for the four bacteria species. The RDF plant was always significantly
higher than the sanitary landfill and the wastewater treatment plant for all
bacteria species, and higher than the waste transfer station for total bac-
teria count. However, there was no significant difference between the RDF
plant and the incinerator for total bacteria count, and between the RDF plant
and the waste transfer station for total coliform and fecal coliform. For
fecal Streptococci, there was no statistically significant difference between
the RDF plant and both the incinerator and the waste transfer station.
Comparison of the various receiving area locales, including the packer
truck, showed that based on the Q test, there was no significant difference
between locales for total bacteria count. While the analysis of variance shows
that locale has a significant effect, the Q test in this case, was not power-
ful enough to detect individual differences between plants. The initial analy-
sis of variance or F ratio is a single test statistic for the (composite)
hypothesis; Ho = }il = u2 = . . . u6, where u = the true population mean. Sep-
aration of means procedures (Q test in this case) have, in effect, "padding"
built in as protection against Type I errors (declaring a significant differ-
ence when in fact none exists) because they necessarily consist of multiple
comparisons. Thus, it is quite possible to achieve a significant F ratio yet
label no individual differences significant, which is what happened in this
case.
53
-------
Ol
COMMENT
Treatments underlined by a common line ••••• do not differ from each other at the 95% confidence level.
Treatments not underlined by a common line are statistically significantly different at the 95% confidence level.
RECEIVING AREA
HI-VOL SAMPLES
Total Bacteria Count
no difference between locations
Total Coliform
PP
PKTK
WTS
INC
SL
WW
TP
Fecal Coliform
PKTK
PP
WTS
INC
SL
WW
TP
1
Fecal Streptococci
PP
INC
PKTK
WTS
SL
WW
TP
IN-PLANT
HI-VOL SAMPLES
Total Bacteria Coun
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Total Coliform
INC
PP
WTS
SL
U
WW
TP
Fecal Coliform
PP
WTS
INC
SL
WW
TP
Fecal Streptococci
PP
WTS
INC
SL
WW
TP
DOWNWIND
HI-VOL SAMPLES
LEGEND
PP - RDF Processing Plant
INC = Incinerator
WTS = Waste Transfer Station
SL = Sanitary Landfill
WWTP = Waste Water Treatment Plant
PKTK = Packer Truck
DT = Downtown
•""• = No Statistical Significant Difference
UPWIND
IM-VOL SAMPLES
Total Bacteria Count
PP
INC
SL
WW
TP
WTS
DT
Total Co li form
PP
INC
WTS
DT
SL
WW
TP
Fecal Coliform
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
DT
Fecal Streptococci
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
DT
Total Bacteria Count
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Total Coliform
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Fecal Coliform
no difference between locations
Fecal Streptococci
PP
INC
WTS
SL
WW
TP
Figure 19. Summary of statistical difference between plants.
-------
Analysis of the test results show that the packer truck, the RDF plant,
and the incinerator receiving area mean values were similar and were higher
than the other plants, and that the sanitary landfill receiving area mean
value was lowest. For total coliform concentrations at the receiving areas,
there were no significant differences between the RDF plant, the packer truck,
and the waste transfer station. There were several other differences between
plants. For fecal coliform, in the receiving areas, the RDF plant was not dif-
ferent from any other plant or the packer truck, except the wastewater treat-
ment plant which had lower concentrations.
However, for fecal Streptococci, a known pathogen, the RDF plant receiv-
ing area concentrations were not significantly different from either the in-
cinerator receiving area or the packer truck. The sanitary landfill and the
wastewater treatment plant had the lowest values.
In summary, concentrations of bacteria in air at the refuse RDF plant
were either statistically significantly higher than some of the other locales,
or there was no significant difference. The RDF plant concentrations were
never significantly lower than any of the other locales. Table 12 is a list-
ing of those plants whose concentrations are not different from those at the
RDF plant. Fecal Streptococci was of greatest interest since this species is
a known pathogen. While the upwind and downwind fecal Streptococci concentra-
tions were higher at the RDF plant than at any other locale, the RDF plant
in-plant concentrations, taken as a group, were not different from the incin-
erator or the waste transfer station. For the receiving area specifically, the
RDF plant fecal Streptococci concentrations were not statistically different
from the packer truck or the incinerator.
Finally, all the statistical comparisons were made for only three or four
replications of each test. Therefore, the minimum number of replicate samples
were taken which would allow statistical comparisons to be made. Because of
the wide range of concentrations for some of the tests a greater number of
replications for each test condition could possibly result in a change in some
of the statistical conclusions made in this report. It is recommended that any
future tests be replicated a greater number of times so that statistical anal-
ysis can be used more fully.
Interpretation of Bacteria Results--
Interpretation of the bacteria results was based on the previously pre-
sented data along with salient information from a search of available litera-
ture (Appendix I).
55
-------
TABLE 12. LOCALES WHOSE BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS WERE NOT STATISTICALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE AT THE RDF PROCESSING PLANT
Total bacteria Total Fecal Fecal
count coliform coliform Streptococci
Incinerator - All
Incinerator Waste Waste Incinerator
transfer transfer Waste
station station transfer
station
Receiving area All Packer truck Packer truck Packer truck
Waste Incinerator Incinerator
transfer Waste
station transfer
station
Sanitary
landfill
One of the primary objectives of the test program was to obtain data on
bacterial levels at several plants so that a comparison of those levels could
be made, in an attempt to determine if operations at the RDF plant represent
any more of a hazard than those at other waste handling operations. For the
most part, test results did show higher bacterial levels at the RDF plant for
both the in-plant samples and the downwind property line samples. However, the
results were not as clear cut as that statement would indicate because at the
same time the upwind bacteria levels at the RDF plant were higher than those
at the other plants. Downwind samples at the RDF plant may have been affected
by operations at the incinerator because they are adjacent. These results
might better be interpreted by comparison with appropriate standards, but no
such standards exist.
The literature search provided limited information for interpreting the
test results. Several researchers reported rapid die-off of aerosolized bac-
teria (and virus). For E_._ coli, it was found after a few seconds that only 10%
remained viable but the loss of viability for those in larger particles was
much less than in smaller particles (see Appendix I).
56
-------
Reported concentrations of bacteria colonies in air cover a very large
range, from 200/m^ in a laboratory up to 700,000/m3 at a sewage treatment
plant. Airborne concentrations in country air, offices, streets, and facto-
ries were generally reported to be in the range of 2,000 to 4,000/m3.
No information was found that would identify concentrations of total bac-
teria, or specific types of bacteria, which could be considered hazardous,
primarily because dose/response relationships depend on the susceptibility of
the receptor and many other factors.
Apparently, very few epidemiological studies have been carried out rela-
tive to airborne bacteria. One study by Cimino (8) found that the incidence of
acute respiratory conditions for New York Sanitation Department workers did
not exceed that of the general population. The inference from this was that
there is no discernible health risk for aerosolized microorganisms. It could
be argued, however, that such workers may develop a higher level of resistance
to such aerosols than would the normal populace.
There does not appear to be any firm basis for judging the "potential
hazard" of a given bacterial level. Therefore, it is almost impossible to make
any such judgments about the data obtained in this program. The only statement
that can justifiably be made is that if the levels measured at the RDF plant
are higher than at other related facilities, this is probably not desirable
and efforts should be made to control emissions from such operations (e.g.,
use of dust collection systems and fabric filters, and prevention of spillage).
Virus Emissions
Both bacteria and virus were included in the analysis program with empha-
sis on the determination of relative levels of each in the Hi-Vol samples
taken at the property line and in-plant locations. In addition, virus analyses
were to be carried out on the backup impingers used as part of the Andersen
agar plate impactor samples taken at the upwind and downwind property line lo-
cations on one test day at each plant. Virus analyses were also to be performed
on air classifier discharge samples, and mobile filter inlet/outlet samples
taken during the week of testing at the RDF plant.
All of the samples analyzed were negative for the presence of animal vi-
ruses. Not all of the Hi-Vol and Andersen samples were analyzed for virus, but
those which were analyzed included every specified location on at least one
test day at each plant (i.e., at least five samples at each plant).
The initial testing at St. Louis (1) did not include any tests to deter-
mine virus (or bacteria) levels at in-plant or property line locations so no
57
-------
information was available for comparison. The initial tests did include virus
tests at a suburban location but these were also negative.
Initial tests on samples of the particulate emitted from the air classi-
fier discharge did show the presence of plaques (see Table 13) but in the lat-
est series of tests, neither the air classifier samples nor the mobile filter
samples which were analyzed showed the presence of viral plaques. The air
classifier exhaust samples were probably the most likely to contain viruses.
Since only three air classifier samples and three mobile filter inlet impinger
samples were taken, negative results would not necessarily mean that viruses
were not present. There does appear to be a discrepancy in the results between
the present and previous virus tests on the material discharged from the air
classifier system. However, there is some doubt about the previous results be-
cause further analyses were not carried out to identify the plaques as viral.
Also, Peterson reported average virus concentrations in MSW of only 0.32 pfu/
g. (9)
Using Peterson's (9) value of 0.32 pfu/g in MSW, and assuming that MSW
particles suspended in ambient air might be on the order of 1,000 ng/m3, it
can be calculated that expected viral concentrations in the air might be
0.00032 pfu/m3. Such levels are far below the minimum detectability of analy-
sis procedures like those used in this program (0.4 pfu/m3).* The analysis
procedure and detection limits are further complicated by the fact that the
weight of particulate matter collected on ambient Hi-Vol filters is normally
quite small.
Because no viruses were being found in the samples within the detection
limit of the laboratory procedures,* a quality control check was performed on
the assay procedure using an attenuated poliovirus Type 1 culture. The con-
trol check showed that the laboratory assay procedures could detect virus if
present in the sample concentrates. This verified the fact that no animal vi-
rus was present in the samples delivered to the laboratory. Since all samples
tested negative for the presence of animal viruses, no Level 2 analyses were
conducted.
Minimum detectability would theoretically be 10 pfu/ml (plaque forming
units) of concentrated sample from which an aliquot was taken to perform
the analysis. Total volume of concentrated sample was about 4 ml.^This
volume resulted from processing filters through which at least 100 m3 of
air had been passed. On this basis, minimum detectability would have been
0.4 pfu/m3.
58
-------
TABLE I3a. SUMMARY OF I9y> TEST DATA FOR BACTERIA AND VIRUS
Ul
Bacteria concentrations
Raw refuse
processing Mass
Test No. and rate Air flow emissions
date (Mg/hr) (dNnrVsJ g/ra3 kg/hr
a. ADS cyclone
1
(June 30,
1975) 18.1 13.64 0.25 11.9
2
(July 1,
1975) 29.8 13.40 0.69 33.5
3
(July 1,
1975) 29.8 13.40 1.24 14.9
b. im cyclone^
1
(July 1,
1975) 29.H 0.78 1.17 3.3
2
(July 2,
1975) 25.7 0.78 1.10 3.1
3
(July 2,
1975) 25.7 0.78 1.40 3.9
Emission Bacteria
factor counts/grain^'
(kg/Mg) (counts/dNin3)
27,000
0.66 (6,700)
370,000,000
1.13 (256,000,000)
260,000,000
1.99 (318,000,000)
730,000,000
0.11 (848,000,000)
160,000,000
0.12 (177,000,000)
130,000,000
0.15 (180,000,000)
Fecal Salmonella Plaque concentrations
coiiform present (pos.) Tests in LLC-MK2 Tests in Kll
KPN/gram!?/ absent (neg.) cells cells
(MPN/dNm3) and group pfu/g pfu/m3 pl'u/R pfu/m'
2 , 100
(530) Neg. ?-' ?4/ 218 6
29,000
(20,000) Pos. El 4 24,700 2 17,410 :> 24,700 17,410
> 110,000
(> 134,000) Pos. E 2 685-68,500 872-87,000 ?-' ?-'
2,900
(3,390) Pos. C 1 ?-' ?d/ 7.35 9
43,000
(45,900) Neg. ~ 171,232 ~ 193,524 ?-' I-1
9 , 300
(13,100) Neg. ~ 100 ~ 145 ?-' 7-
a/ Total plate count per gram of partlculate matter or per cubic meter of air emitted.
b/ Most probable number (MPN).
c_/ Partlculate con cent rat Ion and emissions from hammermil 1 (IIM) were much higher than In previous tests. Reason for th is is not
known. However, cyclone had plugged up and had been washed out on day before tests.
d/ Results not definitive.
-------
TABLE 13b. SUMMARY OF 1975 TEST DATA FOR BACTERIA AND VIRUS
(Emissions in storage bin)
ON
O
Bacteria concentration
Test No. and
date
1
(June 30, 1975)
2
(July 1, 1975)
3
(July 2, 1975)
4
(July 3, 1975)
Gas sampled at
1.7 m3/min rate
(m3)
306
296
311
442
Particulate
collected
(s)
6.01
8.71
1.08
t
52. 53^
Bacteria
counts/gram
(count s/m3>b'
248,000,000
(4,873,000)
600,000,000
(17,657,000)
145,000,000
(494,000)
213,000,000
(25,073,000)
Fecal Salmonella
coliform present (pos.)
MPN/gram absent (neg.)
(MPN/m3)^/ and group
1,400
(28) Neg.
29,000
(862) Neg.
512,000
(1,783) Pos. 0
1,600
(191) Neg.
a/ Higher weight collected, probably
conveyor was on,
b/ Calculated value
which was not the
(counts^ /
gram / \
due to fact
that storage bin exhaust fan was on and distributing
case in Tests 1 through 3.
' \
grams of particulate\
m^ of gas
sampled )
-------
TABLE 13c. SUMMARY OF 1975 TEST DATA FOR BACTERIA AND VIRUS
(Tests on ambient air, 25 km west of plant)
Teat No. and
date
1
(June 30, 1975)
2
(July 1, 1975)
3
(July 2, 1975)
4
(July I, 1975)
Gas
sampled
821
886
1,017
643
Tare weight
of filter^/
(g)
3.42
3.50
3.51
3.52
Bac
Bacteria
(counts/in )
(473)
(17)
(28)
(247)
Salmonella
Fecal present (pus.) Enterovirus concentration
coliform absent (neg.) Plaques per
(MPN/m3) and group 1/2 filter pad pfu/ra3
(< 0.141) Neg. 0 < 0.0198
(< 0.141) Neg. 0 < 0.0184
(< 0.141) Neg. 0 < 0.0156
(< 0.212) NcS- 0 < 0.0247
Phage per
1/2 filter pad Fhage/m3
0 < 0.0035
0 < 0.0035
0 < 0.0035
0 < 0.0035
Bacteriological contamination level assuming that 850 m-* of sterile air had
passed through blank filter^'
Blank filters
a
b
c
d
e
None
None
None
None
None
3.50
3.31
3.48
3.56
3.53
7
254
< 0.035
0.035
< 0.035
Neg. 0
Neg. 0
Neg.
Meg.
Neg.
Not run
Not run
el Final weight of filter not determined because purpose of test was to determine biological contaminant concentrations on the basis of quantity
of air sampled (m^).
b/ Assumption made In order to compare blanks with actual samples.
-------
While existence of virus at the field sampling locations could not be
confirmed, some viruses could have been lost on the Hi-Vol filters as a result
of physical and chemical effects on the filter surface. Examples of such ef-
fects are desiccation, oxidation, and complexation with dust material of un-
known composition. Any of these items could potentially result in irreversi-
ble inactivation of the receptor sites on the protein capsid of the virus.
Also, osmotic shock could result from a buildup of various salts on the fil-
ter from the collected dust.
All of the above could eventually result in devitalization of virus which
could not then be detected in the laboratory.
During the performance of laboratory procedures it was noted that the Hi-
Vol filter paper had a high pH which is detrimental to viability of virus life.
This high pH could have inactivated many viruses. It was possible that during
manufacture, the filters could have been cleaned with some hydroxide, result-
ing in the high pH. However, the more likely explanation of the negative virus
results was that they were not present or were below the detection limits of
the laboratory procedures. That is, the quantity of particulate matter col-
lected on the Hi-Vol filters was small « 1 g) and as mentioned previously,
reported values for MSW itself were only on the order of 0.32 pfu/g. Also, it
was noted in the literature search (Appendix I) that experiments with liquid
aerosols of high-titre virus suspensions have shown that mortality of the vi-
rus was very high during the first 2 min in aerial suspension. This may be an
alternative explanation of why all the results obtained in this test program
were negative.
TRACE METALS
A portion of the sampling program involved use of part of the Hi-Vol fil-
ters for trace element analysis. Those filters (samples) which were analyzed
were the upwind and downwind location at each of the five plants plus two down-
town samples and the three air classifier discharge samples.
A description of the analyses procedures for the trace elements in these
samples is given in Appendix F. Complete results of those analyses are in-
cluded in Appendix F. These results have been used to calculate trace element
concentrations per unit volume of air sampled, and summarized in Table 14.
Table 15 shows the trace element concentrations in the particulate matter
emitted from the air classifier system and the concentration in terms of vol-
ume of air discharged.
Examination of the air classifier discharge results in Table 15 shows that
Pb and Zn have, by far, the highest concentration. However, all of the trace
elements analyzed, including Pb and Zn, were below their respective TLVs.
62
-------
TABLE 14. TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR HI-VOL AMBIENT AIR SAMPLES
o\
Sample
049
051
053
082
084
089
115
117
110
202
216
218
Element Concentrations ftie/mfl )
Location
Incinerator
Upwind
Downwind
Downtown
RDF plant
Upwind
Downwind
Downtown
Upwind
Downwind
Haste Transfer
Upwind
Downwind
Landfill
Upwind
Downwind
TLV/100
Date
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
Sb
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
hi
b/
b/
b/
0.50
As
< 0.007
< 0.007
< 0.008
< 0.007
O.OL5
< 0.007
< 0.008
< 0.007
< 0.007
0.009
< 0.007
< 0.007
0.50
J&
0.00036
0.00018
0.00020
0.00017
0.00056
O.OOOIO
0. 00006
0.00013
0.00014
0.00022
<0. 00007
0.00020
0.02
M
0.0025
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.007
0.0005
0.0026
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.0015
0.0005
0.50
.Ci
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.17
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.17
0.14
< 0.05
< 0.05
1.0
Jil
0.12
0.10
0.05
0.44
0. 39
0.10
0.11
0.22
0.13
0.18
0.07
0.05
2.0
JH>
0.93
2.50
0.97
0.69
2.25
0.83
0.64
0.98
< 0. 5
1.5
1.18
0.59
1.5
ik
I/
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
0.50
j£
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
b/
2.0
M
0.42
0.32
0.13
0. 30
1.96
0.07
0.12
0.13
0.24
0.20
0.06
0.09
5.0
a_/ Wastewater treatment plant.
b/ All values below detection limits (Sb-0.02, As-0.007, IIg-0.002, Se-0.04).
-------
TABLE 15. TRACE ELEMENT RESULTS FOR AIR CLASSIFIER DISCHARGE SAMPLES
Element
sample
Air classifier 1-3
Air classifier 2-3
Air classifier 3-3
Trace element concentration (|J.e/e)
Date
U/9/76
11/10/76
11/11/76
Jib
< 5.0
4.2
7.7
As
22.0
9.1
5.7
Be
0.22
0.18
0.23
.Cd
19.0
7.0
4.6
Cf
83.0
78.0
97.0
Cu
74.0
60.0
100.0
Pb
430.0
'170.0
400.0
ik
0. 93
0.35
<0.40
J3e
30.0
28.0
25.0
.Zn
680.0
520.0
740.0
jia
130.0
94.0
130.0
Trace element concentration (iie/m-*)
Air classifier 1-3
Air classifier 2-3
Air classifier 3-3
11/9/76
11/10/76
11/11/76
TLV
1.3
1.5
2.1
50.0
5.8
3.3
1.5
50.0
0.058
0.065
0.062
2.0
5.0
2.5
1.2
50.0
21.7
28.0
26.0
100.0
19.0
21.5
27.0
200.0
113.0
133.0
107.0
150.0
0.24
0.13
0.11
50.0
7.9
10.0
6.7
200.0
178.0
187.0
198.0
5,000.0
34.0
33.7
34.8
500.0
-------
Elemental concentrations at the property lines of the plants (upwind and
downwind) and downtown, as given in Table 14, allow four main observations:
1. There was a significant increase in the downwind concentration at the
RDF plant and the waste transfer station.
2. There was a significant increase in the downwind Cr concentration at
the RDF plant and both the upwind and downwind Cr concentrations were much
higher at the waste transfer station than at all other plants (except the RDF
plant).
3. There was a significant increase in the downwind Zn concentration at
the RDF plant.
4. The downwind Pb concentration was higher than the upwind at all
plants except the landfill.
Since there are no ambient air standards for most of the trace elements,
it is difficult to assess the above results in terms of potential hazards.
However, if one assumes that such results can be compared with 1/100 of TLV,
then an initial comparison is possible. On this basis, the data in Table 14
show that all of the measured trace element concentrations were considerably
below 1/100 of the respective TLVs, except .for Pb.
Concentrations of Pb were close to 1/100 of TLV even in the upwind and
downtown samples. But, the downwind Pb concentrations exceeded 1/100 of TLV
at the incinerator and RDF plant, and were just equal to 1/100 of TLV at the
waste transfer station. It appears that operation at such refuse handling fa-
cilities may contribute significantly to the burden of Pb in the ambient air
which places more emphasis on the Pb concentration in emissions from the un-
controlled air classifier system. Although Pb and other trace elements were
not measured in the outlet from the mobile fabric filter, the high total par-
ticulate efficiency would be expected to also reduce the associated Pb emis-
s ions.
AIR CLASSIFIER PARTICULATE EMISSION AND MOBILE FABRIC FILTER EFFICIENCY
Emission of particulate from the air classifier system was measured with
Hi-Vol stack sampling equipment. Results showed particulate concentrations of
0.26, 0.36, and 0.27 g/dNnP. These were in close agreement with the previous
MRI (1) tests and the tests conducted by Monsanto (Appendix E) on the inlet
of the EPA mobile filter.
Monsanto operated the EPA mobile filter during the 3 days of testing at
the RDF plant in conjunction with the bacteria and virus tests by MRI. This
65
-------
mobile filter was connected to a sidestream drawoff from the air classifier
exhaust, at a flow rate of 0.05 dNm3/sec.
A description of the mobile filter and the particulate test results is
contained in Appendix E. The filter test results showed an inlet particulate
concentration of 0.300 g/nm3 and an outlet concentration of 0.000154 g/nm3,
yielding a total mass efficiency of 99.95%. This efficiency is about what
would be expected for a baghouse in this service, indicating that such de-
vices are very effective in reducing particulate emissions. Data presented
earlier in this report showed that the bacteria removal efficiency of the
mobile filter was 99.6% based on total bacteria count and at least 99.9% for
specific types of bacteria (e.g., total coliform). There appears to be a good
correlation between particulate removal efficiency and bacterial removal ef-
ficiency for this baghouse.
It was originally intended that samples taken at the air classifier
would be analyzed for asbestos content as would the upwind, downwind, and
downtown Hi-Vol samples, by our subcontractor, Illinois Institute of Technol-
ogy Research Institute (IITRI). Unfortunately, the glass fiber filter papers
used in the Hi-Vol for all analyses (bacteria and trace metals) were not suit-
able for asbestos analyses. We had originally understood that this filter
paper would be suitable but later found that asbestos analyses require the
use of 0.8 um pore size Nuclepore filter. Therefore, asbestos analyses could
only be carried out on the air classifier exhaust where a large amount of
sample is collected. From one standpoint, this is probably the most important
sample because it represents a possible source of asbestos emissions.
The results reported by IITRI on the air classifier exhaust samples (Ap-
pendix D) showed that 15 out of 19 fibers were asbestos in one sample. In the
other sample, 18% of the fibers were analyzed and all were determined to be
asbestos so it was assumed that all fibers were asbestos. On a weight basis,
it was calculated that the mass of asbestos fibers per mass of sample mate-
rial was 1.6 and 0.46%, respectively.
Initially it appeared that the amount of asbestos being emitted from the
air classifier could be significant. The IITRI data showed the highest concen-
tration sample contained 15 fibers in 35.6 ug of particulate sample, but when
coupled with the particulate concentration of 0.23 ug/cc of air, it is calcu-
lated that the air classifier was emitting 0.10 fibers of asbestos per cubic
centimeter. This emission quantity is considerably below the TLV (10) of 5
fibers/cc (for fibers greater than 5 um in length). Many of the asbestos fi-
bers identified by IITRI in their analysis were less than 5 um in length so
it is uncertain whether comparison with the TLV is entirely valid. But, in-
vestigations by the National Academy of Sciences (11) indicate that it was
not possible to determine whether the fibrogenicity of asbestos dust is
66
-------
mostly confined to fibers longer than 5 urn. With this uncertainty, the conf-
parison of the test data with the TLV results in the conclusion that emission
of asbestos from the air classifier system does not represent a potential haz-
ard.
67
-------
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary purpose of this program was investigative; i.e., to obtain
basic data on levels of bacteria and virus in and around waste handling fa-
cilities and to perform sampling and analysis for certain other contaminants.
From the experience gained in acquisition of data and interpretation of re-
sults, certain conclusions and recommendations can be presented. However,
these conclusions are based on a test program consisting basically of only
three test days at each plant, taking seven 6-hr Hi-Vol filter samples each
day and five short-term Andersen samples.
CONCLUSIONS
Airborne bacterial levels, both in-plant and at the property line,
were generally higher for the RDF plant than for the other types of
waste facilities that were tested.
There is insufficient information, data, or relevant standards to de-
termine the levels of microbiological contaminants that might be con-
sidered "hazardous."
Asbestos emissions from the RDF plant tested were below the TLV.
Property line concentrations for most airborne particulate containing
trace metals were below an arbitrary level of 1/100 of the TLV.
• Property line concentrations for Pb, contained in particulate col-
lected, were near or exceeded 1/100 of the TLV at the RDF plant, in-
cinerator and waste transfer station.
A fabric filter system applied to the primary source of dust emissions
(air classifier) at the refuse processing plant can significantly re-
duce particulate and bacteria concentrations.
68
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Waste handling facilities which may emit airborne particulates should
be designed and equipped to minimize emissions. Suitable control sys-
tems could include process modifications, operating procedures, and
dust collection and control equipment.
There is a need for development of standarized sampling and analysis
methodology for airborne microorganisms and other pollutants (e.g.,
trace metal vapors).
The EPA and/or other appropriate agencies should promote further re-
search to investigate possible environmental effects of airborne mi-
croorganisms associated with waste handling facilities.
Since only a few days of sampling were conducted at each waste hand-
ling facility, it is recommended that additional research programs be
conducted at waste handling facilities, over longer time periods (e.g.
months, years) to better characterize emissions and evaluate any pos-
sible environmental effects.
69
-------
REFERENCES
1. Fiscus, D. E., P. G. Gorman, M. P. Schrag, and L. J. Shannon. St. Louis
Demonstration Final Report: Refuse Processing Plant Equipment, Facilities
and Environmental Evaluations. Report prepared for the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency by Midwest Research Institute, April 15, 1977.
2. Gorman, P- G., L, J. Shannon, M. P- Schrag, and D. E. Fiscus. St. Louis
Demonstration Final Report: Power Plant Equipment, Facilities and En-
vironmental Evaluations. Report prepared for the Environmental Protection
Agency by Midwest Research Institute, June 1977.
3. Peterson, M. L., and F. J. Stutzenberger. Microbiological Evaluations of
Incinerator Operations. Appl. Microbiol., July 1969.
4. Peterson, M. L., and A. J. Klee. Studies on the Detection of Salmonellae
in Municipal Solid Waste and Incinerator Residue. Internat. J. Environ.
Studies, 2, 1971.
5. Johnson, N. L., and F. C. Leone. Statistics and Experimental Design. Vol-
ume II, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1969.
6. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. McGraw Hill,
New York, 1962.
7. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. Statistical Methods. 6th Ed., Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1967.
8. Cimino, J. A. Health and Safety in the Solid Waste Industry. Amer. J. Pub-
lic Health, 65:1, January 1975.
9. Peterson, M. L. The Occurrence and Survival of Viruses in Municipal Solid
Wastes. Doctoral Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1971.
10. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Industrial
Ventilation, 13th Ed., 1974.
70
-------
11. National Academy of Sciences: Asbestos (The Need for and Feasibility of
Air Pollution Controls). National Academy of Sciences, Washington, 1971.
40 pp.
12. Draft Report, Health Aspects of the Richmond Field Station Resource Re-
covery System.
71
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TEST PLAN
A large part of the sampling plan involved Hi-Vol and Andersen agar plate
impactor sampling for 3 days at the property line and at in-plant locations
at five different plants. The plants sampled were:
1. Incinerator;
2. Refuse processing plant;
3. Sewage treatment plant;
4. Refuse transfer station; and
5. Landfill.
Except for some special additional tests, mainly at the RDF plant, the
sampling at each plant was as follows:
1. Hi-Vol samplers at property line (one upwind, three downwind).
2. Hi-Vol with precyclone samplers in-plant (three locations).
3. Andersen agar plate impactors with backup impinger at the property
line (one upwind, one downwind).
4. Andersen agar plate impactors with backup impinger at three in-plant
locations.
A more complete listing of the sampling locations, with number and type
of samplers is given in Table A-l. Table A-2 shows the analyses that were per-
formed on each Hi-Vol impactor sample. The number of sampler and their analy-
sis is also shown, in more detail, in Table A-3. Analyses referred to in these
tables are identified in Table A-4. A summary of the sampling and analysis
plan for each plant is given on individual sheets in Table A-5.
Copies of the field laboratory log sheets and sample labels that were uti-
lized in the field sampling are shown in Tables A-6 to A-ll.
72
-------
TABLE A-l. SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND TYPES OF SAMPLERS
Operating
Plant conditions
Incinerator Operating
(RDF plant
not opera-
ting
Days of Sampling
sampling locations
3 Prop. Line
Downtown St. Louis
In-Plant:
Tipping Floor
Scale Office
Crane above
charging floor
Packer truck
Number and type
of samplers
4 Hi-Vols, 2 Impactors
1 Hi-Vol
1 Hi-Vol, 1 Impactor
1 Hi-Vol, 1 Impactor
1 Hi— Vol, 1 Impactor
2 Hi-Vol Samplers
RDF plant
Operating
(Incinerator
Operating)
Sewage treatment
plant
Operating
Transfer station
(Kansas City)
Landfill
(Kansas City)
Operating
Operating
Prop. Line
Downtown St. Louis
In-Plant:
Recvg. Bldg.
Control Rm.
Packer Sta.
Mobil filter
Inlet
Outlet
ADS Exhaust
Refuse Samples
Prop. Line
la-Plane:
Near Primary
Basins
Near Aeration
Basins
Operator Sta. in
Building Between
Primary and
Aeration Basins
Prop. Line
In-Plant:
Recvg. Area
Packing Area
Prop. Line
In-Plant:
Working Face
Near Scale
4 Hi-Vols, 2 Impactors
1 Hi-Vol
1 Hi-Vol, 1 Impactor
1 Hi-Vol, 1 Inpactor
1 Hi-Vol, 1 lapactor
2 Impingers in Series
1 Impinger
1 Hi-Vol Stack Sampler
3 Grab Samples
4 Hi-Vols, 2 Impactors
1 Hi-Vol, 1 Impactor
1 Hi-Vol, 1 Impactor
1 Hi-Vol, 1 Impactor
4 Hi-Vols, 2 Tractors
2 Hi—Vols, 2 Impactors
1 Hi-Vol, 1 lapactor
4 Hi-Vols, 2 Impactors
2 Hi—Vols, 2 Impactors
1 Hi-Vol, 1 Impactor
73
-------
only on upwind and downwind
samples from one test day
TABLE A-2. ANALYSES TO BE PERFORMED ON HI-VOL AND ANDERSEN SAMPLES TAKEN
DAILY AT EACH PLANT (ANALYSES TO BE PERFORMED EACH DAY'S
SAMPLES AT EACH PLANT, EXCEPT AS NOTED)
A. Hi—Vols at property line (4)~
1 upwind and 1 downwind
Bacteria and Virus—Level 2
Microbial Morphology
Trace Metals
Physical/chemical morphology
2 downwind
Bacteria and Virus—Level 1
B. Hi—Vols with precyclone in-plant (3 in-plant locations)
Bacteria and Virus—Level 2
C. Andersen Impactor with backup impinger at Property Line (1 upwind,
1 downwind)
Total bacteria count on each stage; save impinger solution by
freezing.
Microbial morphology on each stage, and virus (level 1) in
impinger, for samples from one test day
D. Andersen Impactor with backup impinger, in-plant (3 in-plant locations)
Total bacteria count on each stage. Save impinger solution by
freezing for later analysis of virus (Level 1).
a/ Hi-Vol samples were also taken at downtown site and underwent the same
analysis as upwind/downwind Hi-Vols at property line (see A above).
Downtown location was sampled only during week of tests at RDF plant
and week of tests at incinerator.
74
-------
TABLE A-3. DAILY SAMPLES AT EACH PLAOT (3 TEST DAYS) HI-VOLS, AND
ANDERSENS WITH BACKUP IMPINGERS, IMPINGERS, AND
REFUSE SAMPLES
I. Hi-Vols
A. Hi-Vols at property line (sample for 6 hr)
—> to MRI for B&V (Level 2)
HiV 1 >Filt
upwind Cut in 1/4's
if required.
Put in sterile
container
ice
-> to MRI for microbial morphology
-> to MRI for trace metals (include
1/4 blank filter)
—> to MRI for transfer to IITRI
Analysis to be done
only on samples
from one test day
at each plant
HiV 2—>Filt
downwind Cut in 1/4 if
required. Put
in sterile
container
Same as above
HiV 3 — >Filt
other Put in sterile
downwind container
.> to MRI for B&V (Level 1)
HiV 4 —>Filt —
other Put in sterile
downwind container
-> to MRI for B&V (Level 1)
HiV 5
In-Plant
Loc. 1
B. Hr-Vol w precyclone in-plant (sample for 6 hr)
ice
Filt
Put in sterile
container
-> to MRI for B&V (Level 2)
(continued)
75
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
HiV 6 —> Filt —
In-Plant Put in sterile
Loc. 2 container
> to MRI for B&V (Level 2)
HiV 7 —> Filt —i££_>
In-Plant Put in sterile
Loc. 3 container
to MRI for B&V (Level 2)
C. Hi—Vol downtown (sample for 6 hr) - 2 test weeks only
HiV 8 —> Filt >
downtown Cut in 1/4.
Put in sterile
container
ice
Same as HiV 1 (above)
(continued)
76
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
II. Andersen Agar Plate Impactors with Backup Impinger
D. Andersen Agar Plate Impactor with Backup Impinger - Property
Line (1 upwind, 1 downwind) (sample for 10 rain)
Andersen 1
Upwind at
HiV 1
Cover and seal each plate.
Place in watertight container
and store in ice chest.
Put impinger solution in
sterile bottle and store in
ice chest.
ice
To MRI for total
bacteria count on each
stage. Save impinger
solution. Microbial
morphology on each
stage, and virus (Level
1) in impinger, for
samples from one test
day.
Andersen 2
Downwind at
HiV 2
Same as above.
ice
Same as above.
E. Andersen Agar Plate Impactor with Backup Impinger - In-Plant (three
locations In-Plant) (sample for 30 sec)
Andersen 3
Loc. 1
Cover and seal each plate.
Place in watertight container
and store in ice chest.
Put impinger solution in
sterile bottle and store in
ice chest.
ice
To MRI for total
bacteria count on each
stage. Save impinger
solution by freezing
for later analysis of
virus (Level 1)
Andersen 4
Loc. 2
Same as above.
lce—-s Same as above.
Andersen 5
Loc. 3
Same as above.
ice
Same as above.
(continued)
77
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
III. Additional Daily Samples for Week of Tests at RDF Plant
F. Air Classifier Stack. Hl-Vol Filter (sample for 1/2 to 1 hr)
Filter
(preweighed)
Cut in l/4s.
Place in sterile
bottles.
to MRI for B&V (Level 2)
ice
•> to MRI for microbial morphology
-> to MRI for trace metals (in-
clude 1/4 blank filter)
-> to MRI for transfer to IITS!
for physio/chem morphology
G. Mobile Filter Test, laipingers (~ 0.47 liters/sec sampling rate for 6 hr)
Inlet:
Impinger 1
(mod. G.S.
impinger)
Outlet:
Impinger 3
(G.S.
imp ing er)
Impinger 2
(G.S.
impinger)
—> Combine
in sterile
bottle
-j> Same as above.
ice
-> To MRI for
bacteria and
virus (Level 2)
and microbial
morphology
Same as above ,
H. Refuse samples (HM discharge)
ice
HM discharge
3 samples per
day
—•> Place in sterile
bottles.
(continued)
ice
To MRI for bacteria
and virus (Level 2)
78
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
IV. Additional Daily Samples for Week of Tests at Incinerator Plant
I. Packer Truck Hi Vol with Precyclone (2 - one on each side at back of
packer truck)
Filter > Place in sterile iff > To MK.I for bacteria
2 samples container in ice and virus (Level 1).
per day chest
79
-------
TABLE A-4. IDENTIFICATION OF ANALYSIS SPECTRUM
A. Bacteria and
Level 1 Tests^-
Level 2 Test si'
Bacteria
Total aerobic plate count
Salnionellae (MPN)
Staphylococcus aureus
(Direct plate count)
Total colifonn (MPN)
Fecal colifonn (MPN)
Fecal Streptococci
(Direct plate count)
Klebsiella sp. (est. from
selective media)
Virus
Estimations of population sizes
of adenoviruses and entero-
virases. To be done using two
cell lines and determining
pfu/m .
Relative changes in predominant
morphological groups
(1) Determine serotypes
(2) Antibiotic sensitivity
(1) Coagulase production
(2) Antibiotic sensitivity
(3) Bacteriophage typing
No additional assays
Enteropathogenic serotype of E_. coli
Serotype for pathologically signifi-
cant groups
Serological identification of the rela-
tive populations of adenoviruses
(human type), polioviruses (vaccine
and wild types), coxsackie viruses
(A and B), and echoviruses.
Microbial Morphology
(1) Isolation of individual bacterial types
(2) Determination of their morphologic characteristics (gram +, or
gram -, rods or cocci, etc.), and
(3) Cultivation on agar slants for future reference and identification.
(continued)
80
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
C. Physio/Chemical Morphology
Electron microscopic examination of samples by IITRI with particular at-
tention to fibrous particles and a check as to whether they may be
asbestos.
D. Trace Metals
As, Sb, 3a, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag, Ti, V, Zn
aj Level 2 tests for bacteria and virus include all analysis shown in Level 1
column plus additional analysis shown in the Level 2 column.
81
-------
TABLE A-5. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
a/
00
K>
Plant
IncJn
tncin
Tncin
Incln
Incin
Incin
Ineln
Incin
Incin
Incin
Tncin
Incln
fncin
Incin
Location
of
sampler
Upwind
Upwind
Dw prim
Dw prim
Dw 2nd
Dw 2nd
Tip fir
Tip fir
Scale off
Scale off
Crane
Crane
Downtown
Packer crk
Type
of
sampler
HJ-Vol
Andersen
lli-Voi
Andersen
lli-Voi
lli-Vol
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hl-Vol
Andersen
lli-Vol
Andersen
Ill-Vol
(2) Hi Voi
Date
1976
11-2
1 1-2
11-2
11-2
11-2
11-2
11-2
1J-2
11-2
11-2
11-2
11-2
11-2
11-2
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
,3,
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sampl e
period
fa
10
6
10
6
6
6
30
6
30
6
30
6
hr
min
hr
min
hr
hr
hr
sec
hr
sec
hr
sec
hr
Approx.
2
hr
B-1,1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Analyses performed
B-I.2 TBC V-L1
XI X
X 1-ISU'l
X X
X 1-BUT
X
X
X X
X BUT
X X
X BUI
X X
x BUT
X X
X X
V-L2 PCM
X 1
X 1
X
X
X
X 1
X 1
TM MM
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
(continued)
-------
TABI.E A-5 (continued)
00
Plant
Process
Process
Process
Process
Process
Process
Process
Process
Process
Process
I'rocesa
Process
Process
Process
Process
Process
Process
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Location
of
sampler
Upwind
Upwind
Dw prim
Dw prim
Dw 2nd
Dw 2nd
Tip fir
Tip fir
Control
room
Control
room
Pack sta
Pack sta
Ads exn
Downtown
II. M. disc
Mob fit
in
Mob fit
out
Upwind
Upwind
Dw prim
Dw prim
Dw 2 nil
Type
of
sampler
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Ili-Vol
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Ili-Vol
Andersen
IH-VoL
Ili-Vol
CD Grab
(2) Imping
(1 ) Imping
Ili-Vol
Andersen
Hl-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Date
1976
11-9,10,11
1 l-y,10,ll
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9, 10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
1 1-9,10,11
11-9,10,11
11-9,10,1 1
11-16,17,18
11-16,17, 18
11-16,17,18
11-16,17,18
11-16,17,18
Sample
period
6 hr
10 rain
6 hr
10 min
6 hr
6 hr
6 hr
30 sec
6 hr
30 sec
6 hr
30 sec
1/2 to 1 hr
6 hr
—
6 hr
6 hr
6 hr
10 m In
6 hr
10 mln
6 hr
Analyses performed
B-L1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
B-L2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T11C V-L1
X
X 1-BUI
X
X 1-BUI
X
X
X
X BUI
X
X BUI
X
X BUI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X l-BUI
X
X 1-IHIl
X
V-1.2 PCM
X 1
X 1
X
X
X
X X
X 1
X
X
X
X 1
X 1
TM MM
1 1
1
1 1
1
X X
1 1
X
X
1 1
1
1 1
1
(conL inued)
-------
TABLE A-5 (continued)
CO
_ _
1'lant
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Location
of
sampler
Dw 2nd
Prim
basin
Prim
basin
Aeration
bas
Aeration
bas
Press-
room
Press-
room
Pressrm
bsmt
Pressrm
bsmt
Upwind
Upwind
Dw prim
DH prim
Dw 2nd
Dw 2nd
Tip fir
north
Tip fir
north
Type
of
sampler
Hl-Vol
Hl-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hl-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hl-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
HJ-Vol
Hi-Vol
Hl-Vol
Andersen
Bate
l'J76
11-16,
11-16,
11-16,
11-16,
11-16,
11-16,
11-16,
11-16,
11-16,
11-22,
11-22,
11-22,
11-22,
11-22,
11-22,
11-22,
11-22,
17,
17,
17,
17,
17,
17,
17,
1.7,
17,
23,
23,
23,
23,
23,
23,
23,
23,
18
18
18
1.8
18
18
18
18
L8
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Sample
period
6
6
30
6
30
6
30
6
30
6
10
6
10
6
6
6
30
hr
hr
aec
In-
sec
hr
sec
hr
sec
hr
min
hr
mi n
hr
hr
hr
sec
Analyses performed
B-I.l B-L2 TBC V-L1
X X
XX X
X BUI
XX X
X Bill
XX X
X BUT
XX X
X BUI
XX X
X L-BUI
XX X
X 1-BIJI
X X
X X
XX X
X BUI
V-l-2 PCM TM MM
XI 11
1
XI 11
1
X
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-5 (continued')
00
Ln
Plant
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Waste trans
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Location
of
sampler
Tip fir
east
Tip fir
east
Tip fir
east
Pack ramp
Pack ramp
Upwind
Upwind
Dw prim
Dw prim
Dw 2nd
Dw 2nd
Wrk face
east
Wrk face
east
Wrk face
west
Wrk face
west
Scale
Scale
Type
of
sampler
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Voi
Hi-Vol
lli-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Hi-Vol
Andersen
Date
1976
11-22,23,24
11-24
11-22,23,24
11-22,23,24
11-22,23,24
11-29,30
& 12-1
11-29,30
& 12-1
11-29,30
& 12-1
11-29,3
6, 12-1
11-29,3
61 12-1
11-29,30
& 12-1
11-29,30
& 12-1
11-29,30
& 12-1
11-29,30
& 12-1
11-29,30
f, 12-1
Jl-29,30
& 12-1
11-29,30
& 12-1
Sample
period
6
2
30
6
30
6
10
6
10
6
6
6
30
6
30
6
30
hr
hr
sec
hr
sec
hr
min
hr
min
hr
hr
hr
sec
hr
sec
hr
sec
B-L1 B-L2 TBC V-L1 V-L2
XX XX
XX XX
X BUI
XX XX
x mn
XX XX
X 1-BUI
XX XX
X 1-BUI
X X
X X
XX XX
x run
XX XX
X BUI
XX XX
X BUT
PCM TM MM
1 1 1
1
111
1
£/ B-L1 = Bacteria Level 1
B-L2 = Bacteria Level 2
V-L1 = Virus Level 1
V-l.2 = Virus Level 2
PCM = Physio/Chemical Morphology
TM = Trace metals
MM = Microblal morphology
TBC = Total bacteria count
BUI = Backup impinger
X = Analysis to be performed
on sample from each test day
Analysis to be performed
on sample from only one
test day
-------
TABLE A-6. FIELD LABORATORY LOG FOR HI-VOL SAMPLES
Dote
BY
Test Day No. 1 at Each Plant
Property Line
Inoiant
Downtown^./! Packer TruckW I Blank
Sample No.
Location No. Per | ( UW) |( DW) j (DW) j ( DW) |
Mop or Name '
Sampling Time
(Start/Stop)
Date
3y
Test Day No. 2 at Each Plant
Property Line
Upwind
Other I Other
Downwind DwrrwdlOwnwd
Inoiant
a I
Downtown _'
Packer
Truckk/
Blank
Sample No.
! i I
I Location No. Per I
1 Map or Name I
]/ i Left [Right
Downtown-1/ • I
! Filter Size
l/4|1/4Jl/4J!/4 11/* 1
I I i
F F| F
1/4 1/4) 1/4 i
I
1/4
1/4
"LT~
I Analylii Seq'd ! L2 JMMJ TMI PCMl L2 MM! TM IPCM| LI i L! L2IUIL2
! Ill i ' ! I I
I I
I I
L2
MMiTMlPCMl LI
' i
Ll Ll
i Hi Vol No./J/j
Scmplinc Time j
(Start/Stop) ]
A
Date_
8y
Test Day No. 3 at Each Plant
Property Line | Inpiont Downtown2/| Packer Trucks/I Slank '
£/ Downtown Hi-Vol will be operated only during week of tests at Incinerator
and week at RDF plant.
b/ Packer Truck Hi-Vols (2) will be operated only during week of tests at
Incinerator.
86
-------
TABLE A-7. FIELD LABORATORY LOG FOR ANDERSEN IMPACTOR SAMPLES
Test Day No. 1 at Each
Sample No.
Stage No.
Location No.
or Name
Analysis Req'd
Sampling Rate
in t/s
Sampling Time
Andersen No.
Plant
Date
Property Lines
Upwind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TBC
S
Test Day No. 2 at Each
Sample No.
Stage No.
Location No.
or Name
Analysis Req'd
Sampling Rate
in t/a
Sampling Time
Andersen No.
Plant
Downwind
12345
6
7
TBC
S
By
Inplant
12345
6
7
TBC
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TBC
S
Date
Property Lines
Upwind
1
2
3
4
TBC &
5
6
7
MMJV
1)
Test Day No. 3 at
Sample No.
Stage No.
Location No.
or Name
Analysis Req'd
Sampling Rate
in i/s
Sampling Time
Andersen No.
Each
Plant
Downwind
12345
6
7
TBC & MM
V
(1)
12345
6
7
TBC
S
Bv
Inplant
12345
6
7
TBC
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TBC
S
Date
Property Lines
Upwind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TBC
S
Downwind
12345
6
7
TBC
S
12345
6
7
TBC
S
Bv
Inplant
12345
6
7
TBC
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TBC
S
12345
6
7
TBC
S
87
-------
TABLE A-8. FIELD LABORATORY LOG FOR RDF PLANT SAMPLES
Test Day No. 1
Date
Sample No.
Location or
Name
Type or Filter
Size
Sampling Rate
1/3
Sampling Period
(Times)
Gross Weight or
Volume
Analysis Req 'd
Blank
>
1/4
>
\
gms
LI
<
1/4
^
<
gms
TM
ADS Exhaust
Filter & Catch
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
start stop
gms
L2
MM
TM
PCM
Mobile Filter
Inlet
Imp.
^^
ml
L2 & MM
Outlet
Imp.
^^
ml
L2 & MM
Refuse Sample
HM Discharge
X
X
X
gms
L2
X
X
X
gms
L2
X
X
X
gms
L2
Test Day No. 2
Date
Sample No.
Location or
Name
Type or Filter
Size
Sampling Rate
If*
Sampling Period
(Times)
Gross Weight or
Volume
Analysis Req'd
Blank
>
1/4
\>
\
gms
LI
<
1/4
<^
<^
gms
TM
ADS Exhaust
Filter & Catch
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
start stop
gms
L2
MM
TM
PCM
Mobile Filter
Inlet
Imp.
^^^
ml
L2 &MM
Outlet
Imp.
^^
ml
L2 & MM
Refuse Sdmple
HM Discharge
X
X
X
gms
L2
X
X
X
gms
L2
X
X
X
gms
L2
Test Day No. 3 Date By
Sample No.
Location or
Name
Type or Filter
Size
Sampling Rate
I/a
Sampling Period
(Times)
Gross Weight or
Volume
Analysis Req 'd
Blank
>
1/4
>
>
gms
LI
<
1/4
<
<
gms
TM
ADS Exhaust
Filter & Catch
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
start stop
gms
L2
MM
TM
PCM
Mobile Filter
Inlet
Imp.
^^
ml
L2 & MM
Outlet
Imp.
^^
ml
L2 & MM
Refuse Sample
HM Discharge
X
X
X
gms
L2
X
X
X
gms
L2
X
X
X
gmj
L2
88
-------
TABLE A-9. LABEL FOR HI-VOL SAMPLES
Sample No.
Sample Date
Test Day No. (1, 2, or 3)
Hi-Vol No. / liters/sec flow rate
Sampling Time
Location (per map) or Name
Filt Size (1/4 or full)
Circle Analysis Required: LI, L2, MM, TM, PCM
TABLE A-10. LABEL FOR ANDERSEN IMPACTOR SAMPLES
Sample No.
Location (per map) or Name
Sample Date
Test Day No. (1, 2 or 3)
Andersen No. , liters/sec flow rate
Sampling Time
Stage No. (1-7, stg 7 is impinger soln)
Circle Analysis Rqd: TBC, MM; Virus (LI), Save
(Impingers)
89
-------
TABLE A-ll. SAMPLE OF LABEL
Label for:
a. Air classifier exhaust
b. Air classifier filter-inlet or outlet
impinger
c. HM discharge sample
(see above)
liters/sec
Sample No.
Sample Name
Sample Date
Test Day No.
Sampling Rate
Sampling Time /
start stop
Sample Type (circle one):
1/4 filter, impinger soln., HM discharge
Approx. Wt. or Vol of Sample
(including filter paper)
g or ml
Circle Analysis Req'd: LI, L2, MM, TM, PCM
90
-------
APPENDIX B
FIELD TEST METHODOLOGY
The bacterial and viral sampling and analysis program included comparable
testing at five related waste handling operations:
1. Incinerator plant;
2. St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant;
3. Wastewater treatment plant;
4. Waste transfer station; and
5. Sanitary landfill.
There was a basic standard test plan employed at all five facilities plus
special tests at four of the facilities so conditions which were unique to
each facility could also be analyzed.
This section of the report will include the following:
1. A description of the sampling equipment;
2. A synopsis of the pretest activities;
3. A list of the general order of daily events during the testing;
4. A map and description of each test facility;
5. The amount of refuse or waste processed each test day;
6. A review of each sample location at each test facility;
7. What test equipment was used;
91
-------
8. Why each sampling location was selected; and
9. How the samples were handled.
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
The major item of sampling equipment used for the tests was the Hi-Vol sam-
pler. The upwind and downwind Hi-Vols were standard units and the in-plant Hi-
Vols were equipped with precyclones. All of the Hi-Vols operated at a continu-
ous sampling rate of 18.9 liters/sec for 6 hr and were equipped with a sterile
fiberglass filter for a sample collection media.
The second most used sampler was the Andersen impactor with a backup im-
pinger. All of the Andersen samples were taken at a sampling rate of 0.466
liters/sec and used agar plates for sample collection. The backup impinger
used Hank's balanced salt solution for the collection media and was analyzed
for virus only.
Impingers were used alone for special B and V sampling at the RDF plant
on the mobile filter inlet and outlet. The sampling rate was 0.466 liters/sec
and Hank's balanced salt solution was used for the collection media.
PRETEST ACTIVITIES
The test plan called for testing each facility on three consecutive days.
On Monday of each test week for the incinerator, the RDF plant, and the sew-
age treatment plant, the schedule was as follows:
1. Check out the plant.
2. Determine the in-plant sample locations.
3. Locate the power supplies for the test equipment.
4. Determine the location of the meteorological station.
5. Obtain all additional equipment necessary to run the tests (electrical
connectors, extension cords, extra generators, etc.).
6. Set up the test equipment and run preliminary tests to check out equip'
ment, the sample handling procedure, and the shipment of samples to MRI.
For the waste transfer station and the landfill, Steps (1) through (5) were
accomplished on Friday prior to the test week and Step (6) was eliminated as
time was a factor and because the test facilities operated long enough each
92
-------
day to complete the test even if any difficulties were encountered during
start-up.
GENERAL ORDER OF DAILY EVENTS DURING THE TESTING
For each facility tested the general order of daily events during the
testing was as follows:
1. Set up the meteorological station.
2. Determine the wind direction.
3. Show the wind direction on a map of the test site and mark the lo-
cation of the one upwind and three downwind sampling locations.
4. Wash the inside of each Hi—Vol with alcohol and set up the Hi—Vols
upwind, downwind, and in-plant, and record the starting times and filter
numbers for each one.
5. Start the daily log sheet for wind direction and velocity, dry bulb
temperature, wet bulb temperature, and cloud cover.
6. Run Andersen impactor samples at the upwind, primary downwind, and
all in-plant sampling locations on a random time schedule throughout the
test period.
7. Periodically check all Hi—Vol samplers and fill portable generator
gas tanks.
8. Collect all Hi-Vol samples.
9. Place each sample in a sterile container, label, and store in re-
frigerator.
10. Pack all samples in refrigerated container and ship to MRI labo-
ratory for analysis.
ST. LOUIS INCINERATOR AND REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
Figure B-l is a map of the St. Louis Incinerator and Refuse Processing
Plant. The property lines are from the fence on the north to the south side
of the salt storage area and from the river on the east to the railroad
tracks on the west. The upwind and downwind sample locations were along the
property lines. An example of the sample locations is also shown in Figure
B-l. The property contains: the incinerator building which houses a tipping
floor, refuse receiving pit, overhead hopper loading crane, incinerator,
93
-------
Roiliood Trocli
VO
UPWIND
——^,
Top o* Bonk
-~ _
Aln-Plant Sampling Locations
iL
?
i — — n
Ro«« R
-------
scale office and administrative offices; the raw refuse receiving building
for the RDF plant houses a tipping floor, operator's office, drag conveyor
and shredder; the air classifier system, RDF storage building, and associated
conveyors are adjacent to the raw refuse receiving building; a large truck
garage and maintenance building houses all of the City of St. Louis packer
trucks which deliver refuse to the facility and a maintenance area; the salt
storage area is open and surrounded by a fence.
The amount of raw refuse received each test day was:
Incinerator plant
Date
Amount (Mg)
Time period
11-2-76
11-3-76
11-4-76
345.80
376.85
298.50
8:00 AM - 4:00 PM
8:00 AM - 4:00 PM
8:00 AM - 4:00 PM
11-9-76
11-10-76
11-11-76
Amount (Mg)
169.07
161.62
163.69
a /
Time period—
8:00 AM - 12:00 Noon
8:00 AM - 12:00 Noon
8:00 AM - 12:00 Noon
£./ Material received from 8:00 AM - 12:00 noon but was pro-
cessed from 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
The sample locations and sampling equipment for the incinerator plant
and RDF plant tests were as follows:
Incinerator plant
1. Upwind
2. Downwind primary
3. Downwind secondary, two locations
4. Packer truck
5. Downtown St. Louis
6. Tipping floor
7. Crane
8. Scale office
Sampling equipment
Hi-Vol and Andersen
Hi-Vol and Andersen
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vols (2)
Hi-Vol
Hi-Vol and Andersen
Hi-Vol and Andersen
Hi-Vol and Andersen
95
-------
RDF plant Sampling equipment
1. Upwind Hi-Vol and Andersen
2. Downwind primary Hi-Vol and Andersen
3. Downwind secondary, two locations Hi-Vol
4. Downtown St. Louis Hi-Vol
5. Tipping floor Hi-Vol and Andersen
6. Control room Hi-Vol and Andersen
7. Packer station Hi-Vol and Andersen
8. Hammermill discharge Grab sample
9. Mobile filter inlet Impinger
10. Mobile filter outlet Impinger
11. ADS exhaust Hi-Vol stack sampler
The selections of the sample locations were made as follows:
Upwind - Selection was made to center this location upwind at the prop-
erty line on a line across the incinerator plant (November 2 through 4, 1976),
and the RDF plant (November 9 through 11, 1976), in line with the wind direc-
tion.
Downwind primary - This location was downwind at the property line on a
line across the incinerator building, or the RDF plant, dependent on which
facility was being tested in line with the wind direction.
Downwind secondary (2) - These two locations were at the property line
and spread far enough apart on each side of the downwind primary to allow for
any normal variation in wind direction.
Packer truck - This sample location was selected to determine the rela-
tive bacteria and virus levels of the packer trucks. The actual sampling lo-
cation was at the back of the truck above where the refuse was loaded.
Downtown St. Louis - This sample location was selected to determine the
relative bacteria and virus levels for downtown St. Louis compared to upwind
and downwind at the incinerator and RDF plant.
Incinerator plant tipping floor - This sampling location was selected
because the raw refuse received was accumulated there and the dust generated
by dumping the raw refuse would most likely be higher in this area compared
to other plant areas. The sampling location was near the center of the re-
ceiving pit ledge.
Incinerator plant crane - This location was directly above the receiving
pit on the crane which picked up the refuse, lifting it to the incinerator
loading bins which were at the crane level. It was selected because it seemed
96
-------
likely to have a high bacteria count, if one existed, because of the close
proximity to the raw refuse and the crane operator was in this area for long
periods of time.
Incinerator plant scale office - This location was adjacent to the tip-
ping floor at the west end of the incinerator building. It was selected be-
cause of its close proximity to the tipping floor and because the office was
occupied by employees much of the time.
RDF plant tipping floor - This sampling location was selected because the
raw refuse received was accumulated there and the dust generated from the raw
refuse would most likely be at a higher level in this area compared to other
plant areas. The sampling location was along the north wall directly across
from the large pile of raw refuse.
RDF plant control room - This sampling location was selected because the
control room was adjacent to the drag conveyor and the operator was in the
control room for long periods of time.
RDF plant packer station - This sampling location was selected because
the RDF was being loaded into trailer trucks and there was a considerable
amount of visible particulate from this operation. Also, this location was
near the air classifier system and a conveyor, both of which were emitting
particulate. These pieces of processing equipment and the sampling location
were outside.
RDF plant hammermill discharge - This sample location was selected to
determine the bacteria level of the RDF. The samples taken here were grab
samples of the RDF, taken three times each day.
RDF plant mobile filter inlet and outlet - These were special samples
designed to test the efficiency of the mobile filter for removal of bacteria.
RDF plant air classifier exhaust - This sampling location was selected
to determine the B and V level of the air classifier exhaust being released
into the air, to verify previous testing.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Figure B-2 is a map of the wastewater treatment plant. The map shows
the plant property and its facilities. The property lines are at the fence
surrounding the facility. An example of the sampling locations is also shown
in Figure B-2. The property contains: the office and laboratory building
which houses the administrative offices and a laboratory; the bar screen on
incoming main sewer line is open to atmosphere; the grit chamber is enclosed;
the sludge holding tank is open to atmosphere next to the chlorination
97
-------
VO
oo
DOWNWIND
SECONDARY
DOWNIND
PRIMARY
DOWNWIND
SECONDARY
A In-Plant Sampling Locations
20 40 to BO
Figure B-2. Layout of wastewater treatment plant.
-------
building; the sludge holding tank is open to atmosphere next to the sludge
thickener building and the sludge pressure filter and incinerator building;
the sludge pressure filter and incinerator building houses the press which
removes the liquid from the sludge and forms the cake, the conveyors and
delumper in the basement and the incinerator; the carbon adsorption building
is enclosed; the laboratory, pump, and blower building is enclosed; the pri-
mary settling basins and secondary settling basins are open to atmosphere;
and ash pond is open to atmosphere.
The amount of wastewater received each test day during the test period
was:
Date Amount (liters) Time period
11-16-76 1,920,000 9:11 AM - 3:30 PM
11-17-76 2,000,000 8:30 AM - 3:15 PM
11-18-76 2,280,000 8:40 AM - 4:00 PM
The sample locations and the sampling equipment for each location were
as follows:
Sampling location Sampling equipment
1. Upwind Hi-Vol and Andersen
2. Downwind primary Hi-Vol and Andersen
3. Downwind secondary, two locations Hi-Vol
4. Primary settling basin Hi-Vol and Andersen
5. Aeration basin Hi-Vol and Andersen
6. Pressroom Hi-Vol and Andersen
7. Pressroom basement Hi-Vol and Andersen
The selections of the sample locations were made as follows:
Upwind - Selection was made to place this location upwind at the prop-
erty line on a line across the basins and the incinerator building, in line
with the wind direction.
Downwind primary - This location was downwind at the property line on a
line across the basins and the incinerator building, in line with the wind
direction.
Downwind secondary (2) - These two locations were at the property line
and spread far enough apart on each side of the downwind primary to allow for
any normal variation in wind direction.
99
-------
Primary settling basin - This sampling location was selected because it
was an open processing area and the wastewater contained more solids than the
fluid in the secondary settling basins. The sampling location was between
two of the three primary settling basins.
Aeration basin - This sampling location was selected because it was a
large open processing area. The basin had walkways directly overhead and the
sampling location was on the walkway.
Pressroom - This sampling location was selected because it was the final
processing stage, was enclosed in a building, and had plant personnel present
for a large portion of their work shift. The sampling location was between
the presses. The Andersen samples were taken for 30 sec, either just prior
to opening the presses to drop the cakes, or while the presses were open
while the Hi-Vol sampler ran continuously for 6 hr.
Pressroom basement - This sampling location was selected because it was
directly under the pressroom and the cakes were dropped on an open conveyor
which then passed through a delumper that was also in the basement. The sam-
pling location was between the conveyors. The Andersen samples were taken as
the cake was being dropped.
WASTE TRANSFER STATION
Figure B-3 is a map of the waste transfer station. The map shows the
plant property and its facilities. The property line is designated on the
map and is shown as a continuous line around the facility. An example of a
sampling location is also shown in Figure B-3. The property contains: the
administration and truck maintenance building which houses the administrative
offices and the truck maintenance shop; the refuse transfer building which
houses the tipping floor and the packer ramp that is at the southwest corner
of the building and below the tipping floor.
The amount of raw refuse received each day during the test period was:
Date Amount (Mg) Time period
11-22-76 329.18 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
11-23-76 291.21 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
11-24-76 313.98 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
100
-------
DOWNWIND
SECONDARY
Adminslration & Truck
Maintenance Building
DOWNWIND
SECONDARY
Aln-Plant Sampling Locations
No. Ill
0 50
Scale in Meters
Figure B-3. Layout of waste transfer station.
-------
The sample locations and the sampling equipment for each location were
as follows:
Sampling location Sampling equipment
1. Upwind Hi-Vol and Andersen
2. Downwind primary Hi-Vol and Andersen
3. Downwind secondary, two locations Hi-Vol and Andersen
4. Tipping floor, north wall Hi-Vol and Andersen
5. Tipping floor, east wall Hi-Vol and Andersen
6. Packer ramp Hi-Vol and Andersen
The selections of the sampling locations were made as follows:
Upwind - This selection was made to place this location upwind at the
property line on a line across the refuse transfer building, in line with
the wind direction.
Downwind primary - This selection was made to place this location down-
wind at the property line, on a line across the refuse transfer building, in
line with the wind direction.
Downwind secondary (2) - These two locations were at the property line
and spread far enough apart on each side of the downwind primary to allow for
any normal variation in wind direction.
Tipping floor, north wall and tipping floor, east wall - These sampling
locations were selected because they were inside the transfer building and
alongside the area where the raw refuse received was accumulated and, there-
fore, would be more likely to detect any higher levels of bacteria associated
with handling of the raw refuse. Also, there was an operator driving the
front-end loader who was in the area most of his work shift.
Packer ramp - This sampling location was selected because as the packer
forced the raw refuse into the covered trailer, it emitted a large amount of
particulate and there was an operator present who transferred the trailers
and cleaned up the area.
SANITARY LANDFILL
Figure B-4 is a map of the sanitary landfill. The map shows the plant
property and the location of the scale office and the working face. An"ex-
ample of a sampling location is also shown in Figure B-4. The only building
on the property is the scale office. The location of the working face is
102
-------
North
DOWNWIND
SECONDARY
A
WORKING
FACE WEST
DOWNWIND
SECONDARY
Aln-Plant Sampling Locations
0 200
Scale in Meters
Figure B-4. Layout of sanitary landfill.
103
-------
ever changing and the working face shown on the map is the location during
the testing program.
The amount of raw refuse received each day during the test period was:
Date Amount (Mg) Time period
11-29-76 792 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
11-30-76 787 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
12-1-76 786 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
The sample locations and the sampling equipment for each location were
as follows:
Sampling location Sampling equipment
1. Upwind Hi-Vol and Andersen
2. Downwind primary Hi-Vol and Andersen
3. Downwind secondary, two locations Hi-Vol and Andersen
4. Working face, east Hi-Vol and Andersen
5. Working face, west Hi-Vol and Andersen
6. Scale Hi-Vol and Andersen
The selections of the sampling locations were made as follows:
Upwind - This selection was made to place this location upwind at the
property line, on a line across the working face, in line with the wind di-
rection.
Downwind primary - This selection was made to place this location down-
wind at the property line, on a line across the working face, in line with
the wind direction.
Downwind secondary (2) - These two locations were at the property line
and spread far enough apart on each side of the downwind primary to allow for
any normal variation in wind direction.
Working face, east and working face, west - These sampling locations
were selected because they were adjacent to the working face where the .raw
refuse was received and then buried. The sampling locations had to be at the
outer edges of the working face because the packer trucks were dumping and
104
-------
they were moving the raw refuse around with heavy equipment and would have
destroyed the sampling equipment if it had been any closer.
Scale - This sampling location beside the scale was selected because all
of the vehicles delivering refuse stopped at the scale to be weighed and this
increased the exposure of the scale operator to any dust or bacteria which
might be emitted from the raw refuse.
SAMPLE HANDLING
The methodology for the sample handling was dependent upon the type of
sampling equipment being used. The following are descriptions of the pro-
cedures followed for each type of sampling equipment used.
Hi-Vol Samplers
The Hi-Vols were equipped with a screen which the filter was placed on,
and an open metal frame with a foam gasket to seal off the edges of the fil-
ter and hold it in place. The filters were placed in folders and sealed in
heavy envelopes. They were then autoclaved to sterilize the entire package.
The technician starting up the Hi-Vol would wipe the filter screen, metal
frame, and surrounding area inside the Hi-Vol with lint-free chemical wipes
saturated with isopropyl alcohol to sterilize the unit. He would then open
the envelope, and wearing a sterile vinyl glove, he would remove the filter,
place it on the screen, and secure it with the metal frame. The thin film of
isopropyl alcohol had dried before the filter was placed on the screen and
great care was taken with the filter to not touch it, or contaminate it, in
any way. The Hi-Vol was then started and the Hi-Vol and filter numbers and
time were recorded. The Hi-Vols were normally powered by portable generators
which might stop for some reason, so a clock was also plugged into the gene-
rator to accurately record the time in case it stopped. The generators were
checked approximately each 1-1/2 hr; fuel was added and any downtime recorded.
When the sampling time was completed, the technican would shut off the
unit, and wearing a sterile vinyl glove, he would remove the filter from the
Hi-Vol and place it in a sterile envelope and return it to the mobile labora-
tory at the test site. The lab technician would check the field laboratory
log sheet to see what the dispensation was for that sample. Example: either
the entire filter was to be submitted for LI, or L2 analysis, or it would be
quartered for L2, microbial morphology, trace metal, and physiochemical mor-
phology analyses. He would then, wearing sterile vinyl gloves, prepare the
sample and place it in a sterile plastic bag and seal it. He would then at-
tach a label, which identified the sample and the analysis to be performed,
to the plastic bag and write the sample number on the bag in case the label
should become detached. The sample was then placed in the refrigerator for
storage until all of the samples were prepared.
105
-------
Hl-Vol Sampler with Precyclone
The Hi-Vol sampler with precyclone was identical to the standard Hi-Vol
sampler except for the addition of the precyclone. The only procedural dif-
ference in preparing the unit for start-up was to clean out and sterilize the
precyclone with isopropyl alcohol in addition to the filter screen and sur-
rounding area. The Hi-Vols with precyclone were used for in-plant testing,
and there was electrical power available which eliminated the need for porta-
ble generators and clocks. The units were, however, checked at approximately
1-1/2 hr intervals, the same as the standard Hi-Vols. The rest of the sample
handling procedures were identical to the standard Hi-Vols.
Andersen Impactor with Backup Impinger
The mobile laboratory at the test site was equipped with a cabinet which
contained a high frequency ultraviolet light. The Andersen impactors and im-
pingers used in this test program were sterilized in the UV cabinet. The lids
for the agar plates used in the Andersen impactors were sterilized in the UV
cabinet, while the plates were in the Andersen. This was done to avoid con-
taminating the sample after it was recovered from the Andersen. The Andersens
were loaded with the agar plates and a stopper placed in the inlet and outlet.
The impingers were additionally sterilized with isopropyl alcohol and thor-
oughly rinsed twice with Hank's balanced salt solution. The impingers were
then filled with 100 ml of Hank's balanced salt solution and sealed until as-
sembled with the Andersen impactor. The above preparations were made before
each Andersen sample was taken.
The Andersen samples were operated by a vacuum pump equipped with a lim-
iting orifice to control the flow at 0.466 liters/sec. The vacuum hose was
clamped shut, attached to the vacuum pump, the stopper was removed, the hose
clamp released, and the timing started. At the end of the sampling time, the
hose was clamped, removed from the vacuum pump, and then released. The stopper
was replaced and the Andersen unit returned to the mobile laboratory.
The laboratory technician removed the agar plates one at a time; immedi-
ately covering the plates with the sterile lids. The agar plates were each
labeled for identification and taped together as a set. The paper label iden-
tifying the sample and containing the dispensation instructions was attached
to the set and stored in the refrigerator until all of the samples were pre-
pared. The lab technician then poured the impinger solution into a sterile
glass bottle and sealed it with a cap. The sample number was then written on
the bottle in ink and a paper label identifying the sample and containing the
dispensation instructions was attached to the bottle. The sample was then
stored in the refrigerator until all of the samples were prepared.
106
-------
Impingers were used alone to sample the mobile filter inlet and outlet
at the RDF plant. The inlet was sampled with two impingers in series and the
outlet with a single impinger. The sterilization, handling techniques, and
sample recovery were identical to the methods used for the backup impinger
for the Andersen impactor. However, these inlet/outlet impingers were op-
erated for 6 hr each day.
Sample Shipment
When all of the samples had been packaged and labeled, they were placed
in an insulated shipping carton with plastic enclosed ice packages. The plas-
tic enclosed ice packages kept the fluid contained as it melted so they could
be reused and would not damage the samples. The void spaces were filled with
packing to hold the contents in place during shipment and prevent damage to
the samples. The container was strapped shut and sent by air express to MRI,
where it was received the following morning for sample analyses.
107
-------
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR
BACTERIA AND VIRUS
BACTERIA METHODOLOGY
Sample Preparation
The filter pads from the Hi-Vol samples were prepared for assay by
homogenizing in a sterile Waring blender with sterile distilled water suf-
ficient to produce a 1:100 dilution using a blending time of 30 sec. Ali-
quots of this slurry were then transferred directly to culture media or used
to prepare additional dilutions. The pH of each slurry was checked after all
bacteriological samples had been taken.
Total Plate Count
Dilutions of the filter pad slurry were prepared in sterile distilled
water and these were then transferred in duplicate to petri dishes which were
poured with plate count agar (Difco) and incubated at 35°C for 48 hr. A
longer incubation at a lower temperature might have given slightly higher
counts, but because mold spores were present in large numbers it was not pos-
sible to extend the incubation time beyond 48 hr without overgrowth of fungi.
Isolated colonies were picked from representative plates and transferred
to slants of trypticase soy agar. The cultures were then used for determina-
tion of morphology and gram-reaction.
Standard Total Coliform MPN Tests
Presumptive--
The presumptive test was conducted using lauryl tryptose broth as the
medium. Five fermentation tubes each of 10, 1, and 0.1 ml of the filter pad
slurry were prepared and were incubated at 35 + 0.5°C. At the end of 24 hr,
each tube was examined and those showing gas were recorded. Those tubes in
which no gas was observed after 24 hr were reincubated for an additional 24
hr (total 48). Formation of gas within 48 hr constituted a positive presump-
tive test.
108
-------
Confirmation--
All tubes showing gas in 24 or 48 hr in the presumptive test were sub-
cultured in brilliant green lactose bile broth. These tubes were then incu-
bated for 48 hr at 35 + 0.5°C. The formation of gas in the tubes within 48
hr consistuted a positive confirmed test.
Completion--
Samples of each tube of brilliant green lactose bile broth showing gas
were streaked onto eosin-methylene-blue agar plates. These plates were incu-
bated at 35 + 0.5°C for 24 hr.
Typical colonies were picked and transferred to nutrient agar slants and
were examined after 24 hr by use of the Gram-Stain technique. The cultures
which were gram-negative were considered to be coliform.
Fecal Coliform MPN
All tubes showing gas in the presumptive coliform test were used to inoc-
ulate tubes of EC medium. The inoculated tubes were then incubated in a water
bath at 44.5 + 0.2°C for 24 hr. If gas was produced in 24 hr the test was
considered positive and indicated the presence of coliform of fecal origin.
MPN tables were used to determine probable densities in the original sample.
Subcultures were made from positive tubes on eosin-methylene-blue agar
and typical colonies on the solid medium were then transferred to nutrient
agar slants and used to perform serological typing.
Serological Typing of E. coli
Subcultures from nutrient agar slants were made to brain heat infusion
agar of typical fecal coliform isolates. Then cultures were incubated over-
night and on the following day portions of each culture were tested against
£_._ coli OK antiserum poly by the slide agglutination technique recommended by
Difco Laboratories. (1)
Salmonella
Tests for the presence of members of the genus Salmonella were conducted
using both direct inoculation of filter pad slurry to selective agars such as
MacConkey's and brilliant green and by enrichment techniques using selenite
broth.
When selenite broth enrichment was used, 24 or 48 hr enrichments from
the selective broth were transferred to MacConkey's and brilliant green agars.
109
-------
Typical appearing colonies were then picked and transferred to triple sugar
iron agar (TSI). All isolates giving reactions typical of Salmonella on TSI
agar slants were then transferred to slants of heart infusion agar and used
for serological testing.
The isolates were first tested serologically using the slide agglutina-
tion technique (Difco) and Salmonella polyvalent antisera. Any positive re-
actors were then tested using Salmonella group specific antisera.
Fecal Streptococci
Fecal streptococci were enumerated by a pour plate technique utilizing
KF Streptococci agar. This direct count procedure was accomplished by plat-
ing 1, 0.1, and 0.01 ml samples of the filter pad slurry with KF agar and in-
cubating the solidified plates at 35 + 0.5°C for 48 hr.
Klebsiella
The presence of species of Klebsiella was determined by picking typical
appearing colonies from MacConkey's agar plates prepared by inoculation of
dilutions from the filter pad slurry. These isolates were transferred to ad-
ditional MacConkey plates for determining the purity of the isolate. Well
isolated colonies from the pure culture were then transferred to slants of
brain-heart infusion agar and these cultures were used to determine the bio-
chemical reactions of the isolates. All isolates possessing biochemical char-
acteristics similar to those reported for Klebsiella species were tested us-
ing polyvalent Klebsiella antiserum.
Staphylococcus aureus
The presence of S_. aureus was determined by plating aliquots of the sam-
ple slurry directly onto Staphylococcus 110 medium agar plates (Difco). These
plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 and 48 hr and all typical appearing col-
onies were transferred to brain-heart infusion slants. After overnight growth
the isolates were tested for production of coagulase by the standard tube
method.
VIRUS METHODOLOGY
Samples for virus analysis were concentrated by two methods. Initially,
the samples were concentrated using the hydroxyapatite method. However, this
method was found to be inefficient, and later samples were concentrated by the
dextran sulfate-polyethylene glycol phase separation.
Concentrated samples were analyzed using the monolayer plaque assay tech-
nique according to Schmidt (6) with only minor modifications. In all samples,
110
-------
the heteroploid monkey kidney cell line, LLC-MK2 was used for the monolayers.
The technique was tested using an attenuated poliovirus Type I culture with
good results.
Virus Concentration Procedures
At first, virus concentrations were performed on Hi-Vol filter pad sam-
ples and impingers solutions with the hydroxyapatite flocculation-precipitation
method as conducted in the earlier 1975 St. Louis Test Program. (4) However,
reproduction of the earlier investigator's method in detail resulted in the ab-
sence of floe formation. As a result, the procedure was modified such that floe
was formed, and this modified procedure is repeated here in detail (see Table
C-l). Using this procedure, each filter was weighed and diluted 1:200 (w/w)
with sterile distilled water. The sample was then homogenized using a Waring
blender at high speed for a minimum of 30 sec. Hydroxyapatite precipitate
was formed to retain the viruses with the solids phase by adding 25 ml/liter
sample of each 0.5 M CaCl2 and 0.5 M Na2HPO^. The sample was then blended
briefly at low speed to effect contact with the viruses. The homogenate was
suction filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper supported by a Buchner
funnel. A slurry was prepared of the precipitate and filter by mixing the
sample with a spatula after addition of 40 ml 0.3 M Na2EDTA at pH 7.0. The
sample was again filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper with suction fil-
tration. The filtrate was then added to a dialysis bag and dialyzed against
distilled water for 5 hr with constant stirring by a magnetic mixer. After 5
hr, the contents of the dialysis tube was poured into a 250 ml centrifuge tube
to which was added 3 to 4 ml of each 0.5 M CaCl2 and 0.5 ml Na2HPO^ to form
hydroxyapatite floe. The sample was mixed and then centrifuged at 653 x g at
4°C for 15 min. The supernatant was poured off and 3 ml of 0.3 M Na2EDTA at
pH 7.0 was added to the precipitate. The solution was again added to a dialy-
sis bag and dialyzed overnight against distilled water. The contents of the
dialysis bag was then stored in small bottles at -100°C until monolayer plaque
assay could be conducted.
Potential areas for sample loss, i.e., virus loss, are numerous in the
hydroxyapatite precipitation method. These areas include the following:
1. Numerous handling steps result in frequent losses of sample.
2. Loss of virus along with filtrate during first suction filtration.
3. Loss of virus by entrapment on filter during second filtration.
4. Adsorption to dialysis tubing during dialysis steps.
5. Loss in supernatant after centrifugation steps.
6. Overall inefficiency of the calcium phosphate to adsorb and retain
viruses. Ill
-------
TABLE C-l. FLOW SHEET FOR VIRAL CONCENTRATION PROCEDURES OF AEROSOL
SAMPLES ON HI-VOL FILTERS!./ (Hydroxyapatite method)
Filter with particulate sample.
Weighed, diluted 1:200 (w/w) with distilled HjO, and homogenized with Waring
blender
I
Add 25 ml/liter 0.5 M CaCl2
25 ml/liter 0.5 M Na2HP04
Blend on low speed.
V
Suction filter through Whatman No. 1 filter supported by Buchner funnel.
Discard filtrate
v
Add 40 ml 3.0 M Na2EDTA (pH 7.0) to precipitate
Prepare slurry of precipitate and filter.
" I
Suction filter through Whatman No. 1 filter supported by Buchner funnel.
-^ Discard particulate matter and filter
V
Dialyze filtrate for 5 hr against distilled H20 with constant stirring
Discard dialysate
v
Contents of dialysis bag
^
Add 3 to 4 ml each of 0.5 M Cad2 and 0.5 M
Shake well to form calcium phosphate floe.
Centrifuge at 653 x g at 4°C for 15 min.
Discard supernatant
Dissolve precipitate in 3 ml 0.3 M Na2EDTA at pH 7.0
V
Dialyze overnight against distilled water
Discard dialysate
V
Contents of dialysis bag
I
Tissue culture assay for virus
(Monolayer Plaque Assay)
a/ This procedure is also used for impinger samples by excluding the initial
homogenization step.
112
-------
Because of these six areas for virus loss, a comparison using bacterio-
phage T-l as a virus model was made between the modified hydroxyapatite method
and the phase separation method as delineated in Table C-2. Actual field sam-
ples were seeded with a known concentration of phage T-l, processed, and the
resulting concentrates assayed using the agar overlay method with Escherichia
coli IJ serving as the host indicator organism. The phase separation method
was found to be much superior to the hydroxyapatite method with recovery per-
centages of 18.2 and 0.1%, respectively. After we had obtained an attenuated
poliovirus I culture, the phase separation method was found to have a concen-
tration efficiency of 23.97,. Therefore, only the phase separation method was
used for the balance of the virus samples.
A large number of virus concentration procedures have been described in
the literature. These concentration procedures can be divided into seven main
groups. (5) These are the following:
1. Sample incorporation;
2. Ultrafiltration;
3. Freezing;
4. Two-phase separation;
5. Ultracentrifugation;
6. Electrophoresis; and
7- Adsorption and elution.
Of the many virus concentrations available, none of them at the present time
can be considered superior in all applications because of the many variables
involved. (5) The two chief variables that the investigator must take into
account are the physical nature of the sample and the hypothetical number of
viruses one expects to be in the sample. These two variables alone can elimi-
nate many of the current methods.
The phase separation method was chosen over the other methods for sev-
eral reasons. The method seemed the most promising to use with samples col-
lected on filter media. The method could be used with small or large volumes
of sample. The procedure is not difficult and time-consuming, thus being con-
ducive to processing large numbers of samples. Finally, the method is rela-
tively inexpensive.
113
-------
TABLE C-2. FLOW SHEET FOR VIRAL CONCENTRATION PROCEDURES OF
AEROSOL SAMPLES ON HI-VOL FILTERS^/
(Phase separation method)
Filter with particulate sample.
Weighed, diluted 1:100 (w/w) with distilled H20, and homogenized with Waring
blender
Centrifuge at 1,080 x g for 15 min at 4°C
;> Discard Ppt.
V
Neutralize supernatant to pH 7.2
Add each of the following sequentially after each is thoroughly dissolved
1.757. (w/w) (0.3 m) Dry Sodium Chloride
0.2% (w/w) Sodium Dextran Sulfate 2000
6.43% (w/w) Polyethylene Glycol 4000
V
Allow to mix 1 hr using a magnetic stirrer.
Transfer mixture to separatory funnel and store at 4°C for 13 to 24 hr.
v
Collect bottom and interphase portions.
V
Follow one of the two following methods:
Method 1 - (Shuvall (2))
To bottom and interphase portions, add KC1 to 0.7 M to ppt. dex-
tran sulfate.
Centrifuge at 2,500 g for 10 min at 4°C.
To supernatant, add 1.0 ml anesthetic grade diethyl ether per 4
ml reconcentrate.
Shake mixture and hold at 4°C for 18 hr to kill contaminating
bacteria and molds.
Tissue culture assay for viruses.
Method 2 - Alternative Double Concentration (Fields (3))
To bottom and incerphase portions, add NaCl until final concentra-
tion of 1.0 M is reached.
Mix for 1 hr followed by an 18 hr interval at 4°C.
Centrifuge for 10 min at 120 x g at 4°C.
Withdraw top and interphase portion with pipet.
Add 1.0 ml anesthetic grade ether per 4.0 ml reconcentrate.
Tissue culture assay for viruses.
a/ This procedure may be modified to process impinger samples by eliminating
the initial homogenization and centrifugation steps.
114
-------
Table C-2 presents the phase separation method, which like the hydroxy-
apatite method, commences with a homogenized filter sample. The sample is
then centrifuged to remove the filter fibers. The balance of the phase sep-
aration method is explained in Table C-2.
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
1. Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Michigan.
2. Shuvall, H. I., B. Fatall, S. Cymbalista, and N. Goldblum. The Phase-
Separation Method for the Concentration and Detection of Viruses in Water.
Water Research, 3(4):225-240, 1969.
3. Fields, H. A., and T. G. Metcalf. Concentration of Adenovirus from Sea-
water. Water Research, 9(4):357-364, 1975.
4. Fiscus, D. E., P. G. Gorman, and M. P. Schrag. St. Louis Demonstration
Final Report: Refuse Processing Plant Equipment, Facilities, and Environ-
mental Evaluations, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri,
April 15, 1977.
5. Katzenelson, E. Virologic and Engineering Problems in Monitoring Viruses
in Water, Berg, G., H. L. Bodily, E. H. Lenette, I. L. Melnick, and T. G.
Metcalf, eds., In: Viruses in Water, Am. Pub. Health Assn., Washington,
D.C., p. 152-164, 1976.
6. Schmidt, N. J. Tissue Culture Techniques for Diagnostic Virology, In:
Diagnostic Procedures for Viral and Rickettsial Infections, 4th ed.,
Am. Pub. Health Assn., New York, p. 79-178, 1969.
115
-------
APPENDIX D
IITRI REPORT ON ASBESTOS ANALYSIS
April 15, 1977
Paul G. Gorman
Senior Chemical Engineer
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Subject: Final Report - IITRI Project No. C8327
"Testing Emission Samples from Municipal
Waste Disposal"
MRI Project No. 4033-L(1)
Dear Dr. Gorman:
Attached are the analyses of fibers present in your
samples ADS-4-1 and ADS-2-4. All other samples submitted
along with your letter of December 16, 1976 could not
be analyzed for fibers because the collection substrate
was glass fiber filter paper. All samples are being
returned to you along with this report.
The procedure used for determining the fiber concentra-
tion in samples ADS-4-1 and ADS-2-4 was as follows: A
known, weighable quantity, approximately 10 mg of dust was
dispersed in 500 ml of filtered distilled water. Aerosol
OT and sonification were used as dispersion aids. We attempted
to obtain a representative sample of this diverse material;
but, can not be sure of our success. Various small aliquots
of the dispersed material were filtered through 47 mm, 0.22
ym pore size, Nuclepore filters yielding a uniform deposit.
Several 3 mm discs were cut from the Nuclepores and the
deposit transferred to carbon coated, electron microscope
grids by dissolving the Nuclepore filters with chloroform
in a Jaffe wick washer. The grids were then examined under
the transmission electron microscope and the fibers (3:1
aspect ratio) counted and their length (L) and width (W)
measured. Electron diffraction patterns and elemental
analysis by non-dispersive X-rays were used to determine if,
the fibers observed were asbestos. For sample ADS-4-1,
all fibers were checked for their electron diffraction
pattern and elemental analysis, fifteen out of nineteen fibers
were asbestos. For sample ADS-2-4, 18% of the total fibers
116
-------
Paul G. Gorman
Midwest Research Institute
Page 2
observed were checked for their electron diffraction pattern
and elemental analysis. All were determined to be asbestos
and it was, therefore, assumed that all the fibers observed
were asbestos.
The fiber count from the samples was converted to fiber
mass using two formulas:
For magnesium-silicates:
Mf = ir/4 x L x W2 x 2.6 g/c.c. x 10"6 yg (1)
For magnesium-silicates with iron:
Mf = L x W2 x 3.25 g/c.c. x 10~6 yg (2)
The mass of fiber per mass of material was calculated
as follows:
% Fiber Mass = ZM.. x -j- x *=- x r/- x 100 (3)
ZM.c = summation of the mass of individual fibers, yg
-5 2
AG = area of E.M. grid opening, 7.2 x 10 cm
N-, = number of grid openings scanned
(j
2
A., = effective filtration area, 9.6 cm
r
M<, = mass of sample filtered, yg
Using the above formulae, sample ADS -4-1 was found to contain
1.6% asbestos and sample ADS-2-4 contained 0.46% asbestos. _ |
Most of our clients are interested in the distribution
of fiber size by number. It is uncommon to convert to mass
as requested in your letter and this step required considera-
ble time. As you will know, the conversion is influenced
117
-------
Paul G. Gorman
Midwest Research Institute
Page 3
greatly by the presence of a few extremely large fibers,
Very truly yours ,
--rt>*>*-
Therese Philippi
Assistant Chemist
Fine Particles Research
Approved by,
D. Stockham
Science Advisor
Manager
Fine Particles Research
118
-------
TABLE D-l. ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE AIR CIASSIFIER-4-1 FOR ASBESTOS FIBERS
(E.M. magnification 20,000 cimes, Grid A5
Sample weight filtered: 35.6 ng)
Grid Fiber
Opening Number
1 1
2
t
4
5
6
7
2 3
9
10
'11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fiber Din
Ktdth
.38
.06
.06
.06
.06
.44
.06
.31
.50
.19
.06
.06
.06
.25
.19
.06
.12
.06
.31
ansion.um Electron
Diffraction Pattern ^"r
Son Possible Elti
Length Crystalline Crystalline Asbestos Ambiguous Pre
2.
4.
9.
2.
10.
2.
5.
5.
63.
3.
1.
6
3
I
^
50
00
69 /
50
62 /
63 /
50 /
31 /
67.
44 J
25 /
75 /
12 /
,87 /
,62 /
.38 /
,62
.44 /
.31
/ Mg,
Mg.
Si
/
/ Mg.
J Mg,
Mg,
Mg,
/
Mg,
' Mg,
Mg,
Mg,
/ MR.
/
/ Mg,
/ Mg,
/ Mg,
Mg,
ay
lysis, Is Fiber
ments Considered
sent Asbestos
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
,Fe Yes
Yes
Amb
No
Yes
, re Yes
Yes
Yes
Mo
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
So
Yes
Yes
Yes
.Mn.Fe Yes
119
-------
TABLE D-2. ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE AIR CLASSIFIER-2-4 FOR ASBESTOS FIBERS
(E.M. magnification 20,000 times, Grid D3 and D5
Sample weight filtered: D3-100 yg; D-5 400 yg)
Fiber Dimension, Mm Electron Diffraction Pattern X-ray
Grid Fiber
Opening Number
1* 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2" 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
**
1 34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Width
.06
.06
.12
.06
.50
.06
.12
.06
.12
.06
.03
.06
.06
.06
.06
.19
.12
.06
.03
.06
.12
.12
.03
.44
.12
.03
.25
.06
.03
.06
.03
.25
.19
.19
.19
.19
.12
.06
.06
.06
.06
.12
.06
.06
.06
.12
.06
.06
Analysis
Non Possible Elements
Length Crystalline Crystalline Asbestos Ambiguous Present
1.75
2.38
8.44 /
4.06
1.94
1.88
9.06
2.69
3.81 /
1.69 .'
1.25
2.50
2.06
1.12
3.62
17.81
7.50
2.56
4.69
1.75 /
2.56 J
6.56 /
4.69 /
4.38 /
.75
2.50 /
2.50
1.06 /
2.50 /
3.00 /
4.44
1.81
4.38
2.94
3.38
1.69
4 . 38 /
.50
1.94
1.06
14.25 /
1.25
3.38
1.88
.88
3.00 /
1.38
2.12
/ Mg.Si
/ Mg.Si
/ Mg.Sl
Mg.Si
/ Mg.Si
/ Mg.Si
/ Mg.Si
/ Mg.Sl
/
/
/
/ Mg.Si
/ Mg.Sl
J Mg.Si
•/ Mg.Si
/
/ Mg.Si
la Fiber
Considered
Asbestos
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
120
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
Grid Fiber
Opening Number
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
30
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Fiber Dimension, urn
Width Length
.06
.12
.06
.03
.06
.06
.06
.12
.44
.06
.19
.06
.12
.06
.06
.25
.06
.12
.06
.06
.06
.06
.12
.12
.12
.06
.06
.06
.06
.50
.12
.03
.06
.06
.06
.06
.06
.12
.19
.06
.06
.06
.06
.06
.19
.12
.06
.06
5.31
1.75
3.25
2.19
1.62
1.25
8.75
8.00
1.62
2.56
3.25
1.56
2.38
6.56
5.56
10.31
1.88
2.00
7.50
7.81
1.69
1.50
4.69
18.12
1.31
1.69
1.50
1.38
4.06
5.94
3.12
1.56
3.50
1.25
4.00
2.50
2.50
18.75
8.63
.62
3.25
2.19
10.00
.94
1.31
2.88
5.00
5.12
Electron Diffraction Pattern X-ray
Analysis Is Fiber
Non Possible Elements Considered
Crystalline Crystalline Asbestos Ambiguous Present Asbestos
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
/ / Mg,Si,Mn,Fe Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
* Grid D3 ** Grid D5
Mote: Fibers numbered 5, 24, 57 and 78 were calculated using the formula for magnesium - silicates with Iron based
on their width measurements.
121
-------
APPENDIX E
PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS FOR AIR CLASSIFIER DISCHARGE AND EPA MOBILE FILTER
(Mobile filter tests conducted by the Monsanto Company were under
the direction of Mr. John Snyder)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The overall filter bag efficiency was 99.95% by mass which was comparable
and would be expected from fabric filter collection literature. (1) Fractional
efficiency varied from 97.9% (2- to 3.3-um size) to 99.98% (7- to 10-um size)
covering a particle size range from 1.1 to 10 urn.
The outlet size distribution showed that zero penetration was achieved
for particles greater than 13.5 urn (when 80% of the particulate mass was in
the 8.0 um or smaller range).
The collected particulate matter emitted by the air classifier discharge
was difficult to remove from the bags with the pulse bag cleaning mode used.
The long-term effects of the inability to remove the linty, fluffy particulate
collected are unknown at this time.
The assessment of the cleaning mode would be inappropriate with the lim-
ited data available from the 3-day test period.
The 0.019 m/sec (3.8 ft/min) air to cloth ratio was calculated from the
3-day average air flow rate (0.052 nr/sec).
INTRODUCTION
Tests were conducted during the period of November 9 through 11, 1976, by
Monsanto Research Corporation using the EPA Mobile Fabric Filter Unit for EPA's
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory as gas cleaning equipment. Fig-
ure E-l shows the sampling locations and flow diagram for the filter bag. MRI
sampled concurrently in the 1.07 m discharge duct using a Hi-Vol stack sampler
identical to that used in previous tests. (2)
The baghouse, including controls and inlet and outlet sampling locations,
is enclosed in a 2.4 x 12.2 m (8 x 40 ft) trailer. The slipstream probe in
122
-------
Air+RDF
AIR CLAS1FIER
CYCLONE
.07m Dia. Duct
Air Exhaust
to Atmosphere
14.3 Dnm3/s
RDF
Sample
Brink Impactor and
Inlet Mass Sampling
Location
Sample Port
85mm Dia. Duct
FAN
/2.4m x 12 m Trailer
Air Exhaust
to Atmosphere
0.052Dnm3/s
EPA MOBILE
BAG FILTER
Filter Bag
Exhaust Fan
\
Andersen Impactor and
Outlet Mass Sampling
Location
Collected
Particulate
Operation: EPA bag filter draws a portion of the Air Classifier
Cyclone exhaust from the 1 .07m dia. duct.
This air sample is passed continuously through the
fabric filter to determine filter filter efficiency.
Figure E-l. Flow diagram of EPA mobile bag filter.
123
-------
the air classifier cyclone exhaust was located at a point of average velocity
to assure a representative baghouse sample.
The EPA mobile filter bag cleaning system was a pulse jet system using a
552 kPa compressed air pulse at 1/2-min intervals with 0.1 sec pulse durations
Five dacron polyester felt bags were used with the following specifica-
tions :
Manufacturer: Globe Albany Corporation - Style 136 B
Weight: 611 g/m2 (18 oz/yd2)
Diameter: 11.4 cm (4.5 in.)
Length: 122 cm (48 in.)
Permeability: 10.7 m/min at 0.125 kPA (35 cfm/ft2 at 0.5 in. W.C.)
TEST METHODOLOGY
Particulate tests were conducted using Gelman glass filters for inlet
and outlet total mass measurements and a Brink impactor and an Andersen im-
pactor to determine particle size distribution for the inlet and outlet, re-
spectively. Isokinetic sampling was maintained for the particulate mass sam-
ples and both Andersen particle size distribution samples. Glass fiber
substrates were used as the collection medium for the impactor collection
stages.
Due to low particulate concentrations in the baghouse outlet, it was im-
possible to accumulate enough particulate in 1 day for accurate mass determi-
nation. Therefore, an outlet value accumulated over 3 days of sampling was
used.
All bag filter inlet mass samples were considered invalid due to prob-
lems with nozzle plugging. Therefore, the inlet particulate concentration was
derived from the 3-day accumulation of the dust collected in the baghouse hop-
per and the sample accumulated for 3 days at the outlet. Even after 3 days,
weight gains on the Andersen substrates were marginally useable.
TEST RESULTS
Following in Table E-l is the data tabulation from the St. Louis particu-
late tests during November 9 through 11, 1976, for the EPA mobile filter.
DATA COMPARISON
The Monsanto data compares favorably with the data collected by MRI at
St. Louis in November 1974, and July 1975, (2) and the November 1976 samples,
taken at the air classifier discharge. All values calculated for particulate
124
-------
TABLE E-l. EPA MOBILE BAG FILTER
Inlet
Outlet
Particulate matter
concentration (mg/dNm3)
Emission rate (kg/hr)
dNm3
Gas flow rate
300
0.056
0.052
sec
0.154
2.87 x 10"5
0.052
concentrations and particulate emissions in the air classifier discharge (bag-
house inlet for Monsanto tests) were within the range of data collected by MRI.
Table E-2 compares the Monsanto data with all the MRI particulate data. The
average inlet concentration (0.300 g/Nm3) was very close to the MRI value for
the three air classifier discharge tests conducted during the same period as
the Monsanto tests.
BAG FILTER EFFICIENCY
The outlet size distribution, Figure E-2, shows that about 80% of the
mass was less than 8.0 urn. Assuming the air classifier discharge (bag filter
inlet) size distribution had remained the same, the inlet particle distribu-
tion accounted for less than 10% of the mass below 8.0 um. The inlet size
distribution data were taken from previous MRI test results. (2)
Using this inlet distribution a bimodal fractional efficiency curve was
developed as shown in Figure E-3. The fractional efficiency graph covers a
particle size range of 1.1 to 10 um. The efficiencies ranged from 97.9 to
99.98% as shown below:
Particle size
(um)
1.1
1.1-2
2-3.3
3.3-7.0
7-10
Removal efficiency
99.64
98.83
97.90
99.94
99.98
125
-------
TABLE E-2. COMPARISON OF MRI AND MONSANTO PARTICULATE DATA
MRI data air classifier discharge
Date for tests in
Averages for November 1976
previous tests (2) 11/9 11/10 11/11
Particulate cone.
(g/dNm3) 0.57 0.26 0.36 0.27
Particulate emissions
(kg/hr) 22.84 14.2 17.8 14.9
Gas flow rate (air)
(Nm3/sec) 13.34 15.2 13.7 15.3
Monsanto data (November 9-11, 1976)
Baghouse
Particle cone. (g/Nm3)
Baghouse inlet: 0.300 (compares to air classifier discharge above 0.26
to 0.36 g/dNm3)
Baghouse outlet: 0.000154
Overall baghouse
efficiency: 99.9570
126
-------
10.0
N)
Ji 1.0
u
'€
o
0.10
_L
O Andersen 'l
Q Andersen '2
J I 1 I I I I I I I L
J L
J
0.01 0.050.10.2 0.5 I 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.899.9 99.99
OuMet Cumulative Mass %
Figure E-2. Baghouse outlet cumulative size distribution.
-------
0.01
99.99
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
99.8
99.9
99.99
1
456
Particle Diameter (D?)/j.m
99.9
99.8
99
98
95
90
x
30 g
.3!
u
70 £
10
60 '
50 :
40 '
30 :
20 '
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.01
Figure E-3. Fractional efficiency curve.
128
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX E
1. An average overall collection efficiency of 99.7% for a baghouse was taken
from the following reference: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Fac-
tors. Revised. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, February 1972.
2. Fiscus, D. E., P. G. Gorman, M. P. Schrag, and L. J. Shannon. St. Louis
Demonstration Final Report: Refuse Processing Plant Equipment, Facilities
and Environmental Evaluations. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, IERL, OSWMP, SHWRL, EPA Contract Nos. 68-02-1324 and 68-02-1871,
Midwest Research Institute, April 15, 1977.
129
-------
APPENDIX F
TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS PROCEDURES AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
EXPERIMENTAL
Ambient air samples and air classifier discharge samples were collected
on 0.20 x 0.25 m high volume filters. One-fourth of each filter was analyzed
for metals by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. A single digestion method
had to be chosen for the ambient air filter samples because of low particulate
loading. The air classifier discharge samples had sufficient material for
several digestions. A HN03-HC104-H2S04 digestion was chosen to solubilize or-
ganic and inorganic refuse material from the filter without dissolving the
filter. All metals were analyzed from this acid matrix except barium, which
precipitated as BaS04. The pyrolytic carbon rods (or furnace) could not tol-
erate HClO^-t^SO^ mixture; therefore, the HCIO^ was driven off.
A second digest (HN03-HC104) was chosen to obtain barium from the air
classifier inlet samples. This digestion method could not be used on the out-
let samples because they had been consumed by the first digestion.
Instrumentation
A Varian AA6 atomic absorption spectrophotometer with background correc-
tion was used for flame (Ba, Cr, Cu, Ag, and Zn), hydride (As, Se, and Sb)
and cold vapor (Hg) analysis. Pb analyses were performed using the Varian
AA6 equipped with a Model 63 carbon rod atomizer. A Perkin-Elmer 306 atomic
absorption spectrophotometer equipped with background correction was used for
flame analysis of Pb. An HGA 2100 graphite furnace in conjunction with the
Perkin-Elmer Model 306 was used for the analysis of Be and Cd.
Instrumental Parameters
Parameters for the various metal analysis techniques used are listed in
Table F-l.
130
-------
TABLE F-l. SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS FOR METAL ANALYSIS
I. Technique: Flame atomic absorption
A. Instrument: Varian AA6
Element
Instrumental parameters
Flame gases
X (m x lO'7) C2H2 U/min) Air U/min) N20 U/min)
Ba 3. 535^7 4.5 - 8.4
Cr 3.579£/ 4.5 - 8.4
Cu 3.248£/ 1.2 10.0
Ag 3.281 1.2 10.0
Zn 2.138 1.2 10.0
B. Instrument: Perkin-Elmer 306
Element
Pb
Instrumental parameters
Flame gases
\ (m x 10~7) C2H2 U/min) Air U/min)
2.170 2.8 26.6
C. Instrument: Varian AA6 with hydride generator
Instrumental parameters
Flame gases Sweep gas
Element \ (m x 10~7) H2 U/min) N2 U/min) N2
Sb 2.176 2.5 10.0 1.0
As 1.937 2.5 10.0 1.0
Se 1.960 2.5 10.0 1.0
(continued)
131
-------
TABLE F-l (continued)
II, Technique; Flameless atomic absorption
A. Instrument: Varian AA6 with CRA 63 carbon rod atomizer
Instrumental parameters
\ H£ N2 Atomization conditions
Element (m x 10~7) (l/min) (l/min) Dry Ash Atomize
Pb 2.170 0 4.4 4.5 v/25 sec 4 v/20 sec 6 v/3 sec
B. Instrument: Perkin-Elmer 306 with HGA 2100 graphite furnace
Instrumental parameters
Argon
(flow-
X meter Atomization conditions
Element (m x 10"7) setting) Mode Dry Ash Atomize
Be 2.349 30 Normal 125°C/ 1100°C/ ^3000°C/
35 sec 20 sec 15 sec
Cd 2.288 30 Normal 120°C/ 310°C/ 2600°C/
30 sec 10 sec 4 sec
C. Instrument; Varian AA6 with cold vapor mercury absorption cell
Instrumental parameters
Sweep gas
Element X (m x 1Q"7) Air (l/min)
Hg 2.537 2.5
a/ Not background-corrected, but this is not expected to cause any error,
132
-------
Apparatus
Metal hydrides of As, Sb, and Se were generated in a reaction vessel hav-
ing an inlet for the sweep gas C^), a septum for the injection of sodium boro-
hydride solution, and an outlet arm with a balloon for the collection of the
hydride. After a 10-sec reaction time, the gaseous hydride was swept through
an outlet tube into the flame.
The cold vapor apparatus used to generate elemental mercury vapor con-
sisted of a reaction vessel with a fritted glass inlet for the sweep gas (air)
and an outlet leading into a closed cell placed in the optical path.
Reagents
Ultrapure HCl, H2SO^, and HCIO^ were used for all sample digestions.
Metal hydrides were generated using reagent grade HCl, Nal and a reduc-
ing solution of 207= (w/v) NaBIfy (reagent grade, 98%) in 10% (w/v) NaOH (re-
agent grade).
Atomic mercury vapor was generated using a 10% (w/v) SnCl2 in 10% (w/v)
HCl solution prepared from reagent grade materials.
Working standards were prepared from commercial 1,000 ppm stock solu-
tions diluted in a suitable acid matrix of deionized water and H2S04.
Sample Preparation Procedures
Ambient filters, blank filters, and weighed portions of the air classi-
fier discharge sample without the filter were shredded into precleaned (boiled
in HN03 acid) beakers, and 20 ml HN03 and 10 ml H2S04 were added to each sam-
ple. The acidified samples were refluxed in covered beakers on a hot plate
until the HNOo was exhausted. During the reflux period, the samples were oc-
casionally stirred with individual glass rods to ensure adequate contact of
the particulate with the acids. After cooling, 10 ml HN03 and 5 ml HC104 were
added and the samples heated until all HNC"3 had been driven off. At this
point the HC104 had consumed all remaining organic material and was fumed off
leaving < 10 ml H^SOA. The samples were then diluted to 25 ml volume with de-
ionized water.
The digestion of the air classifier discharge samples for barium was sim-
ilar to the above procedure except H^SO^. was omitted. The weighed portions of
the inlet sample were digested with 30 ml HNC>3, evaporated to 10 ml, cooled,
and 20 ml HC1C>4 added. The samples were brought to the fuming stage of HC104,
at which point a white precipitate was formed. The samples were centrifuged,
the supernatant decanted and brought to a 50-ml volume with deionized water.
133
-------
The precipitate was analyzed by X-ray emission and appeared to be a tin com-
pound .
Analysis Procedures
Samples were nebulized directly for flame analyses. Samples and stan-
dards for barium analysis were fortified with 2,000 ppm potassium to suppress
ionization in the flame.
For hydride analysis, an aliquot was added to 20 ml of 50% (v/v) HC1 and
pretreated (for antimony only) with 10 ml of 10% (w/v) Nal. The reaction jar
was sealed, purged, and the system sealed from the flame by a four-way valve.
Two milliliters of the reducing solution was injected with a syringe while the
sample was magnetically stirred with a stirring bar. The hydride was collected
in a balloon reservoir for a reaction time of 10 sec. The trapped hydride was
then swept into the flame using a nitrogen stream.
For mercury analysis, an aliquot was placed in a reaction vessel, then
brought to a 60-ml volume with deionized water. Two milliliters of 10% (w/v)
SnCl in 10% (v/v) HC1 was added and the vessel was sealed. Air was bubbled
into the solution through a fritted glass inlet and the vapor swept into the
closed absorption cell.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The results for the samples are listed in Table F-2. Ambient sample re-
sults have been calculated to obtain the total weight (ug) collected on the
entire filter. Barium was determined for the air classifier discharge samples
only. The sample results have not been corrected for the blank filter values,
but these values are listed in the table. In some cases (Zn and Cd) blank
values showed levels at or above the detection limit (signal equal to twice
the noise level).
Relatively high detection limits for the hydrides and mercury resulted
from low sample volumes available for analysis after digesting the samples for
flame analysis.
The contamination of silver in consecutive bottles of the ultrapure 112804
used in the digest of ambient samples and the standards was found to be over
6,000 times higher than the minimum listed in the certificate of analysis sent
by the manufacturer. The analysis of silver has been deleted because of ex-
tremely high values obtained on the NBS Reference Materials. These high values
were the result of Ag contamination of the 112804. Chromium concentrations in
the ultrapure HN03 and HC104 were at levels five times higher than certified
values. The Cr levels in the acid were not significant compared to Cr levels
134
-------
TAU1.K F-2. ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
Concentration in
Sample Sb
Air Classifier Discharge:
Air classifier 1-3 < 5
Air classifier 2-3 4.2
Air classifier 3-3 7.7
Ambient:
Incinerator
049 Upwind < 8
051 Downwind-primary < 8
053 Downtown < 8
Process Plant
082 Upwind < 8
084 Downwind -primary < 12
089 Downtown < 8
Wastewate.r Treatment Plant
115 Upwind < 8
117 Downwind-primary < 8
Waste Transfer Station
110 Upwind < 8
202 Downwind-primary < 8
Sanitary Landfill
216 Upwind < 8
218 Downwind -primary < 8
As
22
9.1
5.7
< 3
< 3
< 3
< 3
6
< 3
< 3
< 3
< 3
3.6
< 3
< 3
Be
0.22
0.18
0.23
Total
0.15
0.076
< 0.08
0.072
0.23
< 0.04
0.024
0.052
0.056
0.092
< 0.03
0.08
Cd
1.9
7
4.6
micrograms
1.0
1.4
0.6
0.8
3
0.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.6
< 0.2
Cr
83
78
97
(MR)
< 20
< 20
< 20
< 20
68
< 20
< 20
< 20
68
60
< 20
< 20
particulate dig/gram)
Cu
74
60
100
Pb
430
320
400
collected on 8
48
40
20
180
160
40
48
92
52
76
30
20
380
1 ,000
380
280
920
340
240
400
< 200
640
480
240
Hg
0.93
0.35
< 0.4
x 10 hiRh
< 0.8
< 0.8
< 0.4
< 0.8
< 3
< 1
< 2
< 0.8
< 2
< 0.8
a/
< 0.8
Se
< 30
< 28
< 25
volume
< 16
< 16
< 16
< 16
< 80
< 16
< 16
< 16
< 16
< 16
< 16
< 16
Zn
680
520
740
Quantity of
air sampled
through filter
Ba
130
94
130
(H*>
-
-
-
filter
170
130
52
120
800
28
44
52
96
84
24
36
a/
a/
£/
a/
a/
£/
a/
S./
a/
£/
a/
I/
408
408
393
405
408
408
377
409
401
415
408
408
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-2 (continued)
CO
OS
Sb
Blanks
054 Blank (11/03/76) < 8
100 Blank (11/10/76) < 8
204 Blank (11/24/76) < 8
Total micrograms (pg) collected on 8 x 10 high volume filter
As
< 3
< 12
<3
Be
< 0.08
< 0.04
< 0.04
Cd
< 0.2
< 0.2
0.4
Cr
< 20
< 20
< 20
Cu
< 12
< 12
< 12
Pb
< 200
< 200
< 200
< 0.4
< 0.4
< 0.8
Se
< 16
< 16
< 16
Zn
8
< 8
< R
Ba
a/
a/
Quantity of
air sampled
through filter
(M3)
a/ Insufficient sample quantity.
-------
in the air classifier discharge samples, but did restrict detection limits
for ambient samples.
Quality Assurance
The accuracy and precision of the results were determined by analyzing
UBS Reference Materials and an acid blank fortified with As, Sb , Se, and Hg.
Duplicate samples of the NBS Reference Materials were analyzed and the
results are presented in Table F-3 , along with the certified NBS values and
values obtained by J. M. Ondov. (1) Recoveries from the fortified sample were
87% for Sb, ranged from 60 to 160% (four analyses) for As, 55 to 68% for Se,
and 44% for Hg. The loss of mercury was due to the heating of the sample when
was driven off.
Barium results for one of the inlet samples were verified by the standard
addition method.
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F
1. Ondov, J. M. et al. Analytical Chemistry, 47:1107 (1975)
137
-------
TABLE F-3. ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS OF STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS
U>
00
Elemental concentration (|lg/£
Reference material^/
NBS Orchard leaves - 1
2
NBS Values
NBS Coal - 1
2
NBS Values
Reference b values (1)
NBS Fly ash - 1
2
NBS Values
Reference t values (1)
Sb As
1.3 17, 20
1.2 20, 25, 18, 20
14+2
13
10
5.9 + 0.6
3.9 ± 1.3 6.5 + 1.4
1.8 59
1.6 79
61+6
6.9 + 0.6 58+4
Be
< 10
< 10
-
2.2
2.0
(1.5)
-
6.2
5.7
(12)
Cd
< 0.3
< 0.3
0.11 + 0.002
0.25
0.25
0.19 + 0.03
-
1.0
1.3
1.45 + 0.06
Cr
< 6
< 6
(2.3)
25
35
20.2 + 0.5
19.7 + 0.9
100
100
131 + 2
127 + 6
, ppm)
Cu
15
15
12 + 1
20
20
18 + 2
-
75
70
128 + 5
Pb
< 8
< 8
45+3
_
-
30+9
-
< 37
< 37
70+4
75+5
Se
< 0.3
< 0.4
0.08 + 0.01
< 20
<20
2.9 + 0.3
3.4 + 0.2
6.8
4.5
9.4 + 0.5
10.2 + 1.4
Zn
25
25
25+3
30
35
37+4
30 + 10
100
95
210 + 20
216 + 25
£/ ( ) = approximate NBS values.
-------
APPENDIX G
TABULATION OF SAMPLING DATA FOR HI-VOLS AND
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
139
-------
TABLE G-l. WEEK NO. I--INCINERATOR (Hi-Vols)
-t-
O
Average meteorological data
Upwind
Scale rm
Craae
Tip floor
Upw ind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Scale rra
Crane
Tip floor
Downtown
Packer trk -
left
right
Upw ind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-souCh
Scale rm
Crane
Tip floor
Down town
Packer trk
left
right
Upwind
Dw-north
Dw-prim
Dw-south
Scale rm
Crane
Tip floor
Downtown
Packer trk
left
right
Test day
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Date
11/1/76
11/1/76
11/1/76
11/1/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
H/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
Sample
No.
028
025
027
026
039
038
037
036
041
040
042
034
030
031
049
050
051
052
047
048
046
053
032
033
056
057
058
064
063
061
062
065
041
045
Samp 1 e
rate
( I/see)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19 -
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Sample
time
(min)
114
158
162
158
367
362
354
352
373
370
374
347
235
235
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
347
220
220
353
376
369
361
395
386
388
380
255
255
Sample
volume
(m3)
129
179
183
179
415
410
401
398
422
419
423
393
266
266
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
393
249
249
400
426
418
409
447
437
439
430
289
289
Dry bulb
temp .
(°C)
15
15
15
15
19
19
19
19
17
17
17
13
19
19
12
12
12
12
14
15
14
12
11
11
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
2.2
6.0
6.0
3.8
3.3
3.3
Relative
humidity
(%)
38
38
38
38
50
50
50
50
55
55
55
55
50
50
27
27
27
27
18
21
18
27
34
34
59
59
59
59
18
40
38
59
50
50
Wind
direction
S
S
S
S
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
NNW
NNW
NNW
NNW
NNW
NNW
NNW
Wind
velocity
(m/sec)
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.0
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
-------
TABLE G-2. WEEK NO. 2--RDF PLANT (Hi-Vols)
Average meteorological data
Uw-south
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Control rra
Pac k s ta
Tip floor
Downtown
Uw-RR trk (west)
Dw-north
Dw-prim
Dw-south
Control rm
Pack sta
Tip floor
Downtown
Uw-RR trk (west)
Dw-north
Dw-prim
Dw-south
Control nn
Pack sta
Tip floor
Downtown
Uw-north
Dw-north
Dw-prim
Dw-south
Control rm
Pack sta
Tip floor
Downtown
Test day
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Date
11/8/76
11/8/76
11/8/76
11/8/76
11/8/76
U/o/76
11/8/76
11/8/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
Sample
No.
059
060
066
067
076
075
074
068
072
071
070
069
080
079
078
073
082
083
084
085
088
087
086
089
091
094
093
092
097
096
095
099
Samp le
rate
(I/sec)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Samp le
time
(min)
357
366
364
365
382
387
397
286
355
356
355
350
360
360
365
363
358
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
364
363
363
363
360
360
363
360
Sample
volume
(m3)
404
414
412
413
432
438
449
324
402
403
402
396
408
408
413
411
405
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
412
411
411
411
408
408
411
408
Dry bulb
temp.
(°C)
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
15
15
15
15
22
16
14
15
9.4
9.4
9.4
9,4
18
6.6
9.4
9.4
2.2
2,2
2.2
2.2
3.3
2.2
Re la tive
humidity
(%)
55
55
55
55
55
43
43
43
43
27
32
37
43
37
37
37
37
23
42
37
37
59
59
59
59
53
59
Wind
direction
SSW
SSW
SSW
SSW
SSW
W
W
W
W
W
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
N
N
N
N
N
Wind
ve loc i ty
(m/sec)
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
-------
TABLE G-3. WEEK NO. 3— WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Hi-Vols)
Average meteorological data
Upwind
Dw -north
Dw-prim
Dw-south
Prim set
Aeration
Pressrm
Pressrm bsmt
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Prim set
Aeration
Pressrm
Pressrm bsmt
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Prim set
Aeration
Pressrm
Pressrm bsmt
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Prim set
Aeration
Pressrm
Pressrm bsmt
Test day
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Date
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/18/76
11/18/76
11/18/76
11/18/76
11/18/76
11/18/76
11/18/76
11/18/76
Sample
No.
100
101
102
103
106
107
104
105
115
118
117
116
113
114
111
112
125
126
127
128
119
120
121
122
144
143
142
145
138
139
140
141
Sample
rate
U/sec)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Sample
time
(min)
254
216
260
222
207
192
224
231
333
360
361
362
360
361
360
364
361
361
361
360
360
360
361
360
350
360
350
360
360
360
360
360
Sample
volume
(m3)
288
245
294
251
234
217
254
261
377
408
409
410
408
409
408
412
409
409
409
408
408
408
409
408
396
408
396
408
408
408
408
408
Dry bulb
temp.
(°C)
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
15
15
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
15
18
11
11
11
11
18
15
18
18
18
18
Relative
humidity
m
33
33
33
33
29
29
58
58
58
58
48
40
46
46
46
46
35
47
36
36
36
36
Wind
direction
SE
SE
SE
SE
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SSW
ssw
SSW
ssw
Wind
velocity
(m/sec)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
-------
TABLE G-4. WEEK NO. 4--WASTE TRANSFER STATION (llt-Vols)
Average meteorological data
Upwind
I)w- north
Dw-prim
Dw- south
Trk ramp
Tip floor
east
north
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw- prim
Dw-uast
Trk rump
Tip floor
east
north
Upwind
Dw -we s t
Dw-prim
Dw-easU
Trk ramp
Tip floor
east
north
Test day
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Date
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/23/76
11/23/76
11/23/76
11/23/76
11/23/76
11/23/76
11/23/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
Sample
No.
131
130
129
123
146
135
136
010
009
001
149
133
134
132
110
203
202
201
150
014
015
Sample
rate
(i/ sec)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Sample
time
(min)
361
367
360
360
361
360
360
351
360
360
361
360
367
368
354
362
367
241
217
360
240
Samp 1 e
volume
(lu^)
409
415
408
408
409
408
408
397
408
408
409
408
415
417
401
410
415
273
246
408
272
Dry bulb
temp .
("C
3
3
3
3
5
3
4
2
2
2
2
5
5
I
13
13
13
13
12
10
16
)
.3
.3
.3
.3
.0
.8
.4
.2
.2
.2
.2
.0
.5
.6
Relative
humidity
a)
42
42
42
42
47
34
46
72
72
72
72
54
70
82
40
40
40
40
42
43
35
Wind
direction
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
Wind
velocity
(m/soc)
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2,2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
-------
TABLE G-5. WEEK NO. 5--SANITARY LANDFILL (Hi-Vols)
Average meteorological data
Upwind
Dw-east
Dw-prim
Dw-west
Working face
east
west
Scale-off
Upwind
Dw-east
Dw-prim
Dw-west
Working face
east
west
Scale-off
Upwind
Dw-east
Dw-prim
l)w-west
Working face
east
west
Scale-off
Test day
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Date
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
12/1/76
12/1/76
12/1/76
12/1/76
12/1/76
12/1/76
12/1/76
Samp 1 e
No.
209
208
207
206
205
214
215
216
219
218
217
213
212
211
225
224
223
226
222
221
220
Sample
rate
(I/ sec)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Sample
time
(min)
360
360
360
360
315
321
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
365
340
345
362
360
360
360
Sample
volume
(m3 )
408
408
408
408
357
364
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
408
413
385
391
410
408
408
408
Dry bulb
temp .
(°C)
-4.4
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-4.4
-3.8
-4.4
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-1.6
-2.7
-2.7
-2.7
-2.7
-2.7
-2.7
-2.7
Relative
humidity
a)
72
66
66
66
72
61
72
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
Wind
direction
Data
not
recorded
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
Wind
velocity
(m/sec)
Data
not
recorded
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
-------
APPENDIX H
TABULATION OF HI-VOL BACTERIA RESULTS AND
MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ISOLATES
FROM HI-VOL AND ANDERSEN SAMPLES
145
-------
TABLE H-l. INCINERATOR (Hi-Vol)
Bacteria count/m3 (MPN)
Upwind
Scale rra
Crane
Tip floor
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Sea le rm
Crane
Test
day
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
DaLe
11/1/76
U/l/76
11/1/76
11/1/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
U/2/76
Sample
No.
028
025
027
026
039
038
037
036
041
040
To t a 1
plate
count
< 1,510
34,800
59,700
59,900
470
1 , 900
2,910
1,960
47,700
109,000
Total
col iform
< 0
1
4
18
0
L
0
0
0
3
.061
.64
.88
.6
.019
.18
.768
.225
.416
.30
Fecal
collform
< 0.061
0.676
1.60
4.86
0.019
* 0.020
0.224
0.049
0.416
3.30
Fecal
streptococci
5.75
261
< 2.13
261
0.940
< 0.952
1.95
1.96
166
363
Filter
s lurry
pH
0
0
0
0
7.4
7.9
7.2
7.6
9.9
9.2
Morphological characteristics of isolates
High-volume Andersen impactor
sampler
G+rods, G-rods
G+rods, G-rods
G+rods, G-rods,
G+rods, C-rods
G+rods, G-rods
G+rods, G-rods,
sampler-'
G-cocc I
§ G+rods , G-rods, C-cocci
G-cocc I, Heavy mold count
high mold count
Tip floor
Downtown
Packer trk-left
Packer trk-right
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-south
Scale rm
Crane
Tip floor
Downtown
Packer trk-left
Packer trk-right
Upwind
Dw-north
Dw-prim
Dw-south
Scale nn
Crane
Tip floor
Downtown
Packer trk-left
Pjcker trk-right
iil.mk
Blank
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/2/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
11/4/76
U/4/76
U/2/76
U/4/76
042
034
030
031
049
050
051
052
047
048
046
053
032
033
056
057
058
064
063
061
062
065
041
045
043
077
239,000
< 497
106,000
109,000
6,045
5,420
3,820
8,610
47,800
66,950
41,100
< 497
114,000
Spreaders
1,950
2 , 740
2,li8
12,400
Mold
111,500
15,300
1,820
81,000
13,500
-
,
0
> 352
> 352
0
5
I
4
0
2
0
0
251
3
0
,
i
il.
< 0
0.
J
0
-• 324
. 324
-
.18
.486
.191
.16
.51
.68
.163
.11
.468
.655
.76
.225
.19
.62
.018
.017
.295
.204
.199
1.18
0.328
> 352
> 352
0.020
0.316
< 0.020
0.134
0.020
0.316
0.468
< 0.020
14.7
1.24
< 0.020
0.120
0.091
< 0.020
< 0.017
< 0.018
< 0.018
0.039
4.72
3.24
-
230
1.99
420
792
7.64
5.73
2.87
1 .91
3.82
100
411
< 0.992
470
235
< 0.975
3.67
1.87
1.91
1.48
72.3
66.7
0.907
486
446
-
11.0
8.5
8.3
8.4
7.8
8.2
8.1
8.5
8.0
8.9
10.0
7.5
9.3
9.3
8.0
8.4
8.4
10.2
10.9
11.0
9.3
9.1
7.1
0.8
G+rods, C-rods
G+rods, G-rods
G+rods, G-rods
G+rods , G-rods
G+rods, G-rods
G+rods (S)
G+rods, G-rods
Very high mold
Very high mold
Very high mold
Very high mold
Very high mold
Very high mold
G+rods, G-rods
mold count
©
(s) Heavy mold count
Heavy mold count
©
©
count
count
count
count Heavy mold count
count
count Heavy mold count
, high Heavy mold count
a_/ Andersen samples correspond to Che same location and date a a Hi-Vol samples.
b_/ (S) ind icates predominance of spore formers (soi1 Lypo >.
-------
TABLE 11-2. PROCESSING PLANT (Hi-Vol)
-1^
Bacteria count/m3 (MPN)
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-o-ast
Control rm
Packer SLJ
Ti f 1
P
Downtown
Upwind
Dw-north
Dw-prim
Dw- south
Control nn
Packer sta
Tip floor
Downtown
Upwind
Dw-north
Dw-prim
Dw-aouth
Control rm
Packer sta
Tip tloor
Downtown
Upwind
Ow-noi th
Dw-pr im
Dw-south
Control rin
P.ictu-r sta
Tip floor
n own town
Blunk
Blank
III. ink
Test-
day
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Date
11/8/76
11/8/76
11/8/76
11/8/76
1 1/8/76
11/8/76
1 1 /g / Tt
11/8/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
1 1/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/9/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
H/10/76
1 1/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
1 1/1 1/76
1 1/11/76
11/1 1/76
11/11/76
1 l/l 1/76
11/11 /76
ll/l 1/76
11/1 1/76
11/9/76
1 1/10/76
1 1/11/76
Sample
Nn.
059
060
066
067
076
075
07 'i
068
072
071
070
069
080
079
078
073
082
083
084
085
088
087
086
089
091
094
093
092
097
096
095
099
081
100A
098
Total
pi ate
count
2,900
8 , 480
3,790
3,780
1.61 x 106
2.67 x I05
3
1,200
1 1 , 900
9,040
40,700
78,800
29, 100
24,800
90,600
71 J
14,400
8, 130
30,600
28,700
28,000
3,820
93,000
9'n,
2 ,830
l-i,700
7,600
949
20,500
10,800
50,300
4.7HO
-
-
'
Total
Co 1 if orm
1.06
6.59
3.32
0.463
48.8
213
2 no
0.590
2.33
33.9
.. 233
3.45
5.16
12.4
86.8
0. 180
0.761
17.2
334
15.3
3.34
0.755
88.0
0 . 02 9
0.312
51.2
2.28
0.104
10.5
3.34
15.2
0.48
-
-
~
Fecal
col iform
<• 0.020
0.462
0.066
•l 0.020
3.16
21.3
30 4
^ 0.025
0.767
4.45
33.9
0.079
3.34
1.63
10.4
. 0.019
0.068
8.98
153
3.34
2.30
0.755
5. 16
, 0.029
„ U.O.'II
12.3
0.209
c- 0.020
4.39
2.30
1 .52
._ u.020
-
-
"
Kecal
Streptococci
2.90
24.5
22.8
7.55
135
478
417
1.20
38.9
57.1
378
31.5
40.2
31 .6
270
0.095
12.5
20.0
590
19.1
18.2
10.5
229
0.956
5.68
44.6
32.2
0.949
43.9
39.1
287
< 0.956
-
-
"
Filter
s lul ry
pH
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.8
8 8
8.5
8.7
8.7
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.9
8.3
8.8
8.1
8.8
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.3
9.0
8.8
9.1
8.4
8.5
8.2
8.2
Morphological chara
Hi gh-volume
G+rods ,
G+rods,
high
G+rods,
count
eavy n
G+rods ,
G+rods ,
actin
G+rods,
G+rods,
G+rods,
G+rods,
G+rods ,
G+rods,
G+rods ,
C+rods ,
G+rods ,
G+rods,
sampler
G-rods (s)~
G-rods (s)
mold count
G-rods, high mold
1 H
G-rods (Sj
G-rods ,
omyceces ^^^
G-rods (s)
G-rods (jT)
G-rods n*\
^^
G-rods (T)
G-rods (s)
G-rods, C-cocci
G-rods fs)
G-rods (?)
^^^
G-rods CsJ mold
G-rods ( Sj mold
cteristics of isolates
Andersen impact or
sampler^
! G+rods, G-rods,
act inoraycetes,
231?. pigraented , h igh mold
actinomycet es, high mold
! G+rods, G-roils ,
167, pigmented
G+rods, C-ruds, 307, pigmented
C+rods , G-rods , actinomycetes
14% pigmenLed
G+rods, C-rods, act Innmyceles
577. pJBinenL.-d
i G+rods, G-rods, C-coccI
t Heavy mold count
i G+rods, G-rods, [07., pigmented
\ Heavy mold count
a / AruU'rson s.imp It- s correspond to tliii same location and da Ci: as Hi-Vol samples,
t>/ I S 1 i ml ic.i tc- s jiredoinln.jnct' of spore formers ( tfoi I type) .
-------
TABLE 11-3. WASTE TRANSFEK STATION (Ill-Vol)
00
Bacteria count/or* (MPH)
Upwind
Dw-nortli
Dw-prim
Dw- south
Trk ramp
Tip floor-east
Tip floor-north
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Trk ramp
Tip floor-east
Tip floor-north
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Trk ramp
Tip floor-east
Tip floor-north
Illfink
Bl.mk
Blank
Test
day
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
Date
1 1/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/22/76
11/21/76
11/23/76
1 I/23//6
11/21/76
1 1/23/76
U/23/76
11/23/76
11/24/76
1 1/24/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
1 1/24/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
11/22/76
11/23/76
11/24/76
Sample
No.
131
130
129
123
146
135
136
010
009
001
149
133
134
132
110
201
202
201
150
014
015
109
147
2 04A
TuLal
plate
count-
< 477
< 469
1 ,430
478
22,900
30,550
26,800
< 491
3,820
478
< 477
30,550
!,»'»>
14,040
2,910
.- 952
< 469
714
6,140
2,870
20,000
-
-
Total
col i form
0.020
0.131
0.220
1 .61
2.29
151
3.14
-' 0.020
22. •>
0.125
0.161
3.34
2.26
15.9
0.224
< 0.020
2.26
0.315
2.07
3.14
22.9
-
-
Focal
coll form
< 0.020
< 0.018
.- 0.020
0.020
0.458
0.98
2.30
< 0.020
3.34
< 0.020
•: 0.163
2.30
i.22
10.3
0.048
f 0.020
0.111
< 0.029
0.141
0.419
0.702
-
-
Fecal
streptococci
< 0.953
< 0.953
< 0.956
0.956
107
203
126
< 0.983
3.82
< 0.956
< 0.953
59.8
26.3
31 .9
4.86
< 0.952
5.64
1.43
6,340
14.3
44.5
-
-
Mite.
slurry
8.2
8.2
8.4
8.5
9.8
9.3
9.3
8.5
8.1
8.6
8.0
9.9
9.2
9.4
8.1
8.7
8.1
8.3
9.1
8.8
9.0
9.0
8.3
8.4
Morphological characteristics of isolates
High-volume
sampler
/7\W
G+rods, C-rods V J
G+rods, G-rods ^J
G+rods, G-rods (s)
I G+rods, G-rods (757.)
! G-cocci (127D), actinomy-
( cetes (137.)
G+rods, G-rods
( G+rods, C-rods (447.)
G+t:occi, G-cocci (347.)
( act inomycet.es (227.)
G+rods, G-rods fs)
G+rods, G-rods (¥)
G+rods, G-rods, G-cocci,
act inomyceLes (517.)
Andersen itnpactor
sampler?7
C+rods, G-rods ,
actinomycetes
(1570 ptgraented )
G+rods , G-rods ,
mycetes (20%
G+rods , G-rods ,
actinomycetes
mented)
C+rods, G-rods,
actinomycetoi
Excessive mold
G-cocci actino-
ptgmented )
(J-cocc i ,
(20% pig-
G-cocci,
growth
d/ Andersen samples correspond to the same lor.it ion and data .is Ili-Vol samples.
b/ (V) indicates predominance of spotL- formers (sail type).
-------
TABLE 11-4. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PIANT (Hi-Vol)
Upwind
Dw-nor th
Dw-prim
Dw-souch
Prim set
Aerat [on
Prc-ssrm
Pressrm bsmt
Upwind
Ow-west
Dw-prim
Dw-east
Prim SL-C
Aera t ion
I'rcssrm
Prussnn bsuit
Upwind
Dw-west
Dw-pr im
l)W-UdSt
I'rim set
Ac-ration
Prcssmi
I'rcssrm bsuit
Ll pw i nd
IV-wust
Dw-prim
Dw-east
IT illl Sl-t
Ac ra t i on
I'rcssrm
Prussnn bsint
11 L.I nk
111. ml.
11 l.i nk
Test
day Date
1 11/15/76
1 11/15/76
1 11/15/76
1 11/15/76
1 11/L5//6
i 11/15/76
1 11/15/76
1 11/15/76
2 11/16/76
2 11/16/76
2 11/16/76
2 11/16/76
2 11/16/76
2 11/16/76
2 11/16/76
2 11/16/76
3 11/17/76
3 11/17/76
3 11/17/76
3 11/17/76
3 11/17/76
3 11/17/76
3 11/17/76
3 11/17/76
4 1 1 ' 1 H 1 7l>
4 1 1 ' IB/A.
i 11/18/76
4 ll/IH/76
4 11/18/76
4 11/18/76
.'i 1 I/ 18/76
4 II/1B/7H
2 11/16/76
3 11/17/76
4 11/18/76
Samp I t;
No.
100
101
102
103
106
107
104
105
115
118
117
116
113
114
1 1 1
112
125
126
127
128
119
120
12 1
122
144
141
142
145
138
119
140
141
108
117
148
Total
pi arc
count
2,700
< 1,590
3,980
1,560
< 833
-" 1 ,790
'" 1,5 JO
< 1 , 500
517
478
„- 477
•' 952
' 477
< 477
•- 4;s
- 471
< 477
5,720
477
478
< 478
*• 478
2,380
-', IK
^ .1 9 :•
•- 478
492
478
1 . 74 i llj'1
11,750
3,820
< 956
-
-
Bacteria
count/m3 (MPN)
Filter Morphological characteristics of isolates
Total
col i form
0.447
0.350
1.05
0.170
0 . 1 34
0.036
0.061
0.120
0.021
0.048
-- 0.020
< 0.020
- 0.020
< 0.020
< 0.020
- 0.020
•- u.020
0.048
< 0.020
• 0.020
0.029
0.018
0.077
0.077
- 0.020
,) . 02 0
0.039
U.020
0.020
. 0.020
,,.755
0.020
-
-
Fecal
conform
0.027
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
-
<
<
<
<
<
<
•f
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
031
026
031
034
036
061
030
021
020
020
020
Fecal
streptococci
c.
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
0.020 <
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
.020
.020
020
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
•^
<
f
<
<
*
<
<
<
1.35
.59
.33
.56
.66
.79
.53
1.50
1.04
0.956
0.953
0.952
0.956
0.953
0.956
0.946
0.953
0.953
0.953
0.956
0.956
0.956
0.953
0.956
0.985
0.956
0.985
0.956
0.956
0.956
0.956
0.956
-
-
slurry High-volume Andersen Impactor
pH sampler sampler—
8
8
8
8
a
8
U
5 /^-Nb/
5 G+rods, G-rods (SJr C-cocci
6
5
7
9.0
8
7
8
3
9
0
8.2
8
8
a
9
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
a
0
2
0
2
9 G+rods, G-rods (s) G+rods, C-rods, C-cocc 1 ,
act Inomycetes (40Z pig-
mented)
6
5
4
5
5 Moderate mold growth
6 0+rods, C-rods
3 G+rods, G-rods
2 CfruJs, G-rods C+rods , G-rods (261), G-rocc 1
(4%), act inomycetes
(507., pigmenced)
6
7
8.2 G+rods, G-rods G+rods, C-rods, act- Inomyce tes,
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
(40°jf, pjgmentod)
1
5 Ghrods, 0-rods
5
5 G+rods, G-rods
3 (Hrods, C-rods, actlno- C-H'ods, G-rods, C-cocci,
mycetes actinoinycci es (50Z pigme'iied
3
0
0
_i ' Ainli rsi'n s.impK'.s correspond to thu s.niH1 lucntion an.] d.ilv
h_/ ( S ) \ rid Lc.i LOS prt-ilimi i n.uu,c of spor^fonntTS ( soi 1 tvpi- >.
-------
TABLE H-5. SANITARY I.ANDFILL (Hl-Vol)
Ul
o
Bac teria
Test
day
Upwind L
Dw-east 1
Dw-prim 1
Dw-west 1
Work face-east ^
Work lace-west 1
Scjle-off 1
Upwind 2
Dw-e.-lst 2
Dw-prim 2
Dw-west 2
Work face-fast 2
Work face-west 2
Scale-off 2
Upw i nd 3
Dw-east 3
Dw-prim 3
Dw-west 3
Work face-east 3
Work face-west 3
Scale-off 3
Blank 1
Blank 2
B lank 3
Date
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
1 1/29/76
11/29/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
1 1/30/76
11/30/76
12/01/76
12/01/76
12/01/76
12/01/76
12/01/76
12/01/76
12/01/76
11/29/76
1 1/30/76
12/01/76
Sample
No .
209
208
207
206
205
214
215
216
219
218
217
213
212
211
225
224
223
226
222
221
220
210
220C
227
Total
pl
-------
APPENDIX I
A LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE HEALTH ASPECTS OF AIRBORNE MICROORGANISMS
IN WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRIES
OBJECTIVES OF LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review had a fourfold objective:
1. To survey various waste treatment industries in order to place health
problems from bacterial and viral emissions from MSW processing plants in
proper perspective.
2. To identify any deficiencies in the current state of knowledge con-
cerning bacterial and viral dose/response relationships.
3. To evaluate airborne microorganism sampling and analysis procedures.
4. To evaluate possible control techniques for microorganisms in MSW
processing plants.
INDUSTRIES SURVEYED
The specific industries considered in this literature review were:
1. Refuse collection and handling;
2. Sewage treatment; and
3. Wastewater treatment.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Characteristics of Microorganisms of Interest
Bacteria--
Bacteria are among the smallest microorganisms. In unstained prepara-
tions, bacteria can be seen only with difficulty in the conventional light
151
-------
microscopes (17) (see Table 1-1). The diameter of the cell may vary from 0.5
to 1.0 urn, and only a few genera have cell diameters larger than 1.0 urn. The
lengths of bacterial cells vary greatly. Spherical-shaped cells, called
cocci, are about the same length as width. Rod-shaped bacteria can vary from
lengths of 1 to 2 urn to as much as 10 urn. Cells many times longer than wide
are not called rods, but filaments. Certain groups of bacteria are charac-
teristically filamentous, but in other groups in which the organisms are nor-
mally rod-shaped, filaments are formed under abnormal conditions.
TABLE 1-1. COMPARATIVE SIZE OF MICROORGANISMS AND CELLS (17)
Microorganism Size (nm)§/
Animal cell 10,000
Animal cell nucleus 2,800
Bacterial cell 1,000 by 2,000-3,000
Smallpox virus 200
Influenza virus 100
Adenovirus 70
Polio virus 28
a/ nm = nanometer = 10"°
m.
Primarily because of the rather limited range of morphological forms pos-
sible and also because of the small size and the difficulty of observing de-
tails of structure under the microscope, bacteria can rarely be identified as
to their species or even genus on the basis of microscopic observation alone.
The usual procedure is to make observations of size, shape, and cell arrange-
ment, look for motility and spores, and perform a Gram stain. From these
characteristics a preliminary idea of the kind of organism being dealt with
can be determined, but further work on the nutrition, metabolic products, and
environmental requirements and tolerances of the organism must be carried out
(described below) to permit positive identification. (17)
Fungi--
Although the fungi are a large and rather diverse group, only two kinds
of fungi are of importance here. These are the molds and yeasts. Fungi can
be distinguished from algae because the fungi do not have chlorophyll and
thus are not green. Fungi can be differentiated from bacteria by the *fact
that fungal cells are much larger, and vacuoles, nuclei, and other intracel-
lular organelles can usually be observed. (17)
152
-------
The molds are filamentous fungi. An individual mold filament may have
crosswalls or they may be absent. The filament grows mainly at the tip, by
extension of the existing cell. The hyphae usually grow together across a
surface to form rather compact tufts, collectively called a mycelium. (17)
The yeasts are unicellular fungi. The cells are usually spherical, oval,
or cylindrical. Neither filaments nor a mycelium results, and the population
of yeast cells remains a loose amorphous mass. Yeast cells are considerably
larger than bacterial cells and can be distinguished from bacteria by their
size and by the obvious presence of internal cell structures. For the most
part, yeasts spread from place to place as ordinary vegetative cells rather
than as spores. (17)
Classification of yeasts is based partly on the kinds of sexual spores
formed and partly on the basis of nutrition and biochemistry. The classifica-
tion of yeasts is even more specialized than the classification of molds. (17)
Protozoa—
Protozoa are unicellular, colorless, generally motile organisms that lack
a cell wall. They are distinguished from bacteria by their size, from algae
by their lack of chlorophyll, and from yeasts and other fungi by their motil-
ity and absence of cell wall. Protozoa usually obtain food by eating other
organisms or organic particles. They eat by surrounding the food particle
with a portion of their flexible membrane and engulfing the particle or by
swallowing the particle through a special structure called the gullet. An
organism that destroys bacteria is termed a bacteriophage and was potentially
important in this study. (17)
Viruses--
Viruses are not cells. They are particles that are inert by themselves,
and they do not carry out any of the functions of cells. Only when a virus
particle becomes associated with a host cell does it begin to function. Within
the host, a virus is able to reproduce itself, using the machinery of the host
for most essential functions. The virus thus alternates between two states,
the extracellular and the intracellular. (17)
In the extracellular state, the virus particle, also called the virion,
is composed of a molecule of nucleic acid, either ribonucleic acid (UNA) or
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), surrounded by a coat composed of protein. When
the virus particle infects a host cell, the nucleic acid separates from the
protein coat and the reproduction process within the cell begins. At the
end of the reproduction cycle, molecules of nucleic acid and protein mole-
cules join and reform new virus particles that become liberated from the dy-
ing cell. These virus particles can then infect other cells, and the process
153
-------
continues. When viruses do reproduce in cells, they usually damage or kill
the cells, and in this way viruses are agents of disease. However, viruses
do not always reproduce when they infect cells. Sometimes the virus nucleic
acid becomes associated with the host nucleic acid and a stable relationship
occurs. Such viruses are called latent. (17)
Qualitative and Quantitative Procedures for Aerosolized Microorganisms
Microorganism Identification--
The easiest and most commonly used procedure for isolating pure cultures
is agar streaking. This procedure involves preparation of petri plates con-
taining a suitable culture medium solidified with agar. A sterile inoculat-
ing loop is placed in a mixed culture containing the organism of interest and
then lightly streaked across the surface of the agar plate. As the plate is
streaked, organisms are gradually dislodged from the loop, and in the final
parts of the streak single organisms which are well separated from each other
will be deposited. The streaked plate is then incubated so that the organisms
will multiply and produce colonies. In the initial parts of the streak these
colonies will be very close together, but in the final part well-isolated col-
onies should be obtained. It is assumed that a colony well isolated from all
other colonies will have arisen from a single cell. One of the well-isolated
colonies is then streaked on a fresh agar plate, which is incubated. If all
of the colonies obtained are of similar size, shape, color, and texture, it is
presumed that they are all alike and that a pure culture has been obtained. (17)
A variant of the above procedure is to prepare pour plates, in which a
diluted inoculum is mixed with the melted agar before pouring into plates.
When the inoculated poured plates are incubated, isolated colonies should be
obtained from which pure cultures can be prepared. (17)
Another variation is the use of membrane filters as the solid support in-
stead of agar. A dilution of the inoculum can be passed through the filter,
and the filter is then placed on an appropriate culture medium for incubation.
Isolated colonies developing on the filter can then be picked to prepare pure
cultures. (17)
It is important to verify that cultures isolated as pure are indeed so.
A check of purity begins with careful microscopic examination to ensure that
only one cell type is present. A second check is to be sure that all colo-
nies obtained upon agar streaking are alike. As a final check, one can select
several colonies from an agar streak and determine their nutritional and en-
vironmental requirements, which should be identical in pure cultures. (17)
154
-------
Microorganism Population Measurements--
The number of cells in a population can be measured by direct microscopic
count. Two kinds of direct microscopic counts are done, either on samples
dried on slides or on samples in liquid. With liquid samples, special count-
ing chambers are used. (17)
There are two types of chambers for counting cell number in liquid sam-
ples: the hemocytometer, or blood cell-counting chamber, for use with orga-
nisms 3 to 4 urn in diameter or larger; and the Petroff-Hausser counting
chamber, for use primarily with bacteria. In both of these chambers, a cali-
brated grid is marked on the surface of the glass slide. A flat cover slip
is placed on top of the grid, and a ridge on each side of the grid holds the
cover slip off the grid by a defined distance. Thus over each square on the
grid is a volume of known size. A sample of the suspension to be counted is
allowed to fill the counting chamber. After the cells have settled in the
chamber, the number per unit area of grid is counted giving a measure of the
number of cells per chamber volume. Converting this value to number of cells
per milliliter of suspension is done by multiplying by a conversion factor
based on the volume of the chamber sample. (17)
Direct microscopic counting is tedious but is a good way of estimating
microbial cell number. However, it has certain limitations: (a) dead cells
cannot usually be distinguished from living cells; (b) small cells are diffi-
cult to see under the microscope and some cells may be missed; (c) precision
is difficult to achieve; and (d) the method is not suitable for cell suspen-
sions of low density. With bacteria, if a cell suspension has less than 10"
cells/ml, no bacteria will be seen. (17)
In the methods just described both living and dead cells are counted. In
many cases one is interested in counting only live cells since these affect
us most, and for this purpose viable cell counting methods have been developed
The usual way to perform a viable count is to determine the number of cells in
the sample capable of forming colonies on a suitable agar medium. For this
reason, the viable count is often called the plate count or colony count. (17)
There are two ways of performing a plate count—the spread plate method
and the pour plate method. With the spread plate method, a volume no larger
than 0.1 ml is spread over the agar surface. The plate is then incubated un-
til the colonies appear, and the number of colonies is counted.
In the pour plate method, a known volume of 0.1 to 1.0 ml is mixed with
a melted agar medium and poured into a sterile petri plate. Because the sam-
ple is added to the liquid agar medium, a larger volume can be used than with
the spread plate; however, with the pour plate the organism must be able to
withstand the temperature of melted agar, 45°C.
155
-------
With both the spread plate and pour plate methods, it is important that
the number of colonies developing on the plates not be too large, since on
crowded plates some cells may not form colonies and the count will be errone-
ous. It is also essential that the number of colonies not be too small, for
then the accuracy of counting will be low. The usual practice, which is most
valid statistically, is to count only those plates that have between 30 and
300 colonies. To obtain the appropriate colony number, the sample to be
counted must usually be diluted.
A similar technique is used for quantifying viruses; however, since vi-
ruses require a viable host cell to replicate, the culture medium is usually
a cell monolayer- Results are reported as plaque forming units (pfu).
Some organisms do not readily form colonies on agar plates or membrane
filters but will initiate growth in liquid medium. To count such organisms,
the most probable number (MPN) method has been developed, which permits an
estimate of viable numbers after incubation in liquid medium. With this
method, the sample is diluted to the point where some but not all aliquots
contain a cell. If a series of tubes is inoculated with identical aliquots
taken at this dilution, after incubation some will show growth whereas others
will not. 'By counting the fraction of tubes showing growth, one can estimate
the viable count, using statistical tables.
Aerosolized Microorganism Sampling--
A primary obstacle to accurately quantifying the bacterial and viral pop-
ulation at an MSW processing plant is obtaining a representative sample.
Table 1-2 shows several different types of samplers widely used to col-
lect microorganisms. A review of field research work indicates that the
Andersen sampler is generally preferred but the all glass impinger (AGI) is
also frequently used. According to Rickey and Reist (66) the Andersen sampler
possesses the following features that are required to adequately evaluate the
health implications of viable microbial aerosols:
1. High collection efficiency in the 1 to 10 ym particle size range;
2. Ability to quantify viable particles per unit volume of air; and
3. Minimize the logistic problems of sampling.
Even though the Andersen sampler has the capability of classifying par-
ticles according to size, none of the researchers used this capability to ob-
tain particle size spectra of sampled aerosols. This is rather surprising in
light of the well-established fact that particle size has an influence on the
degree of retention and on the site of deposition of inhaled particles.
156
-------
TABLE 1-2. SOME WIDELY USED SAMPLERS FOR AIRBORNE MICROORGANISMS!'' (44)
Tvpe of sampler
Sedimentation
Open petri dish
Filtration
Membrane filter-'
Collection
medium
Agar surface
Membrane
Impingement
All glass iaipingerSy Liquid
(12)
Irnpac tion
TDli/ (slit type)
SeyniersS/
Andersen^'
(sieve type)
Agar surface
Agar surface
Agar surface
Remarks
Collects viable particles for direct microscopic observation or colony
growth. Generally limited value for quantitative measurement of
airborne particles.
Usefulness depends upon bacterial resistance to desiccation during col-
lection. Quantitation good for spores and resistance microbial forms.
Sigh collection efficiency.
Low sampling rate (6 or 12.5 liters/min). Not well adapted to low con-
centrations of microbial particles. Disruption of bacterial parti-
cles. High efficiency of collection. Some viability loss with high
velocities of impingement and extended continuous sampling. High-
vacuum source required.
Sampling rate of 28.3 liters/min. Renders time-concentration relation-
ship. Collects unmodified particles. Xo dilution or plating pro-
cedures required. Not well adapted to high concentrations. Results
expressed as particles per unit volume of air.
Sampling rate of 23.3 liters/ain. Renders time-concentration relation-
ship. Collects unmodified particles. No dilution or plating pro-
cedures required. Not well adapted to high concentrations. Results
expressed as particles per unit volume of air.
Collects and separates unmodified particles inco six size ranges. Size
distribution of particles can be determined. No plating procedures
required. Only fairly well adapted to high concentrations. Large
numbers of plates required. Sampling rate 28.3 liters/min. Results
expressed as particles per iinic volume of air.
a/ Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement.
b/ Geiman Instrument Company, 600 South Wagner Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106; Millipore Filter Corporation,
Bedford, Massachusetts C1730.
£/ Ace Glass, Inc., "ineland, Sew Jersey 08360.
4/ Engineering Development and Products, Inc., 250 Freeman Street, Decatur, Georgia 30030.
e/ No longer commercially available; included because this sampler is still widely used.
f/ 2000 Inc., 5899 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107.
157
-------
Sitting (133) reports that general agreement was reached at the Interna-
tional Aerobiology Symposium, sponsored by the Office of Naval Research and
the University of California, on the use of the all glass impinger (AGI-30),
as the standard liquid sampler and on the Andersen stacked sieve sampler as
the standard apparatus for collection of aerosols.
The effect of agar nutrient drying for long sampling times is a common
cause of microorganism die-off. According to May, a medium which is otherwise
satisfactory, when used as a substrate in an air sampler, may dry out, result-
ing in increased concentration of growth inhibitors. (55)
If agar plates used in the Andersen sampler are coated with oxyethylene
docosand (OED), moisture evaporation is retarded without affecting colony
growth (65,66). OED is applied to the nutrient agar by pouring an excess of
a sterilized 0.27° emulsion over thoroughly dried agar and immediately draining
the excess into the next plate to be treated, and so forth. With OED, the
Andersen sampler can be operated for an entire day, sampling 13,000 liters of
air, with less than 2 g of water loss per plate. (65)
Some potentially useful new developments in air sampling devices for mi-
croorganisms are given in Table 1-3.
TABLE 1-3. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN AIRBORNE SAMPLING OF MICROORGANISMS
Sampler
Pagoda sampler (65)
Modified cascade sieve
sampler (MGS)
Modified Andersen sampler (65)
Man-operated particulate
aerosol sampler (112)
The DRES-modified large volume
air sampler (cyclone scrub-
ber) (150)
Remarks
Three stages standard, but number of stages
can be increased. Sampling time: 3 min,
flow rate 1,000 liters/min, British
patent.
Eight stages with 6 hr continuous run pos-
sible, flow rate 28 liters/min.
Mainly for ambient indoor use to obtain
actual exposure. Operated by human
breathing.
High collection efficiency for airborne
bacterial spores and vegetative cells.
Flow rate 950 liters/min. Developed by
Defense Research Establishment, Alberta,
Canada.
158
-------
DOSE/RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS
General Discussion
Microorganisms are ubiquitous and they play an important role in human
life—some are beneficial while others adversely affect health. Potential
health hazards may exist due to the presence of microorganisms (viruses and
bacteria) in solid wastes, raw sewage, and wastewater effluent because workers
in these industries come in direct and indirect contact with these potentially
dangerous pathogens. Contamination may cause infection and a disease may re-
sult, depending on the degree of contamination as well as other factors. In-
direct infection processes may begin from airborne microorganisms, waterborne
microorganisms, or by transmission from person to person (clinically direct
route). Microbiological population in different environments is shown in
Table 1-4.
TABLE 1-4. MICROBIOLOGICAL POPULATION IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS (3,65)
Sampling place Bacteria /m^ air Coliforms/m3 air
Sewage treatment plant
Garbage destruction plant
Chicken slaughterhouse
Printing office^./
Sawmill
Laboratory
Animals' room
Country a irk/
General offices and schoolk/
City streetsk/
Factoriesk/
700,000
13,000
30,000
50,000
14,000
200
900
1,977
3,354
2,542
3,989
850
480
£/ The high numbers in the printing office were caused by a heavily
contaminated air humidifier of fan type.
b_/ Total microbial level (colonies).
The major routes that may be considered an infection threat are respira-
tory and oral (airborne), dermal and oral (direct physical contact), and oral
(waterborne or foodborne). Multiple routes of entry that may cause infection
present a complex problem. (17,26)
Airborne microorganisms on dust particles and in droplets or "droplet
nuclei" (residue remaining after evaporation) complicate the probability of
159
-------
infection due to their selective landing sites—either nasal, upper respira-
tory or lower respiratory tracts, and intestines through any of the possible
routes. (26,112,65)
Table 1-5 indicates microorganisms that may cause potential health haz-
ards. There also may be infections by protozoa, through oral routes, pri-
marily from food and water.
Man, like other animals, is always infected by many species of microorga-
nisms, almost any of which, under the right circumstances, is capable of pro-
ducing disease. The probability of bacterial infection primarily depends on
four factors:
1. Source;
2 „ Concentration;
3. Capability to survive; i.e., transmittability from source to host in
concentrations that can induce infection; and
4. Susceptibility of the host. (26)
There is a paramount distinction between infection and disease from a
clinical point of view. The mere fact that a bacteriologist can culture a
given microbe from a patient's body may be totally irrelevant. For example,
over 90% of random throat cultures may be positive for a given kind of Strep-
tococcus. (26) Health people can be infected and still not contract disease
because body tissues possess efficient natural mechanisms of antibacterial
defense.
Those microorganisms which are pathogenic under the right circumstances
can often coexist with the host in a truce that is only occasionally broken.
Pathogenicity or virulence, then, may vary over a wide range depending upon
the "strain of microbe," "the strain of host" (i.e., host's resistance, etc.),
and the conditions under which they are brought together. (26) For example,
the causative organism of diphtheria is normally found only in the upper
respiratory tract of men, cattle, and horses. Infection in man may remain
subclinical or the bacilli may proliferate extensively. (20)
Biological aerosols are self-replicating and there probably is no true
tolerance threshold; in theory, at least, one viable particle may infect an
individual and subsequently cause an epidemic in a fully susceptible popula-
tion. However, for many diseases more than a single organism may be required
to initiate clinical infection. (70)
160
-------
TABLE 1-5. INFECTIONS AND DISEASES CAUSED BY MICROORGANISMS (17,26)
Infection
Bacterial
Typhoid fever
Paratyphoid
Bascilli dysentery
(Shigeliosis)
Pyogenic infections and
food poisoning
Skin rash
Kidney infections
Mild respiratory infections
in man
Mild genital tract infec-
tions in dogs
Viral
Polio^.7
Influenza^/
Measles
Common cold
Infectious hepatitis
Coxsacki viral
Adenoviral
Fungal
Microorganisms
Salmonella typhosa£/
Salmonellae
paratyphosii/
Shigella
Staphylococcus aureus
and others
Fecal streptococci
Group A
Group C
Groups L and M
Pilio virus
Influenza virus
Virus
Various viruses
Virus
Viruses
Viruses
Route
Oral/nasal
Oral/nasal
Oral/nasal
Nasal
Oral
Oral/nasal
Nasal.'oral
Respiratory-
Nasal /oral
Respiratory
Oral
Oral
Resoiracory
Source
Water, food, fecal mate-
rials, also raw sewage
Humans, transmittal
through dishes, bedding,
etc.
Water, fecal material,
contaminated food, raw
sewage
Water, food, fecal mate-
rial (disposal diapers),
humans
Humans
Humans
Humans
Water, food (shellfish
and clams)
Fecal material, pharyn-
geal secretion
Humans
Systemic mycoses
Cryptococcosis
Coccidioidomycosis
Histoplasmosis
Blastomycosis
Candidiasis
Aspergillosis
Superficial mycoses
(dermatomycoses)
Ringworm
Favus
Athlete's foot
Cryptococcus
neoforaans
Coccidioides immitis
Blastomyces
dermatitidis
Candida albicans
Lungs, menir.ges
Lungs
Histoplasma capsulatum Lungs
Lungs, skin
Oral cavity,
intestinal tract
Aspergillus fumigatus Bronchi
Microsporum audouini
Trichophyton
schoenleinii
Epidemophyton and
other genera
Scalp of children
Scalp
Between toes, skin
a/ Gastrointestinal.
b/ Enteric viruses.
161
-------
The number of organisms present in a given sample will be directly re-
lated to their initial concentration and subsequent survival rate. Finkelstein
concluded that airborne transmission of human and animal diseases is essen-
tially limited to indoor spaces and closely confined outdoor spaces. His
rationale was that pathogens cannot reproduce in air and generally do not sur-
vive long because of adverse conditions of temperature, humidity, and sun-
light. (70)
Any advanced microbiology text would show that survival or infectivity
of viruses decreases as dilution increases. Dilution of viral aerosols by air
(either in a confined space or in an open space) would thus probably reduce
ID50 and ID5Q.*
In virus assays an important factor is the ratio of the total number of
viral particles to the number of infectious units. This ratio measures the
efficiency of infection, which varies widely among different viruses (e.g.,
polio viruses 30 to 1,000 to 1, influenza viruses 7 to 10 to 1) and even for
the same virus assayed in different hosts. (26) For most viruses the ratio
is larger than unity. This result is due, in part, to the presence of non-
infectious particles, and in part to the failure of potentially infectious
particles to reproduce. However, even with the highest ratio of particles
to infectivity, infection may be initiated by a single virus. (26)
It has been demonstrated that influenza antibodies can be diffused across
mucous membrane to appear in respiratory secretions. Sufficient concentra-
tions of antibodies can neutralize viruses prior to their penetration of cells
and this in turn would prevent infection. (25) To infect, viruses must escape
from the source in a form that allows transmission. It is possible to trans-
mit influenza viruses through air in the laboratory.
Bang et al. (15) explained that there is a possibility of epidemiologi-
cal interference or competition among enteric viruses which may delay the pro-
cess of natural immunization. Such epidemiological interference would keep
the rate of infection below the maximum which would otherwise occur.
There is a basic distinction between the roles of air and water as media
for the transmission of microorganisms. Organisms introduced into water at
one place and time are mechanically transported elsewhere to reach a new host
at some distance and at some other time. Water as a vehicle is static; that
is, it can be assumed that a sample examined at a reservoir is reasonably rep-
resentative of the risk at some distant point of delivery. In contrast, air
ID5Q is the lethal dose required for 50% of the receptors, while H>5Q is
the infective dose required for 50% of the receptors.
162
-------
is dynamic. The processes of sedimentation and dilution are constantly in
evidence so that a given sample is a measure of risk only at that time and at
that place of sampling. (117)
As pointed out previously, infection and disease are distinct and infec-
tions may even benefit the host if the presence of relatively avirulent bac-
teria at a given tissue site prevents the growth of more virulent species. (26)
Considering the communicability of bacterial infections, Bernard et al. (26)
indicated that to be naturally pathogenic for a given animal species, a bac-
terial strain must be readily transmissible to a susceptible individual.
Further, Bernard et al. (26) pointed out four factors on which the ef-
ficiency of transmission depends. They are:
1. There must be a ready source of the infecting agent.
2. The source must release relatively large numbers of organisms, the
rate of release being dependent on the nature of the source.
3. To be transmitted, the infective microbe must be capable of surviv-
ing in transit to a new host—whether transported by droplet, dust, food,
water, or insect vector; but neither mere survival in transit nor the culti-
vation of a microorganism from air and/or dust necessarily indicate that it
is infectious.
4. For a bacterial disease to be widespread in a community, a relatively
high proportion of the population must be susceptible.
Expanding on the third factor mentioned above, survival of microorganisms
during transmission introduces the concept of viability. Viability is gen-
erally considered as the potential for multiplication under experimentally de-
fined conditions, but all cells that are viable do not infect. (54) For vi-
ruses, definitions become more complicated because so called viability is
measured conventionally in terms of infectivity for an egg, tissue culture,
or animal host. Viability and infectivity of airborne organisms must be con-
sidered only in relation to the experimental conditions used to generate the
data.
_Surviyability of Microorganisms
The survival of pathogens determines their viable concentration in trans-
port media, and their eventual reception by a susceptible host (see Table 1-6).
The obstacles that microorganisms have to overcome before reaching a suscepti-
ble host are shown in Figure 1-1. The numbers shown in Figure 1-1 are arbi-
trary, serving only to provide a qualitative picture of a complex series of
163
-------
TABLE 1-6. SURVIVAL TIME OF VARIOUS ORGANISMS (126)
Organism
Ascaris ova
B. Typhosa
Cholera vibrios
Coliform
Endamoeba histolytica
Hookworm larvae
Leptospira
Polio virus
Salmonella typhi
Shigella
Tubercle bacilli
Typhoid bacilli
Medium
Soil
Vegetables
Soil
Vegetables
Spinach, lettuce
Nonacid vegetables
Grass
Tomatoes
Vegetables
Soil
Soil
Soil
Polluted water
Radishes
Soil
Tomatoes
Soil
Soil
Type of
application
Sewage
AG§/
AC
AC
AC
AC
Sewage
Sewage
AC
AC
Infected feces
AC
-
Infected feces
Infected feces
AC
AC
AC
Survival
time
Up to 7 years
27-35 days
29-70 days
31 days
22-29 days
2 days
14 days
35 days
3 days
8 days
6 weeks
15-43 days
20 days
53 days
74 days
2-7 days
6 months
7-40 days
a/ AC = artificial contamination.
164
-------
Susceptible Resistant
Infection Subject Subject ** No Infection
1 1
f Alighting on T
Susceptible Locus '
10 102
Removal by Humoral/ ¥
Cellular Mechanisms I
102 104
f Trapping by Mechanical a
Barriers: Skin, Upper |
Respiratory Tract
103 105
J Death in Transit T
TO4 106
ORGANISMS
SOURCE
Figure 1-1. Qualitative representation of microorganism obstacles. (122)
165
-------
events. Pathogens can survive only in special conditions that vary for each
species, and there must be a suitable infection site in the host. (26,65,122)
Microorganisms such as coliform and fecal coliform may thrive in solid
waste. However, these same microorganisms will survive for a lesser amount
of time in hostile media like air or even water. Nevertheless, these micro-
organisms are used as indicators of pathogens, and under different environ-
mental stresses such indicators may die while pathogens survive and vice versa.
As it is not possible to duplicate all environmental stresses in the labora-
tory, experiments conducted in laboratories provide only partial information.
Similarly, some difficulties are encountered in field experiments performed
to collect data on the potential health hazards of microorganisms. Various
researchers have expressed different opinions regarding the effects of en-
vironmental stresses, but all experiments prove that pathogens need special
environmental conditions to survive in transit.
Even if a microorganism does survive, its effect depends on the resis-
tance of the receptor and this can vary among the cells within a complex unit
such as the human body. A single microbe can infect a susceptible cell.
Practically, large numbers of microbes are required to start infection and
the process depends on the way they are delivered to the susceptible host.
Many researchers have conducted laboratory experiments to investigate
the effects of various environmental factors on microbe survival. Even though
these data are for specific conditions (in the laboratories) they may be used
for extrapolation to field situations. For example, if a pathogen does not
survive under certain conditions in the laboratory, it may be concluded that
it will not survive under similar conditions in the external environment, which
is usually more harsh. Each species of pathogen has specific conditions under
which it can infect a susceptible host. If these conditions do not exist, then
the microorganisms may not survive, or if they survive, they may not replicate.
Thus, their concentration may remain constant or decline depending on the pro-
tection they have either from the source or from the medium. (26,65,122)
One researcher found that Salmonellae inoculated into samples of poultry
excretion declined to very low numbers or disappeared within a month. An
overall reduction of 99% was observed in 19 days when inoculated at 9 to 12°C.
They disappeared in 11 days at 18 to 20°C, and in 3 days at 30°C. In addi-
tion, room temperature drying had a profound effect, killing Salmonellae up
to 99.5%. (10)
The effect of temperature on the reduction of Salmonellae is also promi-
nent in other nonsterile media such as sewage, polluted river waters, and sew-
age treated soil. At higher temperatures of 18 to 37°C, 99.0% reduction is
achieved in 3 days in poultry excreta, in 4 to 5 days in sewage treated sub-
surface soil, and in 4 days in sewage. (10)
166
-------
The overall conclusion based on these studies is that sunlight, high tem-
perature, and low humidity are all deleterious to bacterial survival.
In one study, alfalfa plants were irrigated with treated municipal sewage
and it was found that fecal coliform concentration dropped from 1.72 x 10^ to
0.9 organisms per gram of dry alfalfa within 24 hr after irrigation stopped
and the alfalfa was exposed to bright sunlight for 10 hr. Die-off experiments
showed that Salmonella strains had identical survival characteristics to fecal
coliform indicator organisms, while others were substantially less resistant.
These observations coupled with the close phylogenetic relationship between
Salmonella and fecal coliform (E. coli) suggest that it is valid to use fecal
coliform survival rate as an indicator of Salmonella survival. (8)
Another 2-year study to determine the movement of total coliform and
fecal coliform in soil indicated that total coliform and fecal coliform from
septic tank effluent, which normally moved horizontally, decreased signifi-
cantly with horizontal distance and depth. A conclusion based on the study
is that it seems unlikely that coliform bacteria would move into the permanent
groundwater system; and reduction in the number of coliform was probably a re-
sult of soil filtration and die-off. However, the possibility of slight
groundwater contamination by vertical movement did exist. (116)
In another experiment the survival characteristics of total coliform, fe-
cal coliformj and fecal Streptococci were investigated under natural conditions
in ice-covered water at 0°G. (42) It was found that after 7.1 days (mean flow
time between sampling stations), and a distance of 317 km, the relative sur-
vival rate was total coliform < fecal coliform < fecal Streptococcus, with 8.4,
15.7, and 32.870 of the initial populations remaining viable, respectively. The
most rapid die-off was found to occur during the first 1.9 days. It was also
observed that there is a continuing need for better pathogenic indicators be-
cause a quantitative relationship does not exist between coliforms and enteric
pathogens. This makes it difficult to interpret results relative to potential
health hazards and confirms that there is a' need to assay potentially hazard-
ous enteric microorganisms to assess the "real" health hazard.
Relating this to wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and
refuse handling/disposal, it may not be good practice to make judgments re-
garding potential health hazards based solely on the presence of total or
fecal coliforms. Air and solid wastes are different media compared to water,
so interpretations based on the presence of coliform may not apply to air-
borne and solid waste sampling.
In another experiment, viruses were recovered from a sanitary landfill
on the 2nd and 3rd week of leachate production at which time the number of
Pfu/liter reached 40 to 690, respectively, while the control showed only 100
Pfu/liter after the 3rd week. No further positive results were obtained
167
-------
after the 3rd week. (22) It appeared that leachate from the sanitary landfill
and open dump was toxic to the viruses and the author indicates that failure
to isolate viruses may be due to the inhibition of virus-host cell interaction
or association of viruses with leachate solids.
In other experiments, viruses from dump leachate were recovered when EDTA
was added to the leachate. The author suggests that this may be due to re-
lease of viruses in suspension by EDTA. (22) In this research, it was found
that coliform concentration in the leachates declined relatively rapidly with
time for the sanitary landfill compared to an open dump. According to the
author, (22) identical counts of total coliform and fecal coliform, in leach-
ates, indicate the presence of large amounts of fecal materials in the solid
waste. The conclusion drawn by the author of this study, regarding the sur-
vival of viruses in leachate from sanitary landfills and open dumps, was that
they do possess the ability to survive and more importantly, the leachates did
not have any detrimental effects on polio viruses.
Aerosolized Microorganisms
Of particular interest in this study is the transmission and ingestion of
aerosolized microorganisms. According to Langmuir, (51) airborne infection
generally involves the inhalation of droplet nuclei resulting from the evapora-
tion of aerosol droplets (see Table 1-7) which remain suspended for relatively
long periods of time. Organisms within particles of a heterogeneous aerosol
do not distribute themselves evenly throughout the droplets. The distribution
of organisms throughout the available particles of the aerosol is influenced
by the concentration of organisms in the material aerosolized. The smaller
particles of the aerosol remain unpopulated at low organism concentrations
whereas at higher concentrations the smaller particles of the aerosol contain
TABLE 1-7. DROPLET EVAPORATION RATES (135)
Droplet diameter Evaporation timei/
(pm) (sec)
200 5.2
100 1.3
50 0.31
25 0.08
12 0.02
a/ At 22°C and 50% RH.
168
-------
relatively larger numbers of organisms. Further, many workers have demon-
strated that H>50 or ID^Q values of certain airborne pathogens decrease as the
aerosol particle size increases.
Airborne particles bearing pathogens or "droplets" which are larger in
size fall to the ground within a short time, but the smaller ones evaporate
almost instantly, leaving "droplet nuclei," which incorporate any organisms
originally present in the parent droplet. Droplet nuclei may remain suspended
indefinitely, until removed by ventilation. (122)
The particles of most pathological interest are those which penetrate to
and are deposited in the pulmonary spaces. Figure 1-2 shows the deposition
versus particle size of inhaled particles in the respiratory tracts and in
the lungs of guinea pigs and monkeys compared with man. It has been found ex-
perimentally that the particulate removal efficiency of the guinea pig and
monkey lungs is not significantly different from man. (63)
Between 1 and 2 u there is a maximum percentage penetration and deposi-
tion in the pulmonary spaces. Larger particles are deposited in the lungs to
a lesser extent because they are trapped higher up in the respiratory tract.
Lung deposition of finer particles falls off as particle size goes below 2 u
and then rises again below 0.5 u. (63) The highest probability of deposition
in the pulmonary air spaces occurs with 2 u particles as derived from the com-
bined probabilities of deposition at various depths in the respiratory system
for a unit-density spherical particle.
Hatch (63) indicates that a quantitative understanding of the relation-
ship between the dose of an inhaled aerosol and the kind and degree of response
clearly requires that the magnitude of the dose be expressed in terms of ef-
fective rates at the critical sites within the body where tissue response is
initiated. It is not merely enough to know the atmospheric concentration and
the volumetric flow rate of breathing. The product of these two simply gives
the rate of delivery of the aerosol into the respiratory system.
The health risk, according to Hatch, (3) resulting from the deposition of
toxic or infectious particles within the respiratory system is not necessarily
proportional to the total quantity of particles trapped. For some diseases,
the risk varies depending on the site of deposition within the system, and, in
certain cases, there will be no risk whatever unless particles are deposited
at particular sites. Further, for a full understanding of the importance of
the dust trapping characteristics of the respiratory system in disease etiology,
the knowledge of the overall efficiency of respiratory deposition in relation
to particle size and to the dynamics of air flow is not enough. Such rela-
tionships must be established for different sites at various depths within the
system taking into account the fact that a particle will penetrate that depth,
as well as upon the efficiency of trapping at the site in question,,
169
-------
100,-
Man
a Monkey
O Guinea Pig
U a
100
8.
m
Q
80
60
40
20
0
— Man
o Monkey
O Guinea Pig
678 012
Size oF Unit Density Spheres, Microns
AP
Figure 1-2.
Deposition versus particle size of inhaled particles in the upper
respiratory tract and in the lungs of the guinea pig and monkey
compared with man. (63 )
-------
The human body has developed a remarkable system of defense against the
invasion of microorganisms. The first line of defense against microorganisms
is the complex of anatomic and chemical barriers produced by external and in-
ternal body surfaces. (71)
The deposition sites for airborne microorganisms usually will be (a) the
nose--which is an effective filter, (b) the larynx—where the dynamics of air-
flow will determine the deposition of microorganisms, and (c) airways. Al-
though the landing sites are smaller in a child, the hydrodynamics of the air
passages are similar; thus, penetration of an aerosol will be similar in the
child and the adult.
If an aerosol of bacteria or virus particles is inhaled, it will be de-
posited throughout all sections of the respiratory tract; however, the fate
of the deposited microorganism will depend on their specific landing site.
Experimental studies on animals have shown that virulent microorganisms which
deposited in the lung were rapidly rendered nonviable. The number of viable
E. coli cells declined very rapidly in the airways and in the lungs of guinea
pigs. The dead E. coli cells were found to behave like inert particles under-
going pulmonary clearance by mechanical mucous transport. (122)
The death rate of airborne microorganisms is a function of many variables
including cellular physiological differences, relative humidity, temperature,
oxygen concentration, light, and air pollutants. Depending upon the quality
and quantity of these factors, the death rate may increase or decrease. (85)
Because of the lack of data on death rate in the natural environment, it
is assumed that laboratory measured values will roughly approximate mean death
rates in a dynamically changing atmosphere. (85)
It is suggested by Lighthart et al. (85) that an atmospheric diffusion
model from a point source can be applied (Pasquill inert material dispersion
model) with a modification for biological death (BD). Knowing a BD constant
for various specific atmospheric conditions, the modified model gives the con-
centration of microorganisms as a function of the distance from the source
having some effective source height.
During his experimental studies, Fannin (40) determined downwind concen-
trations of airborne coliphages from a wastewater treatment plant. He did not
find any apparent effects of sunlight, wind speed, relative humidity, and tem-
perature on the downwind concentration of coliphages.
Studies conducted by Hyslop (70) on poliomyelitis and bronchitis viruses
indicate that there is a probability of disease being spread by air. However,
the viability of such airborne organisms declines progressively as a result of
physical and other factors. Relative humidity strongly influenced viability
171
-------
in the experimental studies with some strains of virus more sensitive to Rh
than others. The infectivity of polio virus at 75% RH regressed after the
virus became airborne. (70)
Experiments (70) indicated that relatively small amounts of virus were
detected after nebulization of high-titre suspensions, which suggests that
mortality must have been very great during the first 2 min in aerial suspen-
sion. There were several factors, such as rapid desiccation, oxidation, im-
paction, shearing, changes in osmotic and atmospheric pressure, contact with
metals, and other toxic chemicals which contributed to losses occurring during
the aerosol sampling, according to the author. Other experimental results in-
dicate that even when aerosols of high initial titre are generated in an en-
closed space, regression of infectivity is so rapid that the "cloud" should
become virtually noninfective within a few hours. (70)
Webb (147) states that the removal of the most firmly held water mole-
cules from bacteria results in some loss of viability, especially in air. His
studies disclosed that only 0.01% of an aerosolized initial cell concentration
remained viable for 48 hr or longer. Webb also found that death of aerosolized
bacteria occurs in two stages, a rapid initial kill during the first second,
and a subsequent slower death. (147)
A rapid death rate for E_. coli has been observed in experimental studies.
(122) After a few seconds only 10% of the organisms remained viable. At a
relative humidity of 50 to 60% and a temperature of 25°C, only 20% of the
cells remained viable after the first 0.3 min.
According to some researchers, the particle size of airborne microorga-
nisms (i.e., droplet, droplet nuclei, or dust particles) markedly affects vi-
ability. Also, the cloud age of aerosolized microorganisms affects both via-
bility and infectivity. (112) Table 1-8 indicates the effect of cloud age on
LDijO and Figure 1-3 shows the survival of airborne bacteria as a function of
aerosol (cloud) age. (16)
TABLE 1-8. EFFECT OF CLOUD AGE ON INFECTIVITY (65)
Cloud age (min)
60 120 180
LD50 cells 36 288 2,394
—• c°li> because it is used as an indicator of pathogens, is of special
interest. Studies have shown that survival of airborne E_. coli cells, under
172
-------
100 i-
80
60
<
O
o
I—
z
40
20
Table
Minutes
5
20
35
50
65
80
95
110
125
Aerosol
Bacilus
samplec
for 2 hr
ANDERSEN SAMPLER STAGES 1 THROUGH 4
AND MILIPORE FILTER
PARTICLE SIZE >15/i - <2p.
Total
Particles/
M3
69464
14338
7028
5121
2401
2260
1024
918
494
Decay Rate,
Subtilis generated in a
at 5 mins and 15 mins
(%)
100
20.5
10
7.3
3.44
3.25
1.47
1.18
0.71
chamber
thereafter
% Reduction
79.5
10.5
2.6
3.89
0.19
1.78
0.29
0.37
40 80
AGE OF AEROSOLS - Mins
120
Figure 1-3. Survival of airborne bacteria as a function
of aerosol age. (16)
173
-------
conditions of environmental stress, is directly related to particle size. (122)
The loss of viability of E_. coli contained in larger particles was much less
than in smaller particles. It also was found that the rate of loss of viabil-
ity of E. coli disseminated in 1 urn particles often exceeded 10%/min in open
air at night under normal humidity conditions, compared with only a few per-
cent per hour in an enclosed space. The same effect was observed with Staphy-
lococcus epidermidis and Staphylocci group G» This effect was termed the "open
air factor" (OAF). (112)
In general, the death rate of aerosolized microorganisms in dust parti-
cles increases with an increase in humidity and with illumination, both na-
tural (solar) and artificial.
Specific Dose/Response Relationships for Various Microorganisms
Table 1-9 summarizes the specific dose/response relationships disclosed
by this literature study. Several caveats are in order here. The time lag
in assessing the potential health impact of an etiological factor is a main
obstacle in the evaluation and documentation of data. Also, current mecha-
nisms for obtaining epidemiological data are inadequate, according to the
Task Force Report on Respiratory Diseases. (120)
Because defensive mechanisms are very complex, animals like guinea pigs,
squirrel monkeys, etc., used in laboratories may or may not yield data appli-
cable to humans. Further, different researchers use different experimental
methodology. The effects of viral infection followed by bacterial infection
and vice versa are extremely difficult to identify. Also, it is difficult to
determine their combined effect, if any, or to separate short-range effects
from long-range effects.
SURVEY OF SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES
Refuse Collection and Handling
Solid wastes vary within each country because both the quantity and com-
position are determined by social customs and standards of living in each
region considered.
Efforts were made by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1971 and the
United States Public Health Service (USPHS) in 1968 to collect data on solid
waste handling and disposal industries on an international and national ba-
sis, respectively.
174
-------
InnLlL 1-^. M ffA . I f II . JXJ.'ll' / Kl'.:i MCHV.'lh KC. 1 J\ 1 1 I IN^lH I m C I IK VAKIUlin H 1 1 .«( K IK(,A N 1 2>["1.-, Am) 3 Im.i r.l. 1 3
Reference
Number
26
26
26
26
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
97
97
97
97
88
88
88
31
Jl
112
112
112
1 12
J 12
1 12
112
Subject
Guinea pigs
Guinea pigs
Guinea pigs
Guinea pigs
Guinea pigs
Guinea pigs
Guinea pigs
Guinea pigs
Rhesus monkeys
Khesus monkeys
Rhesus monkeys
Rhesus monkeys
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Pig
I'lg
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human in fmits
Human infant s
Human infants
Orgji nj sm
B , Anthrac is
B . Anthracis
B. Anthracis
B. Anthracis
P. Tulurensis
P. Tulurensis
P. Tulurensis
P. Tulurensis
P. Tulurensts
P. Tulurens is,
P. Tulurens is
P. Tulurensis
Typhoid
Typhoid
Shigella
Typhoid and other
sci Imonel ] ae
E. foil or v . Choi
Salmonellae and S.
Shigella
Tota 1 count:
1-et.a 1 Colilorm
Pol io virus
Polio virus
Polio virus
Polio virus
Polio virus
Pulio virus
Po 1 i o v i ru s
Dose
15 ,GOU org . < 1 pm
60,000 org.< 3 urn
400,000 org. < 7 pm
900,000 org. <11 pm
3 org. 1 pm
6,500 org, 7 um
20,000 org, 12 urn
170,000 org, 22 urn
17 org. 1 pm
240 org, 7 pin
540 org , 12 pm
3,000 org. 22 pm
T
10 org.
10r org.
IOJ org.
a
cr.ic 10 org.
Typhae IO5 org.
10 to 100 org.
1 . i x 1U5 LO 3.5 x IO5
Lolony Lo rming plrUes
per m1 (CFP)
1.9 x 10 ! io 2.4 x 10-''
CKP
200 PFU
20 PKU
2 PFU
0.2 PIT
100 TCD50 to 1,000 TCDb0
30 TCD50 to 100 TCn.,0
10 TCI), 0
How administered
inhalation
inhalation
inhalation
inhalation
inha lat ion
inha lat ion
inha la t ion
inhalation
inha lat ion
inha lat ion
inhalation
i nhalat ion
orn 1
oral
oral
oral
ora 1
oral
oral
inha lation
inha lation
oral
ora 1
oral
oral
oral
ora 1
ora 1
Res pons e Rema rks
LD50 Experiment designed to
LDgQ show relation of aerosol
LD50 particle size to LD^Q.
LD50
LD^Q Experiment designed to
LD^y show relation of aerosol
LD5Q particle size to LD.jy
LD50
LDc;Q Experiment des igned to
LD5Q show relation ot aerosol
LD5o particle size to LD5Q-
LD50
no infection
ID50
infect ion
infection
infect ion
infection
infect ion
no infect ion
nu iniuction
100'/ infection
1007 infection
< b6/. infect ion
0% infection
100 infection
777 ini ect ion
66/, infection
(c out i rmc-d)
-------
TABLE 1-9 (continued)
CTi
Reference
Number
in
112
62
ft?
Oi
62
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
1 12
112
112
112
112
1 12
112
I12»
L12
Subject^
Mice
Mice
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Hams t e r
Hamster
Hamster
Hams t er
Hamster
Egg
Egg
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Huma n
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
HuTiu-i n
Organism
Coxsaic viruses
Coxsaic viruses
Adenoviruses
Infectious hcpati ti s
Infectious hepatiti s
Influenza and para-
influenza
Influenza and para-
influenza
Influenza and para -
influenza
Influenza and para-
influenza
Influenza and para-
influenza
Influenza and para-
inf luenza
Influenza and para-
inf luenza
Para influenza
Para in C luenza
Parainf luenza
Parainf luenza
Parainfluenza
Parainf luenza
Rhinoviruses
Klis'noviruses
Meas le virus
Measle virus
Meas Le virus
Meusle virus
Mensle virus
Meas It virus
Dose
30 TCD50
18 TCD5Q
100 TCD50
SO TPDr-n^1 In
J\J itjU^QS. J\l
1,000 TCD50
0.1 g of fcces from
the infected patients
0.01 g of feces from
the infected patients
320 TCD50
32 TCD50
3.2 TCD5Q
0.3 TCD50
0.03 TCD5Q
5 EID50
0.45 EID5Q
100 TCD5Q
80 TCDcn
1.5 TCD50
15 TCD^
2,000 TCD50
20,000 l'CD50
30 to 10,000 TCD5Q
<" 1 T(""T1 ^
V 1 LL.tJ.jQ
16 TCD
10 Tcn50
6 TCD50
2 TCD5()
1 TfU
I IL-IJ^Q
0.6 TC1)50
U.2 TCD50
0.1 TCD5(J
How administered
inhalation
inhalation
intranasa lly
in a ation
transmitted by upper
respiratory tract
oral
oral
aerosolized
aerosolized
aerosolized
aerosolized
aerosolized
injection
injection
internasal injection
inter nasal injection
internasal injection
internasal injection
internasal injection
internasal injection
internasal injection
intranasal spray
intranasal spray
intranasal spray
intranasa 1 spray
intranasal spray
intranasal spray
Res pons e Rema r ks
infection
infection
50% infection
70/i, infection
infection
infection
no infection
100% infection
100% infection
67% infection
33% infection
no infection
infection EID = Egg Infective Dose
infection
657U infection
757t infect ion
100% infection
no infection
no infection
infection
not given
40% infect ion
not given
89% infection
69% infection
49% infection
237 Infect ion
> 12% infection
> 14"', infection
no infection
(t:ancimn.'j)
-------
TABLE 1-9 (continued)
Reference
Number
112
112
112
112
112
H2
112
112
112
112
112
1 12
Subject
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Human
Organism
Polio virus
Polio virus
Polio virus
Polio virus
Coxsackie
Coxsackie
Adeno virus
Parainf luenza
Parain f luenza
Parainf luenza
Influenza
Dose
2 PFU
20 PFU
100 TCD5Q
10 TCD,-n
18 TCD50
^TcT50
0.5 TCD°
1.5 TCD50
2,000 to 20,000
TCD5()
790 TCD
1 5 TPD
ID iUJ50
How administered
oral
oral
oral
oral
Respiratory
Respiratory
Respiratory
Respiratory
Respiratory
Respiratory
route
route
route
route
route
route
Response Remarks
707. infection
100% infection
infection
infection
infection
infection
infection
infection
infection
infection
n ection
-------
Main efforts by WHO were in the following areas: (138)
1. To ascertain the impact of health and socioeconomic factors of im-
proper handling of solid wastes.
2. To appraise current practices in solid waste industries.
3. To identify areas of future action.
A private survey indicates that the amount of organics in municipal waste
is increasing while the amount of inorganics is decreasing. Total organics
were 45.0% in 1939, but were 72.0% in 1972. Inorganics decreased to 28% from
55% during the same period. (76)
The physical characteristics of solid wastes vary considerably (see Table
1-10).
TABLE I-10. COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE (138)
Per capita weight (kg/day)
Density (kg/m^)
Putrescible matter (%)
Paper (%)
Plastics (%)
Range of values
(excluding industrial wastes)
0.2-3.0
100-500
5-90
0.25-55
0.1-7.0
The results of a survey conducted by USPHS is presented in Table 1-11.
The first three items (paper, garbage, and leaves and grass) constitute or-
ganics which may be a source of microorganisms.
WHO focused its attention on the potential health problems arising from
solid waste handling and disposal. They concluded that limited studies have
been made on the direct effects of handling solid wastes, but evidence shows
that improper handling adversely affects health and welfare of the workers and
the community. According to the committee, it is possible that in the long
range it may affect the food chain.
The WHO group did investigate epidemiological data. A quotation from
their report is as follows: "A study in India of stool specimens from refuse
workers indicated that 94% of this group were infected with selected parasites
as against slightly more than 4% in the control group." The same study
178
-------
TABLE I-H. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE (60)
Item
Paper
Garbage
Leaves and grass
Wood
Synthetics
Cloth
Noncombustibles
Glass
Metals
Ashes, stone, dust, etc,
7
to
(wet basis)
48.0
16.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Measure
6.0
8.0
8.0
Chemical characteristics
Minimum
(dry basis)
35.0
8.0
5.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
6.0
8.0
6.0
Percent moisture
Percent carbon (wet)
Percent nitrogen (wet)
kj/kg (wet)
Ash percent (dry)
Carbon percent (dry)
Nitrogen percent (dry)
kJ/kg (dry)
20
8
0.2
6,978
4
20
0.3
13,956
60
35
3.0
13,956
9
50
5
23,260
38
24
1.0
10,467
6.5
40
1
17,910
indicated that the infection rate with worms and related organisms was three
times that of the control group. Contamination of this kind is liable to oc-
cur at all points where waste is handled. However, although it is certain
that vector insects and rodents can transmit various pathogenic agents of di-
sease, it is often difficult to demonstrate a precise relationship between a
source of infection, and the population infected.
The USPHS survey was composed of about 75% urban population with the rest
rural. (60) Its purpose was to gain insight in the following areas: (a) col-
lection and disposal systems; (b) labor; (c) equipment; (d) quantities; and
(e) financial aspects. There was no approach to health problems.
179
-------
The WHO committee and the Office of Solid Waste Management both found
that very little comprehensive data are available because (a) solid waste is
heterogeneous in nature and varies seasonally, which makes measurements and
categorization difficult, and (b) there is no standardized approach for the
collection of necessary data, either nationally or internationally.
The situation is further complicated by the interchanging use of the
terms "refuse," "garbage," and "rubbish." It will be convenient to adopt the
WHO nomenclature of two main categories: fermentable organic wastes, which
decompose rapidly; and nonfermentable wastes, which resist decomposition or
decompose very slowly. (138) Wastes in the first category arise primarily
from food for human consumption. Nonputrescible waste, the second category,
consists mainly of paper, tin cans, glass, wood, plastics, etc. There is a
need to standardize terms before meaningful data on potential health aspects
can be collected. According to statistics, domestic and industrial wastes
amount to between 2.3 and 2.7 kg/person/day. (60) The average is about 2.4 kg/
person/day, and is moving upward. However, volume per person in 1951 was more
than in 1970. The reasons for decline in volume weffe increased use of frozen
packaged goods and other highly processed and prepared food. (125) Papers,
paper containers, cans, and bottles are also on the increase. The density of
this collected material varies from approximately 148 to 386 kg/m^, depending
on composition.
According to WHO, ideal solid waste should not contain any fecal matter
or urine. Disposable diapers are a special problem in the western world and
especially in the United States. Also, there is a problem of household waste
being contaminated with fecal matter from pets. WHO feels that pathogenic
organisms will be found in domestic wastes in spite of any stringent measures
such as prohibiting fecal matter in domestic waste, and prohibiting mixing of
hospital, slaughterhouse, and other hazardous wastes with domestic waste.
It is estimated that, nationally, about 337,000 people (7,60) are em-
ployed in the waste handling and disposal industry. Waste in the urban areas
amounts to approximately 2.59 kg/capita/day, and 1.37 kg/capita/day in rural
areas. (60) Collection frequently varies from no collection to twice per
week.
According to Parrakova (73) refuse is an excellent medium in which patho-
genic microorganisms survive, as do intestinal parasites in certain life
stages (see Table 12). In contrast, Knoll (72) of Germany indicates that
urban refuse normally contains no particularly injurious elements from the
standpoint of epidemiology and hygiene. In Germany, infections and occupa-
tional diseases among refuse workers are almost unknown, even for those indi-
viduals in manual sorting of the raw refuse. Further, according to Knoll,
raw refuse is not dangerous but rather may possess bacteriostatic or bacteri-
ocidal activity. Such contradictory views are not unknown in the area of po-
tential health effects of refuse.
180
-------
TABLE 1-12. CONCENTRATION OF MICROORGANISMS (47)
Total
colif orrr\£/
Refuse lOSb/
Sewage sludge 108^
Refuse sludge lO8^/
Fecal Fecal Salmonella
coliforrr£/ Streptococci^/ Shigella^./
107. 108
108
1Q7-108
106
lO*
10°
Very negligible
a/ Bacterial count per gram dry weight.
b/ All units in MPN.
Cimino has shown that the incidence of acute respiratory conditions for
New York City Sanitation Department workers does not exceed that of the gen-
eral population. (109) In the American Journal of Public Health. 1975, he re-
ported an incidence of 990 acute respiratory conditions per 1,000 workers per
year as compared to 950 for the general population. The inference is that
there is no discernible health risk from aerosolized microorganisms.
A study at a plant for refuse grinding prior to composting was designed
to determine aerosolized microorganism concentrations at various points within
the plant. (3) The heaviest concentration was found at the "ground waste trans-
fer" where, based on 25.92 m-^ normal lung respiration in 8 hr, a worker would
ingest approximately 135,000 microbes in a shift. No specific health hazards
were stated.
In another investigation of an incinerator plant (10,37) it was found
that there were 10,200 to 25,400 viable microorganisms per cubic meter of air
around the dumping and charging area. This measurement was taken 1.5 m above
floor level and corresponds to 2,600,000 to 6,600,000 cells ingested in an 8-
hr shift.
The health effects of solid waste handling and disposal are partly deter-
mined by the chances of survival of pathogens in solid waste and the condi-
tions under which they can or cannot survive. Studies have been conducted
along this line and they represent several views. A study conducted on the
end product of refuse-sewage sludge composting by windrow process (47) indi-
cated:
1. Salmonella and Shigella were present in raw refuse and sewage sludge
in relatively small numbers. Those pathogenic enteric bacilli that were
originally present or inserted under controlled conditions, disappeared within
7 to 12 days.
181
-------
2. Polio virus (Type 2) inserted into the windrow were inactivated after
3 to 7 days' exposure at 49PC.
3. Insertion techniques indicate that pathogenic fungi did not survive
composting temperatures.
4. Insertion studies indicated the Mycobacterium tuberculosis was de-
stroyed within 2 weeks.
The study further indicates that fewer pathogens survive aerobic condi-
tions in refuse, in comparison with anaerobic conditions. This may imply that
diffusion of air at very low flow rates through refuse to maintain aerobic con-
ditions might help to reduce the number of pathogens that survive.
Other factors also may be of importance in the suitability of refuse as
a medium of growth for pathogens. Insertion studies indicate that the number
and growth of pathogens diminish continuously in refuse but examination of
compost at later dates indicates that coliforms reappear. (47)
Wastewater Treatment and its Spray Irrigation
Table 1-13 gives a list of some bacteria and viruses found in sewage. It
is necessary to consider that a complete account of any microbial population
of the complexity found in sludge is rarely possible, and the same is true for
solid wastes. For this reason, the coli group of bacteria is used as indica-
tors to demonstrate the presence of pathogens (fecal material of human origin).
Recently, fecal Streptococci have been used as an indicator of bovine fecal
sources. The coliform bacilli indicator group consists of E. coli, Aerobacter
aerogenes. and Klebsiella pneumoniae. All these are pathogenic only under
special conditions, (11) and they fall under the general category of entero-
bacilli.
TABLE 1-13. BACTERIA AND VIRUS FOUND IN SEWAGE
Bacteria. Enteric virus
Aerobacter aerogenes Flavobacterium aquatile Infectious hepatitis
Aerobacter cloacae Flavobacterium sp. Goxsackie, Group A
Achromobacter sp. Micrococcus sp. Goxsackie, Group B
Alcaligenes sp. Proteus inconstans Polio virus
Brevibacterium sp. Proteus morganii Adenovirus
Bacillus cereus Pseudomonas aeruginosa Echovirus
Bacillus megaterium Pseudomonas fluorescens Reovirus
Bacillus subtilis Pseudomonas ovalis
Bacillus sp. Pseudomonas sp.
Gorynebacterium sp. Pseudomonas - Alcaligenes
Escherichia coli intermediates
Escherichia freundii Serratia marcescens
Xanthomonas sp.
182
-------
According to Brock et al. (17) although coliform testing is the best pro-
cedure available for evaluating the safety of a water supply, it must be in-
terpreted cautiously because a positive test does not always indicate human
pollution. Further, E. coli added to a water supply will eventually die,
whereas some other intestinal organisms potentially harmful to man, such as
polio virus, may be longer-lived. Thus, a negative test (for E^» coli is not
an absolute assurance that a water supply is safe.
Some researchers have evaluated the ratio of enteric viruses (e.g., polio
viruses) to coliform, and found that the ratio varies between 1:50,000 to
1:6,500 in sewage and polluted surface waters. (29)
The literature indicates that the presence of airborne pathogens is in-
ferred from the presence of coliforms. Water and air being different media,
it may be questionable whether coliforms (total or JE_^ coli) can be used as
an indicator of aerosolized pathogens. At present, it seems that water and
wastewater pollution principles are being applied to airborne microorganisms.
During a microbiological investigation at a sewage treatment plant,
Ehrlich (82) found that a worker ingested via respiration only 0.1247, of the
Klebsiella pneumoniae required to produce infection in squirrel monkeys. This
resulted in part because workers were exposed to maximum concentrations of the
pathogen only 1% of the working time. Also according to the author, more than
half of the viable microorganisms from the plant were associated with parti-
cles greater than 6 fj,m in diameter and therefore would not be readily respira-
ble.
Another investigation of a sewage treatment plant found that a man work-
ing within 1.5 m of the downwind edge of an aeration tank, at 4.5 m/ sec wind-
speed will breathe one Klebsiella per two breaths, or 3,600 Klebsiella in 8 hr.
This same investigation established a die-off rate for aerosolized micro-
organisms. It was found that colonies decreased from 1,000 to 10 in the final
2 sec. The maximum decay rate occurs between 0.7 and 1.0 sec with stabiliza-
tion after 3 sec. However, despite the rapid die-off rate during the final 3
sec, the remaining population persisted for a considerable time and distance.
(96)
Coliform counts on agar plates showed more than five colonies at a dis-
tance of 6.1 m from the activated sludge unit dropping to less than two col-
onies at 30.5 m. (96)
About 40% of the viable bacteria in the vicinity of the activated sludge
units were associated with aerosol sizes that permit lung penetration. (96)
The Entrobacteriacea that are potential pathogens of the respiratory tract
(Klebsiella, Aerobacter, Proteus) were found to be more numerous than the
183
-------
enteric bacteria. (96) According to the author, coliform bacilli (E_. coli,
Aerobactera, Klebsiella pneumoniae) are potential health hazards. He found
about 6% of Klebsiella airborne and considered them significant.
Hickey and Reist (66) calculated geometric mean diameters of viable cells
recovered in the field adjacent to wastewater treatment plants. Results are
presented in Table 1-14.
They concluded the following:
1. The viable aerosols were clearly within the human respirable particle
size range.
2. The geometric mean particle size of the viable aerosol seemed to di-
minish initially after generation but did not change appreciably afterward.
3. The geometric mean particle size of the downwind viable aerosol may
be smaller than that of the upwind aerosol.
4. Protein-bearing aerosols (may be an allergy producing air pollutant)
were also in the human respirable range and were considerably larger than
nonprotein-bearing particulate aerosols.
During their literature search, on which the above conclusions were based,
they found that concentrations of viable cells may be as high as 1,170
per cubic foot (41,200/m ). These cells remain viable even at the lowest con-
centration of five to 10 cells per cubic foot (175 to 350/m-^). These aerosols
are clearly in the human respirable range and may be retained by the lower
respiratory tract.
Concern has been shown by several researchers regarding the public health
aspects of land application of wastewater. However, in the United States the
potential health hazard associated with the application of wastewater to the
land is low, and in fact, is less than that associated with the discharge to
subsurface waters. (126)
The health hazards of working around and handling wastewater on land ap-
plication sites are minimal. It has been emphasized that with reasonable
habits of personal hygiene, the health hazards appear to be no different than
for activated sludge and trickling filter plants. It is concluded that sewage
effluent is not hazardous to personnel and that overall health risks are not
higher for operators than for the public at large. (79)
Several investigators have measured concentrations of aerosolized micro-
organisms arising from irrigation with wastewater. (23,24) Table 1-15 sum-
marizes their results.
184
-------
TABLE 1-14. PARTICLE SIZES OF AEROSOLS ASSOCIATED WITH AERATED WASTEWATER PROCESSES (66)
09
tn
Wastewater processes
Activated sludge
aeration tank
Trickling filter
Simulated aerated
wastewater
of solids)
Type of aerosol
Viable bacteria
Protein-bearing
particles
Protein and nonprotein-
bearing particles
Viable bacteria
Viable bacteria
Distance downwind
from source
(m)
0
0.9-30.5
15.2
30.5-42.7
Upwind
Inside enclosed tank
Air discharge stack of
enclosed tank
0
0-60.9
Upwind
0-60.9
Upwind
Various
Geometric mean Geometric
diameter of aerosol standard
(u) deviation
7.0 2.0
4.3-5.1 1.8-2.6
5.8 1.9
6.2 1.9
7.8 3.2
5-10
3.2 1.9
40% <10 (mean = 11.8)
2.6 2.4£/
4.1 1.9^
0.25-0.33 2.5-2.72/
0.16-0.28 2.3-3.
4.2-4.5 2.0
0
40
130-260
400-1,600
0
0
0
3.7-5.7
2,8-3.1
4.8-5.8
2.4-8.6
(mean = 5 .0)
a/
a/
a/
sJ
a/ Values from median diameters.
Note: Particle sizes of viable bacterial aerosols are aerodynamic equivalent geometric mean particle
diameters.
-------
TABLE 1-15. BACTERIAL LEVELS RESULTING FROM IRRIGATION
WITH WASTEWATER
Distance from source Concentration
Organism (m) (organisms/m^)
Aerosolized coliform (75)
Aerosolized coliform
Aerosolized coliform
Aerosolized coliform
Aerosolized coliform
Aerosolized coliform
Aerosolized coliform
Aerosolized Coliform
Aerosolized coliform
Aerosolized coliform
Aerosolized coliform
Total aerobic (141)
Total aerobic
Total aerobic
Coliformlike
Coliformlike
Coliformlike
10
20
60
70
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Upwind
47
152
Upwind
47
152
0-490
-
4-503
-
0-88
0-32
0-25
0-17'
0-4
0-4
0
28
1,630
100
2.4
330
30
Lepmann (75) found that individual workers, at a distance of 100 m from
the source, will breathe 36 coliform bacteria in 10 min. Coliforms were found
70 m downwind and at 350 m downwind. According to the author, organic matter
present in the spray water effluent protects aerosolized E. coli which may be
an important health aspect. At a downwind distance of 60 m, only one colony
of Salmonella was found. The author did not present any supporting evidence
of infection.
Sovler (141) found that the ratio of viable cells per cubic meter of air
to viable cells per milliliter of wastewater spray decreased with aerosol age,
but the mass median diameter of viable particles increased with aerosol age.
The mean aerosol reduction of 47 m from the source was 96.8% for total aerobic
bacteria.
Aerosolized microorganism levels produced depend on (a) viable microorga-
nisms in wastewater, (b) aerosolization efficiency, and (c) wind speed.
186
-------
CONTROLS AND PROTECTION
General Discussion
Most of the control measures described here will be suitable for an en-
closed space where aerosolized microorganisms are present in relatively high
concentrations. The purpose of these controls is to minimize the potential
risk that a worker might face in solid waste handling and disposal facilities.
It is assumed that aerosolized microorganisms are generally attached to dust
particles, droplets, or droplet nuclei.
The proximity of man to any system designed to kill microorganisms compli-
cates decontamination. Due to the absence of quantitative data that relate a
minimal concentration level to the probable risk, (124) several control tech-
niques might have to be applied. The approach, therefore, should be to apply
the "Best Available Technology" (BAT) or "Best Practical Technology" (BPT).
The following qualitative assumptions are implicit in the discussions that
follow:
1. Man and microorganisms are ubiquitous.
2. Each individual is different in terms of susceptibility to pathogenic
microorgani sms .
3. Airborne concentrations and species of microorganisms may vary widely
from plant to plant.
4. The survival of airborne microorganisms is a complex phenomenon.
Control techniques for removal of, or protection against, an aerosolized
population in an enclosed space are:
1. Ventilation;
2. Irradiation with UV light;
3. Personal worker protection (i.e., vaccination, protective devices); and
4. Administrative controls.
Microbial contamination controls should be on a continuing, consistent,
logical, and defensible basis. The higher the degree of risk, the greater
should be the emphasis on control techniques, personnel training, reliability,
and maintenance of the systems used. (33)
A definition of the problem and a subsequent control system design must
take into account: (33,122)
187
-------
1. The specific microorganisms concerned.
2. The concentration at the place concerned.
3. The establishment of contamination control criteria (only aerosolized
microorganisms attached to dust particles, droplets, or droplet nuclei are con-
sidered).
4. Management imposition of personal hygiene rules, mandatory vaccina-
tions, use of protective devices, etc.
5. Air sampling feedback to determine the effectiveness of control. In-
stantaneous measurement devices may be applied to find peak concentrations.
Ventilation—
Aerosolized particulates containing viral and bacterial pathogens play an
important role in determining the atmospheric spread of infectious diseases.
The settling velocity of airborne particles, therefore, is of importance. Be-
cause of the tendency of dust to settle, dust-borne infection is associated
with specific places (i.e., settled dust may form an external reservoir of in-
fection). In this case, no chain of infections separated by an incubation
period is to be expected. (122)
Droplet nuclei-borne infections are not associated with epidemiologically
important external reservoirs of infection. Because of their small size, these
particles are generally dispersed throughout indoor atmospheres and are gen-
erally removed by ventilation, as shown above. (22,124) Droplet nuclei are
aerodynamically suited to reach susceptible tissue deep within the respiratory
tract. (122)
Figure 1-4 shows the effectiveness of ventilation in removing these small
particles. (4) Under ordinary conditions of ventilation, with three air
changes per hour, two-thirds of the 13 (j, particles deentrained from the room
atmosphere would be removed by settling and one-third by ventilation, whereas
the removal of droplet nuclei (•*- 2 to 3 fim) would be accomplished only by
ventilation. Thus, risk is mainly restricted to finer particles. (63)
Ultraviolet Irradiation—
Ultraviolet irradiation is amazingly effective in killing organisms sus-
pended in the air as droplet nuclei. Table 1-16 shows the relative vulnera-
bility of individual cells to UV radiation.
Either direct irradiation of room air or irradiation of upper air.only
may be employed, but personnel protection is needed for the former. (124)
Using special wall fixtures, UV can be directed across the room above head
188
-------
100 PS
oo
o
^ e
O 01
OJ ^
CD •-
o a>
c "3
0) 3
y z
Q-
O
Q
0
10
20 30
Minutes
40
50
Figure 1-4. Effectiveness of ventilation in removing small particles. (122)
-------
TABLE 1-16. RELATIVE VULNERABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL CELLS TO
ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION IN THE 2.537 x 10~7 M
WAVE BAND WHEN E. COLI EQUALS UNITY (122)
Organism
Bacillus subtilis, vegetative
Bacillus subtilis, spore
Bacillus diptheriae
Bacillus smegmatis
Bacillus prodigiosus
Streptococcus haemolyticus
Streptococcus viridans
Staphylococcus aureus
Staphylococcus albus
Pneumococcus I
Micrococcus catarrhalis
Bacteriophage
Sarcina lutea (computed)
Tubercle bacillus
Influenza virus
Relative vulnerability
1.68
0.22
1.16
0.52
1.33
0.97
0.93
1.35
1,
1,
1,
2,
18
94
00
14
0.85
0.84
1.36
level, avoiding direct personnel exposure.
sign criteria.
Experts must be consulted for de-
Incorporation of UV and fluorescent lighting fixtures will affect the re
duction of microorganisms. According to one investigator, the incidence of
measles was consistently lower in schools where UV fixtures were used and in-
fluenza infections were 2% compared to 19%. (123)
Low-pressure mercury vapor germicidal lamps provide the most effective
source of shortwave UV energy. These lamps are made of special quartz glass
that permits 70 to 90% of the short UV rays to pass, and they emit radiation
that is predominantly at 2.534 x
germicidal effectiveness.
Sanitary Ventilation--
10"^ m. This wavelength provides maximum
Sanitary ventilation, a combination of removing and killing bacteria, can
be used with efficacy. For instance, in one experiment UV radiation increased
the effect of ventilation by 9.7 times in absolute terms; i.e., with UV irradi-
ation the effect of 12 air changes per hour was nearly equal to 116 air changes
per hour without UV irradiation. (122)
190
-------
Personal Worker Protection--
The personal protection of a worker may be provided by using respiratory
protective devices and/or vaccinations.
Respiratory devices—Respiratory protective devices may be needed to pre-
vent "lung burden" and possible long-range lung damage, but they should not be
substituted for the controls mentioned above. It may be necessary to check
the limitations of respiratory devices before using them. It is recommended
by some experts that before issuing a protective device to a worker, he be ex-
amined physically and psychologically. (71)
Vaccination—Vaccinations should be used as a last line of defense. Their
effectiveness depends on many variables such as selectivity of protection af-
forded, immune state of the individual at the moment of challenge, magnitude
of the challenge, etc.
Vaccinations must be used in conjunction with the controls mentioned
above. Good record-keeping practice is essential for continuous immunization
through vaccination. (37)
Administrative controls--Personal hygiene is a fundamental aspect of pub-
lic health engineering. Consumption of food and smoking in contaminated areas
should be avoided and the use of showers to decontaminate skin may be imposed.
Dry sweeping of floors should be avoided to keep dust containing microorganisms
from becoming airborne. Periodic washing of floors with germicides is advan-
tageous and the rotation of workers in work places may reduce individual lung
burden.
The real key, however, to an effective administrative control program is
concerted effort and a spirit of cooperation between labor and management.
191
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR APPENDIX I
1. Andersen, Ariel. New Sampler for the Collection, Sizing, and Enumeration
of Viable Airborne Particles. U.S. Army Chemical Corps Proving Ground,
J. Bacteriol., 76 p. 481 (1958).
" ' ' ........ ....- ^*S~+S
2. Andersen, Ariel. A Sampler for Respiratory Health Hazard Assessment.
Amer. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 2£, March-April 1966.
3. Armstrong, David et al. Microbiological Studies of Compost Plant Dust.
National Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Monitor-
ing, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA R2-72-131, November 1972.
4. Ashford, Nicholas. Crisis in the Workplace: Occupational Disease and
Injury - A Report to the Ford Foundation. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachussetts .
5. Bang, Fredrick et al. Ecology of Respiratory Virus Transmission: A
Comparison of Three West Bengal Communities. Amer. J. of Trop. Med.
Hyg., 24, (1975)
6. Barbeito, Manuel et al. Microbiological Safety Evaluation of an Indus-
trial Refuse Incinerator. Appl. Microbiol., 16:2, February 1968.
7. Baum, Bernard et al. Volume 1. Incineration and Landfill; Volume 2.
Refuse/Recycle and Pyrolysis. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.,
Ann Arbor, Michigan (1974).
8. Bell, R. G. Persistence of Fecal Coliform Indicator Bacteria on Al-
falfa, Irrigated with Municipal Sewage Lagoon Effluent. J. Environ.
Quality. j>:l (1976).
9. Benstein, David et al. A High-Volume Sampler for the Determination of
Particle Size Distribution in Ambient Air. JAPCA, 26:11, November 1976.
10. Berkowitz, J. H. et al. Persistence of Salmonellae in Poultry Excreta.
J. Environ. Quality. (1974") 3_:2, pp. 158-160.
11. Bitton, G. et al. Effect of Secondary Treated Effluent on the Movement
of Viruses through a Cypress Dome Soil. J. Environ. Quality, _5:4 (1976)
12. Blannon, J. and Peterson, M. Survival of Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep-
tococci in a Sanitary Landfill. Paper presented at 73rd Annual Meeting
of the American Society of Microbiology, Miami, Florida, May 1973.
13. Boettcher, R. A. Air Classification of Solid Wastes. U.S. EPA Publica-
tion No. SW-30 (1972).
192
-------
14. Bulletin, Basic Elements of Respiratory Protection. Mine Safety Ap-
pliances Company. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
15. Boydd, Gail et al. Methods of Predicting Solid Waste Characteristics.
U.S. EPA Contract No. PH86-68-98, 1971.
16. Breslin, A. Solving Air Contamination Problems Through Diagnostic Air
Sampling. JAIHA, September-October 1966.
17. Brock, T., and Brock, K. Basic Microbiology - With Applications. Prentice
Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973.
18. Cheremisinoff, Paul et al. Industrial Solid Waste Handling and Disposal -
A Special Staff Report. Poll. Eng., June 1974. pp. 19-29.
19. Cimino, Joseph. Health and Safety in the Solid Waste Industry. AJPH,
65:1 January 1975.
20. Collier, John. Diptheria Toxin: Mode of Action and Structure. Bacteriol.
Review, March 1975. pp. 54-85.
21. Control of Domestic Rats and Mice. Department of HEW, Center for Disease
Control, 1976.
22. Cooper, Robert et al. Virus Survival in Solid Waste. Water Resources,
,9, 1975. pp. 733-739.
23. Cox, C. S. Inactivation Kinetics of Some Microorganisms Subject to a
Variety of Stresses. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 31, June 1976. pp.
836-846.
24. Cralley, Lester, ed. et al. Industrial Environmental Health Academic Press
New York, 1972.
25. Davenport, Fred M. Pathogenesis of Influenza. Volume 3. (Unidentified Source)
26. Davis, Bernard et al. Microbiology. Hoeber Medical Division, Harper
and Row Publishing, New York, 1968.
27. Dixon, Fritz et al. Health Aspects of Wastewater Treatment. Water Poll.
Cont. Fed. J., 3j6, August 1964.
28. Donaldson, A. et al. The Survival of Foot and Mouth Disease Virus in Open
Air Conditions. J. Hyg., 74, Cambridge, England, 1975. pp. 409-416.
193
-------
29. Dutka, B. J. Coliforms Are an Inadequate Index of Water Quality. Environ^
Health, 36:1, July/August 1973.
30. Duvall, Philips M. et al. Personal Hivolume Air-Sampling Correlation Par-
ticulates. Environ. Science Technol., 8j8, August 1974. pp. 765-767.
31. Elliot, L. F. et al. Bacteria in the Air of Housed Swine Units. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol., American Society for Microbiology, August 1976.
32. Ellis, J. et al. Fate of Pathogens in Soils Receiving Animal Wastes.
Paper No. 76-2560 presented at the 1976 Winter Session - American
Society of Agricultural Engineers.
33. Enteric Infections. Report of a WHO Expert Committee, World Health Organi-
zation Technical Report Series No. 288, Geneva, 1964.
34. Environmental Health Monitoring Manual, U.S. Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania, 1973. pp. VIII-15 to VIII-17.
35. Epidemiology and Control of Vector-borne Diseases. U.S. Department of
HEW, Center for Disease Control., May 1976.
36. Epidemiology of Chronic Respiratory Diseases: A Literature Review. NTIS
Publication No. PB-237375, August 1974.
37. European Technical Conference on the Control of Infectious Diseases Through
Vaccination Program Number 198. World Health Organization
Report, Geneva, 1960.
38. Expert Committee on Health Statistics, 6th Report. Publication No. 164,
World Health Organization, Geneva, 1959.
39. Expert Committee on Respiratory Diseases, First Report., Publication No.
170., World Health Organization, Geneva, 1959.
40. Fannin, K. F. et al. Airborne Coliphages from Wastewater Treatment Facil-
ities. J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., May 1976. pp. 705-710.
41. Faunal Response to Spray Irrigation of Chlorinated Sewage Effluent. In-
stitute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania
State University, Research Publication No. 87, 1975. p. 58.
42. Fecal Indicator Bacteria Persistence Under Natural Conditions in an
Ice-Covered River. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol., October 1976
194
-------
43. Ffrench, Geoffrey- Occupational Health. Medical and Technical
Press, Lancaster, England, 1964.
44. Fincher, Edward et al. Intramural Sampling of Airborne Microorganisms.
U.S. Department of Health, CDC, Atlanta Georgia.
45. Finkelstein, Harold. Air Pollution Aspects of Biological Aerosols
(Microorganisms). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of
Standards, September 1969.
46. Fyatt, Harry et al. Flies - Public Health Importance and Their Control.
Publication No. 75-8218, Department of HEW, 1975.
47. Gaby, William. Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated with Solid
Waste/Sewage Sludge Mixtures. U.S. EPA Publication No. 670/2-75-023,
Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1975.
48. Gallagher, T. P. et al. The Significance of Numbers of Coliform
Bacteria as an Indicator of Enteric Pathogens. Water Research, 2,
1968. ~
49. Geldrich, E. E. et al. A Study of Pollution Indicators in a Waste-
water Stabilization Pond. Water Poll. Control Fed., 36, 1964.
50. Gerba, Charles et al. Fate of Wastewater Bacteria and Viruses in Soil.
J. Irrig. Drain. Div.. American Society for Civil Engineers, September
1976.
51. Giauge, Robert et al. Characterization of Aerosols in California by
X-ray-Induced X-ray Fluorescence Analysis. Environ. Science Technol.,
,8:5, May 1974. pp. 436-440.
52. Giever, Paul. All About Tape Samplers. Poll. Eng., February 1973.
pp. 38-40.
53. Glysson, Eugene et al. The Microbiological Quality of the Air in Inciner-
ator Environment. Proceedings of the National Incinerator Conference,
1974.
54. Goodlow, Robert et al. Viability and Infectivity of Microorganisms in
Experimental Airborne Infections, Part II - Airborne Organisms. Vol-
ume 2. U.S. Army Chemical Corps, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland.
55. Gregory, P. Airborne Microbes. Seventh Symposium of the Society for
General Microbiology, held at the Imperial College, London, April 1967.
195
-------
56. Gregory, P. H. The Microbiology of the Atmosphere. Leonard Hill Books,
Limited, London, 1961.
57. Grigoryova, L. V. The Problem of Detection of a Virus Aerosol Under
Experimental Conditions (A Russian Study). Vop. Sanit. Bakt. Virus.
Department of Microbiology of the Kiev Institute for the Advance-
ment of Doctors, and the Laboratory of Sanitary Bacteriology and
Virology, of Ukrainian Institute of Communal Hygiene, 1965, pp. 114-119
58. Guide for Respirable Mass Sampling Aerosol Technology Committee. Amer.
Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., American Industrial Hygiene Association, March-
April 1970. pp. 133-134.
59. Gupta, Bhola et al. The Effect of Aerosol Hairspray Inhalation in the
Hamster. J. AIHA, June 1976. pp. 357-360.
60. Hagerty, Joseph and Joseph L. Pavoni. Solid Waste Management.
van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
61. Hansen, Penelope. Residential Paper Recovery, A Municipal Implementation
Guide. U.S. EPA 1975.
62. Hatch, Theodore. Distribution and Deposition of Inhaled Particles In
Respiratory Tract. Amer. J. Public Health. April 1950.
63. Hatch, Theodore et al. Pulmonary Deposition and Retention of Inhaled
Aerosols. Academic Press, New York, 1964.
64. Heldman, D. R. Stochastic Model Describing Bacterial Aerosol Concen-
trations in Enclosed Spaces. Amer. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., May-June 1968.
65. Hers, F. and C. Winkler, ed. Airborne Transmission and Airborne Infec-
tion: Concepts and Methods presented at Vlth International Symposium
on Aerobiology, The Netherlands. John Wiley and Sons, A Halsted
Press Book, New York, 1973. pp. 201, 202, 165.
66. Hickey, John and Parker Reist. Health Significance of Airborne Micro-
organisms from Wastewater Treatment Processes, Parts I and II.
WPCF J., 47:12, December 1975.
(^/•"•^
67. Higgins, I. T. T. Epidemiology of Chronic Respiratory Disease: A
Literature Review. National Technical Information Service, PB-237375,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
68. Hogdahl, Tobias. Solid Waste Transfer Stations - A State-of-the-Art
Report on Systems Incorporating Highway Transportation. U.S. EPA 1973.
196
-------
69. Hollander, Herbert. On-Site Waste Disposal and Energy Recovery. Poll.
,6:1, January 1974. pp. 48-50.
70. Hyslop, N. Observations on Pathogenic Organisms in the Airborne State.
Tropical Animal Health Proceedings, 4, 1972. pp. 28-40.
71. The Industrial Environment - Its Evaluation and Control. U.S. Department
of HEW, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, NIOSH, 1973.
72. International Research Group on Refuse Disposal, Information Bulletin
Nos. 1-12. U.S. Department of HEW-, Public Health Service, November
1956 through September 1961.
73. International Research Group on Refuse Disposal. Hygienic Criteria for
the Evaluation of Refuse Composition. Information Bulletin No.
E3-20, U.S. Department of HEW, Public Health Services, December 1961
through May 1963.
74. Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Zoonoses-Salmonellosis . Second Report,
No. 169. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1959.
75. Katzenelson, E. et al. Dispersion of Enteric Bacteria by Spray Irriga-
tion. WPCF J. . 48:4, April 1976. pp. 710-716.
76. Kemper, Peter et al. The Economics of Refuse Collection. Ballinger
Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.
77. Koren, Herman. Environmental Health and Safety. Pergamon Press, New
York, 1974.
78. Lance, J. C. Fate of Bacteria and Viruses in Sewage Applied to Soil.
Paper No. 76-258, presented at 1976 Winter Meeting - American Society
of Agricultural Engineers.
79. land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluent Design Factors. EPA
Technology Transfer Publication, January 1975.
80. Ledbeter, Joe et al. Air Pollution From Aerobic Waste Treatment.
Water and Sewage Works, January 1964.
81. Ledbetter, Joe et al. Bacterial Emissions from Activated Sludge Units.
Ind. Med. Surg., February 1965.
82. Ledbetter, Joe et al. Health Hazards from Wastewater Treatment Prac-
tices. Environmental Letters 4(3), 225-232, 1973.
197
-------
83. Lee, Douglas, ed. Environmental Factors in Respiratory Disease. Aca-
demic Press, New York, 1972
84. Lefler, Eli et al. Virus Survival in Water and Wastewater. Israel J.
Med. Sciences, 5, May 1975.
f^^
85. Lighthart, Bruce et al. Estimation of Viable Airborne Microbes Down-
wind from a Point Source. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., May 1976.
pp. 700-704.
86. Lippmann, Morton et al. A Multistage Aerosol Sampler for Extended Sam-
pling Intervals. AIHA Journal, November/December 1970.
87. Lippmann, Morton. Respirable Dust Sampling. AIHA Journal, March/April
1970. pp. 138-159.
88. Love, Gary et al. Potential Health Impact of Sludge Disposal. Pro-
ceedings of 1975 National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management
and Disposal on the Land.
89. Lowe, Robert. Energy Recovery from Waste. U.S. EPA, 1973.
90. Mahar, H. Evaluation of Selected Methods for Chemical and Biological
Testing of Industrial Particulate Emissions. U.S. EPA Publication No.
600/2-76-137. Washington, District of Columbia, May 1976.
91. Man's Health and the Environment - Some Research Needs. Report of the
Task Force on Research Planning in Environmental Health Science. De-
partment of HEW, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
March 1970. pp. 25-39, 41-68, 129-143.
92. Mercer, Thomas. Aerosol Technology in Hazard Evaluation. Academic Press
New York, 1973.
93. Milipore Experiments in Environmental Microbiology. Milipore Corpora-
tion, Bedford, Massachussetts, 1969-
94. Monto, Arnold. The Tecumseh Study of Respiratory Illness. Amer. J.
Epidemic 1., 9^:5, May 1973.
95. Napolitano, P.J. et al. Microbial Content of Air Near Sewage Treatment
Plants. Water and Sewage Works. September 1976.
96. Nelson, Kenneth et al. Capture of Aerosol Particles by Spherical
Collectors. JAPCA, £:8, August 1974.
198
-------
97- New Andersen 2000 Disposable Air Sampler. Andersen 2000, Inc., Atlanta,
Georgia. Bulletin.
98. Newton, K. G. et al. Coliforms from Hides and Meats. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol., 33jl, January 1977.
99. Olin, John et al. High Volume Air Samplers. Poll. Eng.. January 1975,
pp. 30-32.
100. Operating Manual for Andersen 2000, Inc., Viable (Microbial) Particle
Samplers. Andersen 2000, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.
101. Overcash, M. R. Research and Development Needs Related to the Patho-
gens in Pretreatment-Land Application System. Paper No. 76-2561
presented at 1976 Winter Meeting American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, December 1976.
102. Pahiand, Fredrick, and Richard Engelbrecht. Impact of Sanitary Land-
fills - An Overview of Environmental Factors and Control Alternatives
A Report. American Paper Inst., N.Y., L976.
103. Pathogens Associated with Solid Waste Processing - A Progress Report.
Project No. RS-03-68-16, U.S. EPA, 1971.
104. Peterson, Carl. Biological Sampling System Operating Principles,
Operating Instructions and Design Considerations. Final Report
7117 prepared by Environmental Research Corporation, St. Paul,
Minnesota, July 1971.
105. Peterson, Mirdza. Methods for Bacteriological Examination of Solid
Waste and Waste Effluents. National environmental Research Center-
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1971.
106. Peterson, Mirdza. Methods for Bacteriological Examination of Solid
Wastes and Waste Effluents. National Environmental Research Center,
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972.
107. Peterson, Mirdza. Microbiological Evaluation of Incinerator Operations.
Appl. Microbiol., July 1969. pp. 8-13.
108. Peterson, Mirdza. The Occurrence and Survival of Viruses in Municipal
Waste. Ph.D. Thesis, Environmental Health Science, University of
Michigan, 1971.
109. Peterson, Mirdza. Soiled Disposable Diapers: A Potential Source of
Viruses. AJPH. 64;9, September, 1974.
199
-------
110. Philips, Charles et al. Sampling Microbiological Aerosols in the
Lower Atmosphere. Proceedings of the Atmospheric Biology Conference,
1965.
111. Physical Chemical and Microbiological Methods of Solid Waste Testing.
National Environmental Research Center, NTIS Publication No. Pb-220-
497, U.S. EPA, May 1973.
112. Plotkin, Stanley et al. Transmission of Viruses by the Water Route.
Interscience Publishers, New York, 1967.
113. Pollution of Subsurface Water by Sanitary Landfill. Volume 1, Report
No. SW-12rg, U.S. EPA, 1971.
114. Proceedings of the Surgeon General's Conference on Solid Waste Manage-
ment for Metropolitan Washington. U.S. Department of HEW, Public
Health Service, July 19-20, 1967.
115. Progress Report on Recycling. Published by the Committee of Tin Mill
Products Producers, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington,
District of Columbia, 1975.
116. Reneau, R. et al. Movement of Coliform Bacteria from Septic Tank
Effluent Through Selected Coastal Plains Soil of Virginia. J. Environ.
Quality, 4:1, 1975.
117. Renshaw, Frank et al. Use of Midget Impingers and Membrane Filters
for Determining Particle Counts. J. AIHA, March 1966.
118. Report on the Investigation of Leaching of the Sanitary Landfill.
State Water Pollution Control Board, Sacramento, California, 1954.
119. Reported Mortality and Morbidity in the United States. Annual Sup-
plement Summary 1975, Center for Disease Control, Public Health
Service, U.S. Department of HEW, August 1975.
120. Respiratory Diseases: Task Force Report on Problems, Research Approaches,
Need: The Lung Program. National Heart and Lung Institute, U.S.
Department of HEW, Publication No. (NH)73-432, October 1972.
121. Rich, Walter et al. Respiratory Protection. Ann Arbor Science Pub-
lication, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975.
122. Riley, Richard et al. Airborne Infection, Transmission, and Control.
The McMillan Company, New York, 1961. pp. 52-56, 68, 69, 72-73.
200
-------
123. Riley, Richard. Airborne Infections. Amer. J. Med., 57,> September
1974, p. 468.
124. Runkle and Philips. Microbial Contamination and Control Facilities.
van Nostrand Reinhold Company,- New York, 1969.
125. Sanitation in the Control of Insects and Rodents of Public Health
Importance. U.S. Department of HEW, Center for Disease Control,
July 1975.
126. Sanks, Robert et al. Land Treatment and Disposal of Municipal and
Industrial Wastewaters. Ann Arbor Science, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michi-
gan, 1976.
127. Sawyer, William. Hospital Airborn Bacteria as Estimated by the
Andersen Sampler Versus the Gravity Settling Culture Plate.
Amer. J. Clinical Pathol., 5£:5, November, 1972.
128. Second Report to Congress, Resources Recovery and Source Reduction.
U.S. EPA Publication No. SW 122, 1974.
129. Shell, G. et al. Composting Dewatered Sewage Sludge. U.S. Depart-
ment of HEW, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Report No. SW 120,
1969.
130. Showwater, David et al. How to Make OSHA Work for You. Ann Arbor
Publishing Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1972.
131. Shzu, Lo et al. Stability of Human Enteroviruses in Estuarine and
Marine Wastes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 32:2, August 1976.
pp. 245-249.
132. Silver, I.H. ed. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium
Held at the University of Sussex, England. Academic Press, London,
September, 1969, printed in 1970.
133. Sittig, Marshal. Pollution Detection and Monitoring Handbook. Noyes
Data Corporation, 1974.
134. A Slagging Pyrolysis Conversion of Refuse to Energy (CRE). Reprint
from the Conference Paper of the CRE, Montreux, Switzerland,
November 3-5, 1975.
135. Slote, Lawrence. Viral Aerosols. J. Environ. Health., 38j5, April
1976.
201
-------
136. Sobsey, M. K. et al. Studies on the Survival and Fate of Enteric
Viruses in Experimental Model of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
and Leachate. Appl. Microbiol., 3£:4, October 1975.
137. Solid Waste/Disease Relationships: A Literature Survey. U.S. Depart-
ment of HEW, Public Health Services.
138. Solid Waste Disposal and Control. Report of a WHO Expert Committee,
World Health Organization, Geneva, 1971.
139. Solid Waste Handling in Hospitals. Reprint from Public Health Service
Publication No. 930-C-16, U.S. Department of HEW, 1968.
140. Solid Waste Transfer Station - A State-of-the-Art Report on Systems
Incorporating Highway Transportation. Report No. SW-99, U.S. EPA,
1973.
141. Sopier, Charles et al. A Study of Bacterial Aerosols at a Waste-
water Plant. WPCF Journal. 48:10, October 1976. pp. 2367-2379.
142. Spino, Donald. Bacteriological Study of the New Orleans East Incin-
erator. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Monitoring, Solid Waste
Research, 1971.
143. Surveying Hazards in the Occupational Environment. Statement by
Council of Occupational Health, Archives of Environmental Health,
J.O, January 1965.
144. Turner, Alvis, G, and Hill. Calibration of the Andersen 2000 Dis-
posable Air Sampler. Department of Environmental Sciences and
Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
145. Van Donsel, D. et al. Relationship of Salmonellae to Fecal Coli-
forms in Bottom Sediments. Water Research, ^5, 1971.
146. Van Donsel, D. et al. Seasonal Variations in Survival of Indicator
Bacteria in Soil and Their Contribution to Storm-water Pollution.
Appl. Microbiol., 15:5, November 1967.
147. Webb, S. J. Factors Affecting the Viability of Airborne Bacteria
Bacteria Aerosolized from Distilled Water. Canadian J. Microbiol. ,
I, 1959.
148. Welling, F. M. et al. Pathogenic Viruses May Thwart Land Disposal.
Water and Wastewater Engineering , March 1975. p. 71.
202
-------
149. Welling, F. M. et al. Consideration in Land Disposal of Sewage Ef-
fluents and Sludge. Florida Scientist, 38:4, 1975.
150. White et al. Improved Large-Volume Sampler for the Collection of
Bacterial Cells from Aerosols. Appl. Microbiol., March 1975. p.
335-338.
151. Williams, Collins et al. Monitoring Employee Exposure to Hazardous
Airborne Dust. Poll. Eng., October 1974.
152. Wirenius, John et al. Safely Handling Solid Wastes. Poll. Eng.,
December 1972. pp. 34-35.
153. Wolf, Harold et al. Sampling Microbiological Aerosols - Public
Health Monograph: 60. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. Public Health Service.
154. Xodar Bulletin, Xodar Corporation, Lincoln, R.I. - UV Water Sterili-
zers.
203
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-152
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOr*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Assessment of Bacteria and Virus Emissions at a Refuse
Derived Fuel Plant and Other Waste Handling Facilities
5. REPORT DATE
August 1978 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
MRI Project No: 4033-L
7. AUTHOR(S)
D.E. Fiscus, P.G. Gorman, M.P- Schrag, L.J. Shannon
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DC618
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No: 68-02-1871
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Carlton C. Wiles (513) 684-7881
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of work carried out by Midwest Research Insti-
tute for the Environmental Protection Agency to determine relative levels of bac-
teria and virus in order to compare these levels at the St. Louis Refuse Processing
Plant with those at four other types of waste handling facilities (i.e., an incin-
erator, a waste transfer station, a wastewater treatment plant, and a landfill).
This work also included testing to determine bacterial removal efficiency of the
Environmental Protection Agency mobile fabric filter (baghouse) operating on a slip-
stream drawoff of the exhaust duct from the air classifier at the St. Louis Refuse
Processing Plant.
The results showed that airborne bacterial levels, both in-plant and at the
property line, are generally higher for the refuse processing plant than for the
other types of waste handling facilities that were tested. Fabric filter system
applied to a primary source of dust emission (the air density separation exhaust)
at the refuse processing plant can significantly reduce particulate and bacteria
emissions.
|a. DESCRIPTORS
|
Air pollution
Bacteria
Microorganisms
Refuse disposal
Viruses
Wastes
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air emissions
Ambient air
Baghouse
Particulates
Pollution control
Refuse derived fuels
Resource recovery
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)'
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
216
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
204
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 — 657-060/1493
------- |