United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
invironmentai Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Siudge:
r^ ^y
Zinc
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR ZINC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE . 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfill ing 2-2
Incineration 2-3
Ocean Disposal 2-3
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR ZINC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of zinc (Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-2
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-5
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-10
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-14
Landfilling ' 3-23.
Index of groundwater concentration increment resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-23
Index of human toxicity resulting from groundwater
contamination (Index 2) ....» 3-29
Incineration 3-31
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-31
Index of human toxicity resulting from inhalation
of incinerator emissions (Index 2) 3-33
Ocean Disposal 3-35
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR ZINC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-3
Food 4-3
Human Effects 4-3
Ingestion 4-3
Inhalation 4-5
Plant Effects 4-6
Phytotoxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Aquatic Life Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-7
Soil Biota Effects 4-7
Toxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-7
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-7
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
ZINC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE .A-l
ill
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. Zinc (Zn) was initially identified as being of
potential concern when sludge is landspread (including distribution and
marketing), placed in a landfill, or incinerated.* This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether Zn
poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment when sludge is
disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge •*• soil •+ plant uptake -*• animal uptake -*• human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to
represent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty
has been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most
cases is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential
hazard, depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on. information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
The "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Section 3
are summarized in 'Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations may "change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution and marketing, landfilling
and incineration practices are included in this profile. The calcula-
tion formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The indices
are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR ZINC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Zinc
Landspreading of sludge is expected to increase the soil
concentration of Zn; this increase may be large when sludge
containing a high concentration of Zn is applied at high rate
(see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
The concentration of Zn in sludge-amended soil is not expected
to exceed the concentration which is toxic to soil biota (see
Index 2).
The expected concentration of Zn in sludge-amended soil will
increase the toxic hazard for predators of soil biota as the
concentration of Zn in sludge and the application rate
increase (see Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
A phytotoxic hazard due to Zn in sludge-amended soil is
expected only when sludge with a high concentration of Zn is
applied at a high cumulative rate (500 mt/ha) (see Index 4).
The tissue concentration of Zn in plants grown in sludge-
amended soil is expected to increase as the concentration of
Zn in sludge and the application rate increase (see Index 5).
The increases in plant tissue concentration indicated by Index
5 when sludge with a high concentration of Zn is applied at
the highest cumulative rate (500 mt/ha) are not expected to
occur because they exceed the maximum factors permitted by
phytotoxicity (see Index 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
The concentration of Zn in plant tissues is not expected to
increase above the level which is toxic to animals except when
sludges with the worst Zn concentration are applied at the
highest cumulative rate (500 mt/ha). However, plant tissue
concentration exceeding the toxic level may be precluded by
phytotoxicity (see Index 7).
2-1
-------
Landspreading of sludge is not expected to pose a toxic hazard
due to Zn for grazing animals which incidentally ingest sludge
(see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
For toddlers, a health threat due to the consumption of Zn in
plant tissues is expected only when sludges with the worst
concentrations of Zn are applied to soil at a high cumulative
rate (500 mt/ha). However, this threat may be precluded by
the toxicity of Zn to plants. For adults, a health threat due
to Zn in consumed plants is expected when typical sludge is
applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha) and when sludges with a
worst-Zn concentration are applied at 50 mt/ha or greater.
However, the health threat posed by Zn when the worst sludge
is applied at the rate of 500 mt/ha may be precluded by phyto-
toxicity (see Index 9).
A health threat for toddlers and adults due to Zn in animal
products derived from animals which had fed upon plants grown
in sludge-amended soil may occur only when sludges with the
worst Zn concentration are applied at a high cumulative rate
(500 mt/ha). However, at this Zn concentration and applica-
tion rate., phytotoxicity may preclude any human health hazard
(see Index 10).
Landspreading of sludge is not expected to pose a health
threat due to Zn for humans who consume animal products
derived from animals which had incidentally ingested sludge
(see Index 11).
Zn in sludge or sludge-amended soil is not expected to pose a
health hazard to persons who may ingest either (see Index 12).
Landspreading of sludge may pose a threat to human health due
to Zn when typical sludge is applied at a high rate (500
mt/ha) and when sludge with a worst-case Zn concentration is
applied at any rate (5 mt/ha or greater). The human health
hazard posed when the worst sludge is applied at a high rate
(500 mt/ha) may be partially precluded by its toxicity to
plants which would otherwise contribute Zn to the human diet
(see Index 13).
II. LANDPILLING
Landfilling of sludge may increase the groundwater concentration of
Zn at the well. This increase may be substantial at a disposal
site with all worst-case conditions (see Index 1). Groundwater
contamination resulting from landfilled sludge is not expected to
pose a health risk due to Zn except when all worst-case conditions
prevail at a disposal site (see Index 2).
2-2
-------
III. INCINERATION
The concentration of Zn in air is expected to increase when sludge
is incinerated. The factors by which the air concentration of Zn
exceeds background levels increase as the concentration of Zn in
sludge and the sludge feed rate increase (see Index 1). Inhalation
of emissions from the incineration of sludge is not expected to
pose a human health threat due to Zn (see Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduc.t such an assessment for this option in the future.
2-3
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR ZINC
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Zinc
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index I)
a. Explanation - Shows degree of elevation of pollutant
concentration in soil to which sludge is applied.
Calculated for sludges with typical (median if
available) and worst (95th percentile if available)
pollutant concentrations, respectively, for each of
four sludge loadings. Applications (as dry matter)
are chosen and explained as follows:
0 mt/ha No sludge applied. Shown for all indices
for purposes of comparison, to distin-
guish hazard posed by sludge from pre-
existing hazard posed by background
levels or other sources of the pollutant.
5 mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., Loading typical of agricultural
practice, supplying s$Q kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
50 mt/ha Higher application as may be used on
public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after years of
application.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is dis-
tributed and retained within the upper 15 cm of soil
(i.e., the plow layer), which has an approximace
mass (dry matter) of 2 x 10-3 mt/ha.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 677.6 ug/g DW
Worst 4580 Ug/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the median and 95th percentile values
statistically derived from sludge concentration
data from a survey of 40 publicly-owned
3-1
-------
treatment works (POTWs) (U.S. EPA, 1982). (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 44 yg/g DW
Shacklette et al. (1978, as cited in Gough et
al., 1979) reported a geometric mean of 44 Ug/g
for U.S. soils. Holmgren (1985) reported that
U.S. cropland soils had a median Zn concentra-
tion of 54 yg/g. Studies of Ohio, Minnesota,
and Maryland soils found mean Zn concentrations
of 75, 60, and 211 Ug/g, respectively. The
concentration of 44 Ug/g was chosen as a repre-
sentative value since it is an average for
soils throughout the United States rather than
a regional average. (See Section 4, pp. 4-1
and 4-2.)
d. Index 1 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0.5 50 500
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.4
3.5
3.9
22
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds background when
sludge is applied. (A value of 2 indicates concen-
tration is doubled; a value of 0.5 indicates
reduction by one-half.)
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
expected to increase the soil concentration of Zn;
this increase may be large when sludge containing a
high concentration of Zn is applied at a high race.
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with soil concentration shown to
be toxic for some organism.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
3-2
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 44 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) =
1100 Ug/g DW
Data concerning soil concentrations of Zn toxic
to soil biota were limited. One study reported
that soil containing 1100 Ug/g was toxic to
worms (Van Rhee, 1975, as cited in Beyer et
al., 1982). Another study reported that appli-
cation of fly ash to soil, resulting in a soil
Zn level of 200 Ug/g, caused reduction of C02
evolution by microorganisms. This effect, how-
ever, could not be attributed to Zn alone since
fly ash may contain other heavy metals. The
value of 1100 Ug/g was chosen since this value
appeared to represent a concentration producing
Zn toxicity. (See Section 4, p. 4-20.)
d. Index 2 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.040
0.040
0.041
0.050
0.054
0.14
0.16
0.86
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds - toxic concentra-
tion. Value >1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The concentration of Zn in
sludge-amended soil is not expected to exceed the
concentration which is toxic to soil biota.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a.. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
3-3
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in tox-
icity to form used to demonstrate toxic effects in
predator. Effect level in predator may be estimated
from that in a different species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 44 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
2.95 ug/g tissue DW (yg/g soil DW)"1
The uptake slope of 2.95 was calculated based
on data from a study in which earthworms were
raised in soil amended with sludges (Beyer et
al., 1982). The slope represents an average
for 4 locations. At each location, Zn levels
were measured in soil and earthworms taken from
sludge-amended and untreated soils. A similar
uptake slope (2.26) was calculated for earth-
worms found in soils near highways (Gish and
Christensen, 1973). The uptake slope of 2.95
was chosen to estimate a worst case and because
it represents -an uptake associated wich sludge
application. (See Section 4, p. 4-21.)
iv. Background concentration in soil biota (BB) =
228 Ug/g DW
The background concentration for soil biota was
obtained from data presented in Beyer et al.
(1982). The value represents the mean concen-
tration for earthworms grown in unamended soils
at 4 locations. (See Section 4, p. 4-21.)
v. Feed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
125 ug/g DW
A bird species was selected as a model earth-
worm predator. A dietary concentration of
125 Ug/g as ZnCC>3 caused a decrease in growth,
hemoglobin, and hematocrit in Japanese quail
(Hamilton et al., 1979). The value for
Japanese quail was chosen to represent the most
sensitive species for which data were availa-
ble. Chickens and turkeys were less sensitive
3-4
-------
with no effects observed below 400 Ug/g for
chickens and 2000 Ug/g for turkeys. A- recom-
mended maximum tolerable level of 1000 Ug/g in
the diet has been set by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS, 1980). (See Section 4,
p. 4-18.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 1.8 1.9 2.2 4.8
Worst 1.8 2.1 4.4 23
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is toxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The expected concentration
of Zn in sludge-amended soil will increase the toxic
hazard for predators of soil biota as the concentra-
tion of Zn in sludge and the application rate
increase.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with the lowest soil concentra-
tion shown to be toxic for some plant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in .soil
(BS) = 44 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
224 Ug/g DW
3-5
-------
This value was chosen to represent the lowest
soil concentration at which adverse effects in
plants were observed. The value represents the
soil concentration at which a 33 percent reduc-
tion in the yield of lettuce was observed
(Mitchell et al., 1978). In this study, Zn-
enriched sludge was applied to soil of pH 5.7.
The amount of Zn added, over and above the
original sludge concentration, was 160 Ug/g-
Since the sludge, containing 2036 Ug/g of Zn,
was applied to the soil at a rate of 1 percent,
the amount of Zn due to the unamended sludge
was 20 Ug/g. Assuming a background Zn concen-
tration of 44 Ug/g for soil, the total Zn in
the soil would be 160 + 20 + 44 = 224 Ug/g.
Similar concentrations of Zn in soil with a
higher pH (7.5) were less toxic to plants.
Therefore, the choice of the value associated
with a soil pH of 5.7 was a conservative
choice. (See Section 4, p. 4-10.)
Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.27
0.69
0.76
4.2
e. -Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic" concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A phytotoxic hazard due to
Zn in sludge-amended soil is expected only when
sludge with a high concentration of Zn is applied at
a high cumulative rate (500 mt/ha).
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index 5)
a. Explanation r Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tion increment in plants grown in sludge-amended
.soil, using uptake data for the most responsive
plant species in the following categories: (1)
plants included in the U.S. human diet; and. (2)
plants serving as animal feed. Plants used vary
according to availability of data.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes a linear uptake
• slope. Neglects the effect of time; i.e., cumula-
tive loading over several years is treated equiva-
lently to single application of the same amount.
3-6
-------
The uptake factor chosen for the animal diet is
assumed to be representative of all crops in the
animal diet. See also Index 6 for consideration of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 44 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Conversion factor between soil concentration
and application rate (CO) = 2 kg/ha
Assumes pollutant is distributed and retained
within upper 15 cm of soil (i.e. plow Layer)
which has an approximate mass (dry matter) of
2 x 103.
iv. Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
Animal diet:
Corn silage 0.71 Ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)"1
Human diet:
Swiss chard 2.30 Ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)"1
Corn silage was chosen to represent a crop fed
to livestock. Swiss chard was chosen to repre-
sent plants consumed by humans. The value
chosen for corn silage (0.71) was obtained from
data presented by Council for Agricultural
Science and Technology (CAST) (1980) for a
field study in which sludge was applied to soil
with resulting Zn application rates of 0 to
360 kg/ha. Uptake rates for corn stover and
corn leaves varied from 0.040 (Hinesly et al.,
1982) to 0.97 (CAST, 1980). The value for corn
silage was chosen conservatively to represent
the high end of the range of uptake slopes.
The slope for Swiss chard was derived from a
field study (Furr et al., 1976) where sludge
was applied to a neutral soil, and was nearly
the highest slope observed for any crop
intended for human consumption. The only
higher slopes, values of 2.69 and 3.97 for let-
tuce and Swiss chard, respectively, were from
unlimited soils (pH - 4.5 to 5.9) receiving
sludge for several years. All other slopes for
3-7
-------
crops consumed by humans were <2.0; thus Che
choice of 2.30 is conservative. (See Section
4, pp. 4-12 to 4-15.)
v. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Corn silage 24 Ug/g DW
Human diet:
Swiss chard 92 Ug/g DW
The background Zn concentrations in plant tis-
sues were those presented in the studies used
to calculate the uptake slopes for corn silage
(CAST, 1980) and Swiss chard (Furr et al.,
1976). (See Section 4, p. 4-14.)
d. Index 5 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Diet Concentration 05 50 500
Animal
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.9
7.5
8.5
55a
Human Typical 1.0 1.1 1.8 7.3
Worst 1.0 1.6 6.5 46a
aValue exceeds comparable value of Index 6; therefore may
be precluded by phytotoxicity.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
plant tissue concentration is expected to increase
above background when grown in sludge—amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The tissue concentration of
Zn in plants grown in sludge-amended soil is
expected to increase as the concentration of Zn in
sludge and the application rate increase.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Explanation - Compares maximum plant tissue concen-
tration associated with phytotoxicity with back-
ground concentration in same plant tissue. The pur-
pose is- to determine whether the plant concentration
increments calculated in Index 5 for high applica-
tions are truly realistic, or whether such increases
would be precluded by phytotoxicity.
3-8
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue con-
centration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytotoxicity (PP)
Animal diet:
Corn forage 587 Ug/g DW
Human diet:
Lettuce shoots 1265 Ug/g DW
Substantial tissue concentration increases of
Zn have been experimentally observed, but it is
difficult to identify the highest concentration
which can occur without killing the plant (see
Table 4-1). In corn forage, levels as high as
1025 to 2302 pg/g are associated with a yield
reduction of only 51 to 58% (Mortvedt and
Giordano, 1975; Giordano et al., 1975); there-
fore, plants with concentrations this high
could conceivably be fed to animals. However,
these values were obtained with ZnSO^ added to
soil. When sludge was added to soil, tissue
concentrations were not as high (241 to
508 Ug/g) and yield was also not reduced, pre-
venting an upper limit from being identified;
However, in a pot study with metal-enriched
sludge, yield of corn tops was reduced at a
concentration just slightly higher, 587 Ug/g
(Cunningham et al., 1975a). This will be con-
sidered the best estimate of the maximum tissue
concentration associated with phytotoxicity in
corn forage.
No data were available to indicate the maximum
tissue concentration associated with toxicity
in Swiss chard. Lettuce was chosen as a repre-
sentative plant since it is also a leafy vege-
table." A tissue concentration of 1265 Ug/g was
associated with a reduction in yield of 55 per-
cent in a pot study using metal-enriched sludge
(Mitchell et al., 1978). (See Section 4,
pp. 4-8 to 4-11.)
3-9
-------
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Corn forage 26 jag/g DW
Human diet:
Lettuce 82 pg/g DW
Background tissue concentrations for corn
forage and lettuce were those reported by
Cunningham et al. (1975a) and Mitchell et al.
(1978), respectively, in the studies reporting
phytotoxic effects. (See Section 4, p. 4-10.)
d. Index 6 Values
Plant Index Value
Corn forage 23
Lettuce 15
e. Value Interpretation - Value gives the maximum
factor of tissue concentration increment (above
background) which is permitted by phytotoxicity.
Value is compared with values for the same or simi-
lar plant tissues given by Index 5. The lowest of
the two indices indicates Che maximal increase which
can occur at any given application rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The increases in plant
tissue concentration indicated by Index- 5 when
sludge with a high concentration of Zn is applied at
the highest cumulative rate (500 mt/ha) are not
expected to occur because they exceed the maximum
factors permitted by phytotoxicity.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge-amended
soil with food concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does, not con-
sider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
3-10
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-8).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
24 yg/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-8).
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 300 ug/g DW
NAS (1980) set the maximum tolerable diet level
for sheep at 300 ppm. This level was based on
findings that 750 ppm Zn fed to sheep during
pregnancy caused a severe decrease in viability
of offspring while 150 ppm Zn had no adverse
effect (Campbell and Mills, 1979 as cited in
NAS, 1980). No intermediate doses were
reported in that study; however, Ott et al.
(1966a and 1966b as cited in NAS, 1980)
reported no adverse effects in sheep fed diets
containing 500 ppm for 10 weeks. For cattle,
NAS (1980) recommended limiting intake to
500 ppm based on a marked decline in the homeo-
static control of Zn in cattle fed 600 ppm.
Thus, 300 ppm was chosen conservatively to rep-
resent a feed concentration coxic to
herbivorous animals. (See Section 4, pp. 4-16
to 4-18.)
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.080
0.080
0.087
0.13
0.15
0.60
0.68
4.4a
aValue may be precluded by phytotoxicity; see
Indices 5 and 6.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected plant tissue concentration exceeds that
which is toxic to animals. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.
3-11
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The concentration of Zn in
plant tissues is not expected to increase above the
Level which is toxic to animals except when sludges
with the worst Zn concentration are applied at the
highest cumulative rate (500 mt/ha). However, plant
tissue concentration exceeding the toxic level may
be precluded by phytotoxicity.
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
a grazing animal's diet resulting from sludge adhe-
sion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the die-
tary toxic threshold concentration for a grazing
animal.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that sludge is
applied over and adheres to growing forage, or that
sludge constitutes 5 percent of dry matter in the
grazing animal's diet, and that pollutant form in
sludge is equally bioavaiLable and toxic as form
used to demonstrate toxic effects. Where no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 677.6 Ug/g DW
Worst 4580 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 44 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
Studies of sludge adhesion to growing forage
following applications of liquid or filter-cake
sludge show that when 3 to. 6 mt/ha of sludge
solids is applied, clipped forage initially
consists of up to 30 percent sludge on a dry-
weight basis (Chaney and Lloyd, 1979; Boswell,
1975). However, this contamination diminishes
gradually with time and growth, and generally
is not detected in the following year's growth.
For example, where pastures amended at 16 and
3-12
-------
32 mt/ha were grazed throughout a growing
season (168 days), average sludge content of
forage was only 2.14 and A.75 percent, respec-
tively (Bertrand et at., 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals may receive
long-term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained on a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die-back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep -during winter
months when forage, is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iv. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 300 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.0073
0.0073
0.11
0.76
0.11
0.76
0.11
0.76
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
tration. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may
exist for grazing animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to pose a toxic hazard due to Zn. for
grazing animals which incidentally ingest sludge.
3-13
-------
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Explanation - Calculates dietary intake expected to
result from consumption of crops grown on sludge-
amended soil. Compares dietary intake with accept-
able daily intake (ADI) of the pollutant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate as the most responsive plant(s) (as chosen
in Index 5). Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for a human diet
(see Section 3, p. 3-8).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
92 ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the human diet (see Sec-
tion 3, p. 3-8).
iii. Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 g/day
Adult 205 g/day '
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by vege-
tarians (Ryan et al., 1982); vegetarians were
chosen to represent the worst case. The value
for toddlers is based on the FDA Revised Total
Diet (Pennington, 1983) and food groupings
Listed by the U.S. EPA (1984a). Dry weights
for individual food groups were estimated .from
composition data given by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) (1975). These values
were composited to estimated dry-weight
consumption of all non-fruit crops.
3-14
-------
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 7800 yg/day
Adult 17989 Ug/day
An average daily human dietary intake of
17989 pig/day for adults was reported based on
FDA Market Basket studies for fiscal year (FY)
1977 (FDA, 1980a). Values for fiscal years
1974, 1975, and 1976 were 18600, 18400, and
19100, respectively. An average daily intake
of 7800 pg/day for toddlers was also obtained
from FDA Market Basket Studies for FY 1977
(FDA, 1980b). Values for fiscal years 1975 and
1976 were 8300 and 9500 ug/day, respectively.
Data for FY 1977 were chosen to represent the
most current data immediately available. (See
Section 4, p. 4-3.)
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
50000 ug/day
No ADI for Zn has been established by U.S. EPA,
WHO or FDA. The U.S. recommended daily allow-
ance (RDA) for Zn is 15 mg for adults (FDA,
1980a). Higher levels have been administered
for therapeutic purposes, and copper deficiency
has been induced by long-term treatment (pre-
sumably of adults) with 150 mg/day over and
above the normal dietary intake (presumably
18 mg/day) (U.S. EPA, 1980). The effect was
not serious and was readily reversible. Since
Zn is an essential element, the ADI should be
established near the center of the range
defined by the RDA (15 mg/day) and the maximum
tolerable level (168 mg/day) (45 FR 79356).
The center of this range, using a logarithmic
scale (45 FR 79353) is 50 mg/day,- or
50,000 ug/day. This ADI is assumed to be
adequately protective of children as well as
adults. (See Section 4, p. 4-4.)
3-15
-------
d. Index 9 Values
Sludge Application
Race (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.23
0.26
0.91
1.0
6.4a
Adult Typical 0.36 0.39 0.65 2.7
Worst 0.36 0.57 2.4 17a
aValue may be precluded by phytotoxicity; see
Indices 5 and 6.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected intake exceeds ADI. Value > 1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the
null index value at 0 mt/ha indicates the degree to
which any hazard is due to sludge application, as
opposed to pre-existing dietary sources.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - For toddlers, a health
threat due to the consumption of Zn in plant tissues
is expected only when sludges with the worst concen-
trations of Zn are applied to soil at a high cumula-
tive rate (500 mt/ha). However, this threat may be
precluded by the toxicity of Zn to plants. For
adults, a health threat due to Zn in consumed plants
is expected when typical sludge is applied at a high
rate (500 mt/ha) and when sludges with a worst Zn
concentration are applied at 50 mt/ha or greater.
However, the health threat posed by Zn when the
worst sludge is applied at the rate of 500 mt/ha may
be precluded by phytotoxicity.
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal prod-
ucts derived from domestic animals given feed grown
on sludge-amended soil (crop or pasture land) but
not directly contaminated by adhering sludge. Com-
pares expected intake with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. The uptake slope of pol-
lutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed to be
representative of all animal tissue comprised by the
daily human dietary intake (DA) used. Divides
3-16
-------
possible variations in dietary intake into two
categories: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-8).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
24 yg/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-8).
iii. Uptake slope of' pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 1.10 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
The uptake slope represents uptake of Zn in the
muscle tissue of sheep fed sludge-grown corn
silage (Heffron et al., 1980). Concentrations
in feed ranged from 25.6 to 64.8 Ug/g- This
uptake was selected as the animal tissue most
representative of those in the human diet. An
uptake slope of 0.099 was calculated for kidney
of swine from data presented by Osuna et al.
(1981); however, this tissue does not represent
a normal component of the human diet. (See
Section 4, p. 4-19.)
iv. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 51.1 g/day
Adult 133 g/day
The intake values presented, which comprise
meat, fish, poultry, and eggs, are derived from
the FDA Revised Total Diet (Pennington, 1983),
food groupings listed by U.S. EPA (1984a), and
food composition data listed by USDA (1975).
Adult intake of meats is based on males 25 to
30 years of age, the age-sex group with the
highest daily intake (Pennington, 1983).
3-17
-------
d.
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 7800 pg/day
Adult 17989 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
50000 Mg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
Index 10 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.33
0.36
l.&a
Adult
Typical
Worst
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.41
0.42
0.82
0.89
4.1a
aValue may be precluded by phytotoxicity; see
Indices 5 and 6.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A health threat for tod-
dlers and adults due to Zn in animal products
derived from animals which had fed upon plants grown
in sludge-amended soil may occur only when sludges
with the worst Zn concentration are applied at a
high cumulative rate (500 mt/ha). However, at this
Zn concentration and application rate, phytotoxicity
may preclude any human health hazard.
Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal prod-
ucts derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed for
3-18
-------
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at Che
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over three
years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Sheep muscle
See Section 3, p. 3-17.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 44 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 677.6 ug/g DW
Worst 4850 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (CS)
= 5%
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
v. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 1.10 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-17.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 35.95 g/day
Adult 104.3 g/day
The FDA Revised Total Diet (Pennington, 1983)
lists typical daily intake for meat in wet
weight for various age-sex classes. This value
was converted to dry weight based on data from
USDA (1975). It is assumed that daily intake
of sheep muscle tissue is equal to the typical
values for meats.
3-19
-------
d.
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 7800 ug/day
Adult 17989 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
50000 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
Index 11 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.16
0,16
0.18
0.34
0.18
0.34
0.18
0.34
Adult
Typical
Worst
0.36
0.36
0.44
0.89
0.44
0.89
0.44
0.89
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to pose a health threat due to Zn for
humans who consume animal products derived from
animals which had incidentally ingested sludge.
4. Index of Human Toxicity from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
the diet of a child who ingests soil (pica child)
amended with sludge. Compares this amount with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If an ADI specific for a child is not
available, this index assumes that the ADI for a
10 kg child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult.
It is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the ADI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
3-20
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 677.6 Ug/g DW
Worst 4850 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 44 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)
Pica child 5 g/day
Adult 0.02 g/day
The value of 5 g/day for a pica child is a
worst-case estimate employed by U.S. EPA's
Exposure Assessment Group (U.S. EPA, 1983a).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA (1984a).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 7800 ug/day
Adult 17989 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
50000 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.16
0.16
0.36
0.36
5
0.16
0.16
0.36
0.36
50
0.16
,0.17
0.36
0.36
500
0.17
0.25
0.36
0.36
P.ure
Sludg
0.22
0.61
0.36
0.36
3-21
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Zn in sludge or sludge-
amended soil is not expected to pose a health hazard
to persons who may ingest either.
Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.16
0.16
0.20
0.44
0.32
1.3
1.3
8.1a
Adult Typical 0.36 0.47 0.79 3.4
Worst 0.36 1.1 3.4 22a
aValue may be partially precluded by phytotoxicity;
see Indices 9 and 10.
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge may
pose a threat to human health due to Zn when typical
sludge is applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha) and
when sludge with a worst-case Zn concentration is
applied at any rate (5 mt/ha or greater). The human
health hazard posed when the worst sludge is applied
at a. high rate (500 mt/ha) may be partially
precluded by its toxicity to plants which would
otherwise contribute Zn to the human diet.
3-22
-------
II. LANDFILLING
Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment Resulting from
Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U..S. EPA,
1983b). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port , parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; the pollutant source is a
pulse input; no dilution of the plume occurs by recharge
from outside the source area; the leachate is undiluted
by aquifer flow within the saturated zone; concentration
in the saturated zone is attenuated only by dispersion.
3-23
-------
Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., Kj values) are con-
sidered the best available for analysis of
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density (Prfry)
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM),
1984).
(c) Volumetric water content (9)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from CDM, 1984.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al . (1982) monitored several
landfills throughout the United States and
estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4 or
5 years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
3-24
-------
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 m/year
Worst 1.6 m/year
It is conservatively assumed that sludge
leachate enters the unsaturated zone undiluted
by precipitation or other recharge, that the
total volume of liquid in the sludge leaches
out of the landfill, and that leaching is
complete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is
assumed to be 20 percent solids by volume, and
depth of sludge in the landfill is 5 m in the
typical case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus,
the initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 m, respectively.
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
Typical 5 m
-Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
them were listed. A typical depth of ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
3-25
-------
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 677.6 mg/kg DW
Worst 4580 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
(b) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day"1
The degradation rate in the unsaturated zone is
assumed to be zero for all inorganic chemicals
(c) Soil sorption coefficient
Typical 939 mL/g .
Worst 12.7 mL/g
Kjj values were obtained from Gerritse et al.
(1982) using sandy loam soil (typical) or sandy
soil (worst). Values shown are geometric means
of a range of values derived using sewage
sludge solution phases as the liquid phase in
the adsorption experiments.
b. Saturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Silty sand
Worst Sand
A silty sand having the values of aquifer por-
osity and hydraulic conductivity defined below
represents a typical aquifer material. A more
conductive medium such as sand transports the
plume more readily and with less dispersion and
therefore represents a reasonable worst case.
(b) Aquifer porosity (0)
Typical 0.44 (unitless)
Worst 0.389 (unitless)
Porosity is that portion of the total volume of
soil that is made up of voids (air) and water.
3-26
-------
Values corresponding Co the above soil types
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
in U.S. EPA (1983b).
(c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 m/day
Worst 4.04 m/day
The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of
the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
based on Darcy's Equation. It is a measure of
the volume of liquid that can flow through a
unit area or media with time; values can range
over nine orders of magnitude depending on the
nature of the media. Heterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used -are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983b).
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of . the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to landfill (Ai)
Typical 100 m
Worst ' 50 m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst -5m
3-27
-------
These values are 10 percent of Che distance
from well to landfill (Afl,), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst con-
ditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2
m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that pre-
existing flow is very limited and therefore
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m^.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day"1
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 10 Ug/L
Except in highly mineralized areas where con-
centrations may exceed 1500 Ug/L, groundwater
concentrations of Zn are expected to be well
below 10 ug/L (Hem, 1970). This latter value
is chosen to represent the background concen-
tration in groundwater. (See Section 4,
p. 4-2.)
(c) Soil sorption coefficient (Kj) = 0 mL/g
Adsorption is assumed to be zero in the
saturated zone.
Index Values - See Table 3-1.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected groundwater concentration of pollutant at well
exceeds the background concentration (a value of 2.0
indicates the concentration is doubled, a value of 1.0
indicates no change).
3-28
-------
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Landfilling of sludge may
increase the groundwater concentration of Zn at the well;
this increase may be substantial at a disposal site with
all worst-case conditions.
Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with acceptable daily intake (ADI) of-pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration increment result-
ing from landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-30.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in groundwater
(BC) = 10 ug/L
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
c. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk assessment studies.
d. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 17989 Mg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
e. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
50000 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which pol-
lutant intake exceeds ADI. Value >1 indicates a possible
human health threat. Comparison with the null index
value indicates the degree to which any hazard is due to
landfill disposal, as opposed to preexisting dietary
sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Groundwater contamination
resulting from landfilled sludge is not expected to pose
/ 3-29
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING PROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Condition of Analysis3'"*0
3 A 5 6
u>
o
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
U
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics*
Site parametersS T T
Index 1 Value 2.8 13
Index 2 Value 0.36 0.36
W NA T T NA N
T W T T W N
T T W T W N
T T T W W N
2.8 2.8 8.7 12 2700 0
0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 1.4 0.36
aT = Typical values used} W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
<*Dry bulk density (P,jry) and volumetric water content (6).
6Leachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
a health risk, due to Zn except when all worst-case
conditions prevail at a disposal site.
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Shows the degree of elevation of the
pollutant concentration in the air due to the incinera-
tion of sludge. An input sludge with thermal properties
defined by the energy parameter (EP) was analyzed using
the BURN model (COM, 1984). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground level concentrations were predicted (U.S. EPA,
1979). The predicted pollutant concentration can theri be
compared to a ground level concentration used to assess
risk.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The fluidized bed incinerator
was not chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 28%
Stack height - 20 m
Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter - 0.60 m
3-31
-------
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a.
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 26.6%
Stack height - 10 m
Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter - 0.80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 677.6 mg/kg DW
Worst 4580 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.008 (unitless)
Worst 0.04 (unitless)
Emission estimates may vary considerably between
sources; therefore, the values used are based on a
U.S. EPA 10-city incineration study (Farrell and
Wall, 1981). Where data were not- available from che
EPA study, a more recent report which thoroughly
researched heavy metal emissions was utilized (CDM,
1983).
e. Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4 yg/m3
Worst 16.0 Ug/m3
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 0.134 Ug/m3
Value represents the mean Zn concentration in the
fine fraction (<3.5 urn) of urban air (Stevens et
al., 1978). (See Section 4. p. 4-3.)
3-32
-------
4. Index 1 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.7
2.8
13
Worst Typical 1.0 1.5 10
Worst 1.0 4.4 62
aThe typical (3.4 yg/m^) and worst (16.0 ug/m^) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively, to
the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr DW)
sludge feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected, air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The concentration of Zn in air
is expected to increase when sludge is incinerated. The
factors by which the air concentration of Zn exceeds
background levels increase as the concentration of Zn in
sludge and the sludge feed rate increase.
B. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. Ground level
concentrations, for carcinogens typically were developed
based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
gen Assessment Group (CAG). These ambient concentrations
reflect a dose level which, for a lifetime exposure,
increases the risk of cancer by. 10~°. For non-
carcinogens, levels typically were derived from the Amer-
ican Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) for the workplace.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m^/day is assumed
over a 70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-33.
3-33
-------
Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.134 wg/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-32.
Maximum permissible intake
inhalation (MPIH) = 700 Ug/day
of pollutant by
U.S. EPA (1984b) recommended an MPIH of 700 Ug/day
via inhalation. This value was calculated based on
the TLV of 1 rag/m3 for ZnCl fumes to prevent metal
fume fever (ACGIH, 1981). An uncertainty factor of
10 was incorporated into the MPIH.
Exposure criterion (EC) = 35 ug/m3
The exposure criterion .is the level at which the
inhalation of the pollutant is expected to exceed
the acceptable daily intake level for inhalation.
The exposure criterion is calculated using the fol-
lowing formula:
EC =
Index 2 Values
MPIH
20
Fraction of
Pollutant Emitted
Through Stack
SLudge
Concentration
Sludge Feed
Rate (kg/hr DW)a
2660 10,000
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0038 0.0042 0.011
0.0038 0.0065 0.050
0.0038 0.0058 0.038
0.0038 0.017 0.24
aThe typical (3.4 yg/m3) and worst (16.0 Ug/m3) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively, to
the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr DW)
sludge feed rates.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected intake exceeds MPIH. Value > 1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value at 0 kg/hr DW indicates the degree to which
any hazard is due to sludge incineration, as opposed to
background urban air concentration.
Preliminary Conclusion - Inhalation of emissions from the
incineration of sludge is not expected to pose a human
health threat due to Zn.
3-34
-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
3-35
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR ZINC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
I. Frequency of Detection
99 to 100%
2. Concentration
National survey of 511 POTWs
B.
Minimum
Median
Mean
90th percentile
95th percentile
Maximum
Survey of 40 POTWs
Median
95th percentile
5 Ug/g DW
1363 ug/g DW
2183 ug/g DW
4065 ug/g DW
6360 ug/g DW
49000 ug/g DW
677.6 ug/g DW
4580 ug/g DW
Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Virtually 100%
2. Concentration'
»
U.S. cropland soils
Mean ( + S.D.) 57.6 (+39.7) Ug/g DW
Median" 54 ug/g DW
Range <3 to 402 ug/g DW
U.S. soils
Geometric mean 44 Ug/g DW
Ohio farm soils
Mean 75 ug/g DW
Range 47 to 138 Ug/g DW
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41, 49)
Booz Allen and
and Hamilton,
Inc., 1983
Statistically
derived from
sludge concen-
tration pre-
sented in
U.S. EPA, 1982
Holmgren, 1985
Shacklette et
al., 1978 in
Cough et al.,
1979 (p. 57)
Logan and
Miller, 1983
(p. 14)
4-1
-------
Minnesota surface soils
Mean (+ S.D.) 60 (+14) yg/g DW
Baltimore, MD garden soils
Mean (+ S.D.) 211 (+375) yg/'g DW
Median" 92 yg/g DW
Range 0.3 to 4880 Ug/g DW
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
Freshwater
a.
Normal, uncontaminated <10 yg/L
85th percentile 100 yg/L
99th percentile 1000 yg/L
Mean
Range
64 yg/L
2 to 1183 yg/L
Groundwater concentrations of Zn and
lead may exceed 1500 ug/L near ore
deposits. In nonmineralized areas
Zn concentrations are probably con-
siderably below 10 yg/L.
b. Seawater
Coastal surface waters
Mean 2.4' yg/L
Range 0.6 to 12.6 yg/L
Open-ocean surface waters
Mean 1.4 yg/L
Range 0.3 to 3 yg/L
c. Drinking Water
Concentration in running tap water
in Boston, soft acidic water
Mean 223 yg/L
Maximum 1625 yg/L
Mean 190 yg/L
99th percentile 5000 yg/L
Pierce et al.,
1982 (p. 418)
Mielke et al.,
1983
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-2)
Taylor et al.,
1982 (p. 114)
Hem, 1970
(p. 204)
Taylor et al.,
1982 (p. 113)
Taylor et al.,
1982 (p. 113)
Craun and
McCabe, 1975
in MAS, 1977
(p. 299)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-2)
4-2
-------
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a . Urban
Fine fraction (<3.5 urn)
Mean 134 ng/m3
Range 20 to 85 ng/m^
Coarse fraction (>3.5
Mean 44 ng/rn-*
Range 20 to 85 ng/m^
b. Rural
Data not immediately available.
E. Food
1. Total Average Intake
FDA Total Diet Studies, 1974-1977
Stevens
et al., 1978
(p. 62)
FDA, 1980a,b
Daily Dietary Zn Intake (ug/day)
Age Group . FY 1974 FY 1975 FY 1976 FY 1977
Infants
Toddlers
Adults
. 5300
8300
18400
8200
9500
19100
18600
2. Concentration
Data not immediately available.
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenic!ty
a. Qualitative Assessment
No IARC scheme rating available.
4300
7800
17989
IARC, 1982
4-3
-------
b. Potency
None demonstrated, although dietary U.S. EPA, 1980
Zn status can affect rate of tumor (pp. C-42 to
growth. C-47)
c. Effects
None demonstrated
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
No ADI established by EPA, WHO or
FDA. An ADI can be derived using
a logarithmic scale between RDA
and maximum tolerable level (see
text for further discussion).
Recommended Daily Allowance (mg/day) FDA, 1980a,b
Infant 5.0
Toddler 8.0
Adult 15.0
b. Effects
Copper deficiency induced by U.S. EPA, 1980
ingestion of 150 mg Zn/day (p. C-37)
(in addition to dietary Zn).
Effects of Zn deficiency are U.S. EPA, 1980
dwarfism, anemia, hypogonadism, (p. C-23)
hepatosplenomegaly, rough and
dry skin and mental lethargy.
Acute doses >300 mg cause U.S. EPA, 1930
cramping, diarrhea, nausea. (pp« C-34 and
C-35)
3. Absorption Factor
25 to 50% U.S. EPA, 1980
(pp. C-9 and
C-10)
4. Existing Regulations
Drinking water standard and ambient U.S. EPA, 1980
water quality criterion are 5 mg/L, (p. C-60)
based on organoleptic effects, not
toxicological effects.
4-4
-------
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogen!city
a. Qualitative Assessment
No I ARC scheme rating available. IARC, 1982
b. Potency
None demonstrated U.S. EPA, 1980
(pp. C-42 to
C-46)
c. Effects
None demonstrated
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
See below, "Existing Regulations"
b. Effects
Metal fume fever (Zn oxide fumes) and U.S. EPA, 1980
acute pulmonary damage (ZnCl smoke) (p. C-27 to
C-31)
.3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available. U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-8, C-9)
4. Existing Regulations
ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (mg/m3) ACGIH, 1981 .
TLV-TWA TLV-STEL
ZnCl fume 1 2
ZnO fume 5 10
Zn stearate 10 (total dust)
5 (respirable dust)
OSHA standard CDC, 1983
ZnO 5 mg/m3 (8-hour TWA) (p. 22S)
NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit CDC, 1983
ZnO 5 mg/m3 (10-hour TWA) (p. 22S)
15 mg/m3 (15-minute. ceiling)
4-5
-------
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
See Table 4-1.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-2.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-3.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-4.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater . U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-14)
a. Acute
Hardness Criterion
(mg/L as CaCCh) (ug/L)
50 180
100 320
200 570
b. Chronic
47 Ug/L
•ri
2. Saltwater
a. Acute
170 ug/L
b. Chronic
58 Ug/L
4-6
-------
B. Uptake
Bioconcentration Factor U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-14)
Fish, whole
Range 51 to 432
Mean 148
Bivalve Molluscs, soft parts
Range 43 to 16700
Mean 353
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-5.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-6.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Zinc (Zn)
Molecular wt: 65.38 Weast, 1976
Specific gravity: 7.14
Solubility (g/mL) in water: insoluble
Distribution constant (mL/g) Gerritse et al.,
sandy loam soil 1982
range: 359 to 2455
mean: 939
sandy soil
range: 4.59 to 34.9
mean: 12.7
Zinc carbonate (smithsonite, ZnC03> Weast, 1976
Molecular wt: 125.39
Specific gravity: 4.398
Solubility (g/mL) in water (15°C): 0.00001
Zinc oxide (zincite, ZnO)
Molecular wt: 81.37
Specific gravity: 5.606
Solubility (g/mL) in water (29°C): 0.0000016
Zinc sulfate (sinkosite,
Molecular wt: 161.43
Specific gravity (at 26°C relative
to water 4°C): 3.54
Solubility (g/mL) in water: soluble
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-1. PIIYTOTOXICITY OF ZINC
Plant/Tissue
Barley/leaf
Corn/grain
Corn/stover
Corn/forage
_p.
1
CO
Bush bean/vine
Bush bean/pod
Bush bean/vine
Bush bean/pod
Bush bean/vine
Bush bean/pod
Chemical
Form
Applied
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
ZnSC-4 (field)
sludge (field)
ZnSO^ (field)
ZnS04 (field)
ZnSO/, (field)
ZnSOi; (field)
ZnS04 (field)
ZnSO^ (field)
Soil
pll
6.3-7.0
5.5
5.5 i
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.3
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
12.5-33.3
16
n B.3
47
53
53
53
44
49
48
49
48
49
Experimental
Soil
Concentration8
(pg/g DW)
NRh
606 (M)
606 (M)
NR
NR
NR
NK
NK
NR
NR
NK
NK
NK
Experimental
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
1492°
2891b
' 2891b
180
360C
720C
720C
90
90
180C
180C
360C
360C
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration6
(Mg/g DW)
81.9
42.8
'
204
472
884
1025
241
259
87
305
105
577
NK
Effect
No apparent inhi-
bition of plant
growth
No phytotoxicity
or Zn-related
yield reduction
No phytotoxicity
or Zn-related
yield reduction
Forage yield
reduced 56Z
Forage yield
reduced 47Z
Forage yield
reduced 58Z
Forage yield
not reduced
Vine yield
reduced 23Z
Pod yield
reduced 32Z
Vine yield
reduced 55Z
Pod yield
reduced 51Z
Vine yield
reduced 98Z
Pod yield
reduced 99.91
References
Chang et al., 1983
(p. 394-396)
Hinesly et al.,
1982 (p. 472-473)
Giordano et al . ,
1975 (p. 397-398)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Bush bean/vine
Control
Chemical Tissue
Form Soil Concentration
Applied pli (pg/g DW)
sludge (field) 5.3
44
Experimental Experimental
Soil Application
Concentration8 Rate
(Mg/g DW) (kg/ha)
NR
180C
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration6
(pg/g DW) Effect
63
Vine yield not
References
significantly reduced
Bush bean/pod
sludge (field) 5.3
49
NR
180
90
Pod yield not
significantly reduced
Bush bean/vine
sludge (field) 5.6
44
NR
360
63
Vine yield not
significantly reduced
Bush bean/ pod
Bush bean/vine
sludge (field) 5.3
sludge (field) 5.6
49
48
NK
NR
360
720
90
211
Pod yield
reduced 29Zd
Vine yield not
significantly reduced
Bush bean/pod
Corn/forage
Swiss chard
sludge (field) 5.6
ZnSO^ (pot) 5.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
sludge (pot) 5.5
sludge (pot) 6.9-7.6
5.2-7.2
4.6-6.3
49
11
8
10
8
11
8
10
8
11
14
65e
100e
300e
NK
60
240
240
240
240
960
960
960
960
1400
£160
<05
£106
720
HAS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
101
438
462
365
1575
2302
5622
8237
8624
8924
508
£170
<400
£600
Pod yield
reduced 60Zd
Yield not signi-
ficantly reduced
Yield reduced 5Z
Yield reduced 8Z
Yield reduced 29Z
Yield reduced 51Z
Yield reduced 85Z
Yield reduced 96Z
Yield reduced 96Z
Yield reduced 98Z
Yield not signi-
ficantly reduced
Yield not signi-
ficantly reduced
Same as above
Same as above
Hortvedt and
Giordano, 1975
(p. 173)
Hortvedt and
Giordano, 1975
(p. 173)
Valdares et al.r
1983 (p. 50-54)
-------
TABLE tt-l. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Lettuce/shoot
Wheat/leaf
Wheat/grain
4> Uheat/leaf
!_. Wheat/grain
O
Wheat /leaf
Wheat/grain
Uheat/Leaf
Wheat/grain
Uheat/leaf
Wheat/grain
Corn/tops
Rye/Cops
Chemical
Form Soil
Applied pU
metal-enriched 7.5
sludge (pot)
7.5
5.7
5.7
5.7
metal-enriched 7.5
sludge (pot)
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
metal-enriched 6.8
sludge (pot)
metal-enriched 6.8
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DH)
82
82
82
139
i39
139
63
73
4 63
73
63
73
58
> "1
58
117
26
45
Experimental
Soil
Concentration3
(pg/g DW)
160f
320f
640f
80f
160f
320f
160f
160f
320*
320
640f
640f
320f
3201
640f
640'
707
707
Experimental
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
HA
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration6
(Ug/g DW)
190
380
1265
527
1058
1585
108
129
189
149
412
183
406
266
655
382
587
602
Effect References
Yield not signi- Mitchell et al.,
ficantly reduced 1978 (p. 166-168)
Yield reduced 15Z
Yield reduced 552
Yield not signi-
ficantly reduced
Yield reduced 33Z
Yield reduced 551
Grain yield not
significantly reduced
Grain yield not
significantly reduced
Grain yield reduced 35Z
Grain yield reduced 35Z
Grain yield reduced 85Z
Grain yield reduced 85Z
.Grain yield not
significantly reduced
Grain yield not
significantly reduced
Grain yield reduced 30Z
Grain yield reduced 30Z
Reduced yield due Cunningham et al . ,
to Zn 1975a (p. 456)
Reduced yield due
sludge (pot)
to Zn
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Chemical
Form Soil
Plant/Tissue Applied pll
Corn, rye/tops high-Zn sludge 5.9
(pot) 5.7
Agronomic crop NA NR
tissues
Control
Tissue
Concentrat ion
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
Experimental
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
1355
2710
Experimental
Application
a Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
NA
a Cumulative application during 6 years.
b Cumulative application during 12 years.
c Cumulative application during 2 years.
" Since sludge was applied, effect may not be due to Zn or Zn alone.
e Estimated from regression analysis.
Values represent the concentration of metals added to soil over and above the concentration
2,036 ug Zn/g, was applied at a rate of 1 percent, the Zn concentration contributed by the
Zn was not reported.
8 NA = Not applicable.
h NR = Not reported.
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration6
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
300
in sludge and
sludge would be
Effect
Yield not reduced
Yield reduced 501
compared to lower
sludge treatments
Suggested
tolerance level
References
Cunningham et al.,
1975b (p. 452)
Helsted, 1973
soil. Since original sludge, containing
an additional 20 ug/g. Background soil
-------
TABLE 4-2. UPTAKE OF ZINC BY PLANTS
Plant/Tissue
Bibb lettuce/edible
Romaine lettuce/edible
Boston lettuce/edible
Cabbage/edible
Carrot/edible
1 Cantaloupe/edible
KJ
Bell pepper/edible
Broccoli/edible
Eggplant/edible
Red potato/edible
Sweet corn/edible
Sweet corn/f ullage
Bean/seed
Carrot/edible root
Chemical Form
Applied
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field) ^
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
Suit
pli
4.6
6.5
4.6
6.5
4.6
6.5
4.6
6.5
4.6
6.5
4.6
6.5
4.6
6.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
6.2-6.5
Range of
Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-403 (2)
0-482 (4)
Control Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DU)
46
43
35
31
29
31
48
29
39
22
18
18
29
24
87
15
16
25
52
64
23
Uptake0
Slope References
0.14 Giordano et al,, 1979
0.062 (p. 235)
0.045
0.050
0.22
0.079
0.027
0.042
NS
0.017
0.017
0.005
0.010
0.012
0.030
0.017
0.007
0.037
0.22
0.022
0-. 16 Dowdy and Larson, 1975
(p. 280)
Radish/edible root
sludge (field)
6.2-6.5
0-4B2 (4)
37
0.13
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Potato/edible tuber
Pea/seed
Pea/pod
Tomato/fruit
Sweet corn/grain
Sweet corn/ leaf
Lettuce/leaf
Lettuce
•P-
M Radish/tubers
Radish/tops
Carrot/tubers
Carrot/tops
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Barley/leaf
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Chemical Form
Appl ied
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
Range of Control Tissue
Soil Application Rates Concentration
pH (kg/ha) (pg/g DU)
6.2-6.5
' 6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
7.0-7.5
7.0-7.5
7.0-7.5
7.0-7.5
7.0-7.5
4.7-5.5
6.5-6.8
4.7-5.5
6.5-6.8
5.3-6.1
6.3-7.0
7.4
7.4
0-482 (4)
0-482 (4)
0-482 (4)
0-482 (4)
0-482 (4)
0-482 (4)
0-482 (4)
0-1397 (4)c
0-1397 (5)c
0-1397 (5)c
0-1397 (5)c
0-1397 (5)c
0-54.6 (3)
0-54.6 (3)
0-54.6 (3)
0-54.6 (3)
0-497 (4)
0-1492 (4)d
0-2125 (4)e
0-2125 (4)e
24
70
28
9
41
22
21
52
41
39
41
24
13
12
25
24
26
21
15. 5f
28*
Uptakeb
Slope References
.0.061
0.11
0.20
0.044
0.049
0.58
0.42
0.048 CAST, 1980 (p. 39); Chang
et al., 1983 (p. 392)
0.087
0.098
0.038
0.017
0.76 CAST, 1980 (p. 41)
0.97
0.17
0.11
0.058 Chang et al., 1983 (p. 396)
0.039
0.062* CAST, 1980 (p. 44)
0.011*
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Corn/stover
"Vegetation"
Lettuce
Swiss chard
l_i Soybean/seed
Lettuce
Corn/silage
Corn/grain
Swiss chard
Oat/grain
Turnip/greens
Chemical Form
Appl ied
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
smelter fallout
(field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
sludge (field)
Soil
pll
7.4
7.4
7.4
NRm
5.7-6.3
6.7
5.7-6.3
6.7
5.7-6.3
6.7
5.6-6.7
4.5-5.1
7.0
6.5-7.2
6.5-7.2
4.9-5.9
6.0-6.4
4.9-5.9
6.0-6.4
5.6-
Range of Control Tissue
Application Races Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DW)
0-2891 (4)8
0-2891 (4)6
0-2891 (4)8
88-910 (5)h
0-416 (4)
0-416 (4)
0-416 (4)
0-416 (4)
0-416 (4)
0-416 (4)
48-432 (5)"
138-432 (4)h
198-484 (3)"
0-360 (4)
0-360 (4)
106-312 (2)h
106-312 (2)h
106-312 (2)"
106-312 (2)h
0-170 (3)
J«jf
17^
j j f
6.8
71
38
98
39
46
43
41
27
41
24
23
141'
50J
28
29
83
Uptakeb
Slope References
0.040* Hinesly et al.. 1982
(p. 473)
0.005f
0.063f
0.064" CAST, 19BO (p. 49)
0.39 CAST, 1980 (p. 51)
0.17
0.61
0.29
0.061
0.064
0.48" CAST, 1980 (p. 54)
2.69"
0.17"
0.71 CAST, 1980 (p. 55)
0.099
3.97".' CAST, 1980 (p. 77)
0.26J". J
0.096".'
0.036|1>J
1.99 Miller and Boswell, 1979
(p. 1362)
-------
TABLK 4-2. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Swiss chard
Cabbage
Chemical Form
Appl ied
sludge (field)
sludge ash (pot)
Soil
pH
6.5
5.5
5.2-5.7
Range of
Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0-330 (2)
0-33Q (2)
,800*
Control Tissue
Concentrat ion
(pg/g DW)
92
293
31
Uptakeb
Slope
2.30
2.29
NSM
References
Furr et al . , 1976 (p.
Furr et al., 1979 (p.
87)
1505)
N = Number of application rates, including control.
Slope = y/x! x = kg/ha applied; y = Mg/g plant tissue UU.
Cumulative application during 3 years.
Cumulative application during 6 years.
Cumulative application during 8 years.
Mean value of two hybrids.
Cumulative application during 12 years.
Application rate estimated from measured soil concentration based on assumption of 1 pg/g soil concentration - 2 kg/ha applied.
Mean value for unlimed soils of three farms. A fourth farm with an outlier slope was omitted.
Mean value for limed soils of three farms.
Sludge ashes from 10 different cities were used; no relationship between metal content and uptake was found.
NS = Tissue concentration not significantly increased.
Nit = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOXICITY OP ZINC TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Feed Water
Chemical Form Concentration Concentration
Species (N)a Fed (Mg/g) (mg/L)
Cattle (7) ZnO 100-500 NAC
900
1300-1700
2100
Cattle (90-100) ZnO 7200e NA .
14500e NA
Cattle (4) ZnO 600 ppm NA
1
M
O>
Horse (3) ZnO 6250f NA
Cattle, horse NK 300 NA
Sheep (4) yeast 840 NA
Daily
Intake
(rag/kg) Duration
NRd 12 weeks
72 g/day 3-4 days
145 g/day
NK 21 days
1256 38 ueeks
NK NK
NX 35 days
Effects
No adverse effect
Decreased weight gain and
liver Cu
Decreased weight gain, feed
efficiency and liver Cu
Decreased weight gain, feed
efficiency and liver Cu;
pica behavior
Scours (diarrhea)}
decreased milk pro-
duction
Scours} death in 7/102
Increased pancreas,
duodenium rumen, small
intestine, liver, hair,
rib, and testicle Zn
levels indicating decline
in homeostatic control
of Zn.
Swelling at epiphyseal
region of long bones;
reduced growth, anemia
Maximum tolerable level
Decreased food intake and
References'1
Ott et al., 1966c,d
in HAS, 1960
Allen, 1968 in NAS, 1980
Miller et al., 1970
in NAS, 1980
Willoughby et al . , 1972
in NAS, 1980
NAS, 1980 (p. 7)
Davies et al., 1977
Sheep (2)
ZnSOjj
840
NA
NK 33 days Decreased growth, kidney
changes
-------
TAULE 4-3. (continued)
Feed Water Daily
Chemical Form Concentration Concentration Intake
Species (N)a Fed
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
I
M
CO
Species (N)a
Chicken (30)
Turkey (10)
Poultry
Japanese quail
(10)
Feed Water
Chemical Form Concentration Concentration
Fed (Mg/g) (mg/l.)
ZnO 200-400 NA
800-2000
ZnO 1000-2000 NA
4000
NR 1000 NA
ZnC<>3 62.5 NA
125
250-1000
2000
Daily
'Intake
(mg/kg)
NK
NR
NR
NR
Duration Effects
2 weeks No adverse effect
Decreased growth when a
poor diet is used, no
effect when other diets
used
3 weeks No adverse effect
Decreased growth
NR Maximum tolerable level
2 weeks No adverse effect
Decreased hemoglobin and
hemacocric
Decreased growth, hemo-
globin and hematocrit
As above plus mortality
References'1
Berg and Martinson, 1972
Vohra and Kraczer, 1968
NAS, 1980 (p. 7)
Hamilton et al., 1979
House (150)
500
NR 14 months No gross effects on size
or appearance; hypertrophy
of adrenal cortex; pancreatic
islets and pituitary gland
show evidence of hyperactivity.
Aughey et al., 1977
a N = number of animals per treatment group.
b Source of all information in table is NAS, 1980 (p. 553-577).
c NA = Not applicable.
d NH = Nut reported.
e Assumes a total dietary intake of 10 kg/day for adult cattle.
' Estimated feed concentration based on a daily-food-intake:body-weighl ratio of 10 kg/500 kg lor horses.
g Time-weighted average of exposure varying from 25 to 183 mg/day.
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OF ZINC BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Chemical
Species (N)a Form Fed
Cattle (6) sludge
Cattle (6) sludge
Sheep (5-9) sludge-grown
corn silage
1 Sheep sludge-grown
{-? corn silage
Swine (12) sludge
Guinea pig sludge-grown
Swiss chard
Mallard duck (6) ZnCOj
Range (N)b
of Feed Tissue
Concentration
(Ug/g DU)
36-325 (2)
26.3-236 (2)
25.6-64.8 (2)
36-93 (2)
183.4-773.7 (2)
159-1050 (3)
250-3250 (2)
Tissue
kidney
liver
muscle
kidney
1 iver
muscle
kidney
1 iver
muscle
1 iver
muscle
kidney
liver
muscle
kidney
liver
muscle
kidney
1 iver
muscle
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)C
76.4
111
293
93
143
340
3271
1523
108
NRf
NR
104
180
50
19
28
15
117
180
50
Uptake
Slope0- d
NSe
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.10
NS
NS
0.099
NS
NS
0.004
NS
NS
0.56
0.38
0.02
References
Boyer et al., 1981 (p. 286-289)
Johnson et al., 1981 (p. 112)
lleffron et al., 1980 (p. 60)
Bray et al., 1981 (p. 384)
Osuna et al . , 1981 (p. 1545)
Furr et al., 1976 (p. 87-88)
Gasaway and Buss, 1972 (p. 1115)
a N = Number of animals per treatment group when reported.
b N = Number of feed concentrations, including control.
c When tissue values were reported as wet weight, unless otherwise indicated a moisture coiueiu of 77% was assumed for kidney, 70Z for liver, and
722 for muscle.
d Slope = y/x: x = ug/g feed (DW); y = ug/g tissue (DU).
e NS = Tissue concentration not significantly increased.
f NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-5. TOX1CITY OF ZINC TO SOIL BIOTA
Soil
Chemical Form Concentration
Species Applied Soil pll (pg/g DW)
Agricultural soil coal fly ash 6.5 50
microorganisms
200
350
Earthworms NRb NR 1100
1
O
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
100
400
700
NAC
Duration Effects
37 days No adverse effect
on C02 evolution0
37 days C02 evolution
reduced 15Za
37 days CC>2 evolution
reduced 24Za
NA Toxicity
References
Arthur et al., 1984 (p. 212)
Van Rhee, 1975, as cited in
Beyer, 1982 (p. 385)
a Effect not necessarily due to Zn, since fly ash was applied
b NR = Hot reported.
c NA = Not applicable
-------
TABLE 4-6. UPTAKE OF ZINC BY SOIL BIOTA
Species
Earthworms
Earthworms
Uoodlouse,
Oniscus asel lus
Chemical Form
Applied
sludge-amended soil
ZnS04
sludge-amended soil
soils near highways
smelter fallout
Range' (N) of
Soil Concentrations
(pg/g DU)a
0-422 kg/ha (2)
0-1040 kg/ha (2)
56-132 (2)d
42.3-179.8 (6)e
116-1965f
Tissue Analyzed
whole body
whole body
whole body
whole body
whole body
Control Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DU)
442
442
22B<1
223.8
120
Uptake
Slope References
0.078b Beyer et at., 1982 (p. 382)
0.13b
2.95c»d
2.26c>e Cish and Christensen, 1973 (p. 1061)
0.28C Martin et al., 1976 (p. 314)
a N = Number of soil concentrations (including control).
I " Slope - y/xl x = application rate (kg/ha); y = tissue concentration (pg/g DU).
N) c Slope = y/x: x = soil concentration (pg/g DW); y = tissue concentration (pg/g DU).
" Mean values for four locations.
e Hean values for two locations.
* Zn concentration in leaf litter, rather than soil.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publication, New York, NY.
American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists. 1981.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents
in the Working Environment with Intended Changes for 1981.
Cincinnati, OH.
Allen, G. S. 1968. An Outbreak of Zinc Poisoning in Cattle. Vet. Rec.
83:8. (As cited in NAS, 1980.)
Arthur, M. F., T. D. Zwick, D. A. Tolle, and P. Van Voris. 1984.
Effects of Fly Ash on Microbial C02 Evolution from an Agricultural
Soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 22:209-216.
Aughey, E., L. Grant, B. L. Furmann, and W. F. Dryden. 1977. The
Effects of Oral Zinc Supplementation in the Mouse. J. Comp.
Pathol. 87:1. (As cited in NAS, 1980.)
Berg, L. R., and R. D. Martinson. 1972. Effect of Diet Composition on
the Toxicity of Zinc for the Chick. Poult. Sci. 51:1690. (As
cited in NAS, 1980.)
Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds, and R. L. West. 1981.
Metal Residues in Tissues, Animal Performance and Carcass Quality
with Beef Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures Treated with
Liquid Digested Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Beyer, W. N., R. L. Chaney, and B. M. Mulkern. 1982. Heavy Metal
Concentrations in Earthworms from Soil Amended with Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 11:381-385.
Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 1983. Correspondence from Lawrence B.
Cahill to Charles Spooner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 28.
Boswell, F. C. 1975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Applications to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue. J. Environ.
Qual. 4(2):267-273.
Boyer, K. W., J. W. Jones, S. K. Linscott, W. Wright, W. Stroube, and W.
Cunningham. 1981. Trace Element Levels in Tissues from Cattle Fed
a Sewage Sludge-Amended Diet. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 8:281-
295.-
Bray, B. J., R. D. Goodrich, R. H. Dowdy, and J. C. Meiske. 1981.
Performance -and Tissue Mineral Contents of Lambs Fed Corn Silage
Grown on Sludge-Amended Soils. Abstract. J. Ani. Sci. 53:384.
5-1
-------
Brink, M. F., D. E. Becker, S. W. Terrill, and A. H. Jensen. 1959.
Zinc Toxicity in the Weanling Pig. J. Ani. Sci. 18:836. (As cited
in MAS, 1980.)
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1983. New York City Special Permit
Application - Ocean Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Prepared for the
City of New York Department of Environmental Protection.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984. Development Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Campbell, J. K., and C. F. Mills. 1979. The Toxicity of Zinc to
Pregnant Sheep. Environ. Res. 20:1. (As cited in MAS, 1980.)
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1980. Effects of
Sewage Sludge on the Cadmium and Zinc Content of Crops. CAST
Report No. 83. EPA 600/8-81-003. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Centers for Disease Control. 1983. NIOSH Recommendations for
Occupational Health Standards. Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep. 32:7S.
Chaney, R. L. , and C. A. Lloyd. 1979. Adherence of Spray-Applied
Liquid Digested Sewage Sludge to Tall Fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
8(3):407-411.
Chang, A. C., A. L. Page, J. E. Warneke, M. R. Resketo, and T. E. Jones.
1983. Accumulation of Cadmium and Zinc in Barley Grown on Sludge-
Treated Soils: A Long-Term Field Study. J. Environ. Qual. 12:391-
397.
Cox, D. H., and 0. M. Hale. 1962. Liver Iron Depletion Without Copper
Loss in Swine Fed Excess Zinc. J. Nutr. 77:225. (As cited in NAS,
1980.)
Craun, G. F., and L. J. McCabe. 1975. Problems Associated with Metals
in Drinking Water. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 67:593-599. (As
cited in NAS, 1977.)
Cunningham, J. D., D. R. Keeney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975a. Phytotoxicity
in and Metal Uptake from Soil Treated with Metal-Amended Sewage.
Sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 4:455-460.
Cunningham, J. D., D. R. Keeney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975b. Yield and
Metal Composition of Corn and Rye Grown on Sludge-Amended Soil. J.
Environ. Qual. 4:448-454.
Davies, N. T., H. S. Soliman, W. Corrigal, and A. Flett. 1977. The
Susceptibility of Suckling Lambs to Zinc Toxicity. Br. J. Nutr.
38:153. (As cited in NAS, 1980.)
5-2
-------
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Dowdy, R. H., and W. E. Larson. 1975. The Availability of Sludge-Borne
Metals to Various Vegetable Crops. J. Environ. Qual. 4:278-282.
Farrell, J. B., and H. Wall. 1981. Air Pollutional Discharges from Ten
Sewage Sludge Incinerators. Draft Review Copy. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. February.
Federal Register. 1980. 45 FR 79353-79356.
Food and Drug Administration. 1980a. FY 77 Total Diet Studies - Adult
(7320.73). FDA Bureau of Foods. December 11.
Food and Drug Administration. 1980b. FY 77 Diet Studies - Infants and
Toddlers (7320.74). FDA Bureau of Foods. October 22.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Furr, A. K., G. S. Stoewsand, C. A. Bache, and D. J. Lisk. 1976. Study
of Guinea Pigs Fed Swiss Chard Grown on Municipal Sludge-Amended
Soil. Arch. Environ. Health. March/April:87-91.
Furr, A. K., T. F. Parkinson, T. Wachs, et al. 1979. Multi-Element
Analysis of Municipal Sewage Sludge Ashes: Absorption of Elements
by Cabbage Grown in Sludge Ash-Soil Mixture. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 13:1503-1506.
Gasaway, W. C., and I. 0. Buss. 1972. Zinc Toxicity in the Mallard
Duck. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:1107.
Gelhar, L. W., and C. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogeneous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, MM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg, and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
Giordano, P. M., J. J. Mortvedt, and D. W. Mays. 1975. Effect of
Municipal Waste on Crop Yields and Uptake of Heavy Metals. J.
Environ. Qual. 4:394-399.
Giordano, P. M., D. A. Mays, and A. D. Behel, Jr. 1979. Soil
Temperature Effects on Uptake of Cadmium and Zinc by Vegetables
Grown on Sludge-Amended Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 8:233-236.
Gish, C. D., and R. E. Christensen. 1973. Cadmium, Nickel, Lead, and
Zinc in Earthworms from Roadside Soil. Environ. Sci. Technol.
7:1060-1062.
5-3
-------
Gough, L. P., H. T. Schacklette, and A. A. Case. 1979. Element
Concentrations Toxic to Plants, Animals, and Man. U.S. Government
Geological Survey Bulletin 1466, Washington, D.C.
Grimmet, R. E. R., I. G. Mclntosh, E. M. Wall, and C. S. M. Hopkirk.
1937. Chronic Zinc Poisoning of Pigs: Results of Experimental
Feeding of Pure Zinc Lactate. New Zealand J. Agric. 54:216. (As
cited in NAS, 1980.)
Hamilton, R. P., M. R. S. Fox, B. E. Fry, Jr., A. 0. L. Jones, and R. M.
Jacobs. 1979. Zinc Interference with Copper, Iron, and Manganese
in Young Japanese Quail. J. Food Sci. 44:738. (As cited in NAS,
1980.)
Heffron, C. L., J. T. Reid, D. E. Elfving, et al. 1980. Cadmium and
Zinc in Growing Sheep Fed Silage Corn Grown on Municipal Sludge-
Amended Soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:58-61.
Hem, J. D. 1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical
Characteristics of Natural Water. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1473. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hinesly, T. D., D. E. Alexander, K. E. Redborg, and E. L. Ziegler.
1982. Differential Accumulation of Cadmium and Zinc by Corn
Hybrids Grown on Soil Amended with Sewage Sludge. Agron. J.
74:469-474.
Holmgren, G. 1985. Personal Communication. National Soil Survey
Laboratory. Soil Conservation Service. USDA, Lincoln, NE.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1982. Chemicals,
Industrial Processes and Industries Associated with Cancer in
Humans. IARC Monographs Supplement 4 (Vol. 1-29). Lyon, France.
Johnson, D. E., E. W. Kienholz, J. C. Baxter, E. Spangler, and G. M.
Ward. 1981. Heavy Metal Retention in Tissues of Cattle Fed High
Cadmium Sewage Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 52:108-114.
Logan, T. J., and R. H. Miller. 1983. Background Levels of Heavy
Metals in Ohio Farm Soils. Research Circular 275. The Ohio State
University, Ohio Agric. Res. and Development Center, Wooster, OH.
Martin, M. H., P. J. Coughtrey, and E. W. Young. 1976. Observations on
the Availability of Lead, Zinc, Cadmium, and Copper in Woodland
Litter and the Uptake of Lead, Zinc, and Cadmium by the Woodlouse,
Oniscus asellus. Chemosphere. 5:313-318.
Melsted, S. W. 1973. Soil-Plant Relationship (Some Practical
Considerations in Waste Management), p. 121-128. In; Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land. National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington, D.C. (As
cited in Cunningham et al., 1975b.)
5-4
-------
Mielke, H. W., J. C. Anderson, K. J. Berry, P. W. Mielke, R. L. Chaney,
and M. Leech. 1983. Lead Concentration in Inner-City Soils as a
Factor in the Child Lead Problem. Amer. J. Pub. Health
73(12):1366-1369.
Miller, W. J., D. M. Blackman, R. P. Gentry, and F. M. Pate. 1970.
Effects of High But Nontoxic Levels of Zinc in Practical Diets on
65zn and Zinc Metabolism in Holstein Calves. J. Nutr. 100:893.
(As cited in NAS, 1980.)
Miller, J., and F. C. Boswell. 1979. Mineral Content of Selected
Tissues and Feces of Rats Fed Turnip Greens Grown on Soil Treated
with Sewage Sludge. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:1361-1365.
Mitchell, G. A., F. T. Bingham, and A. L. Page. 1978. Yield and Metal
Composition of Lettuce and Wheat Grown on Soils Amended with Sewage
Sludge Enriched with Cadmium, Copper, Nickel, and Zinc. J.
Environ. Qual.-7:165-171.
Mortvedt, J. J., and P. M. Giordano. 1975. Response of Corn to Zinc
and Chromium in Municipal Wastes Applied to Soil. J. Environ.
Qual. 4:170-174.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Safe Drinking Water and Health,
The National Research Council Safe Drinking Water Committee,
Washington, D.C.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Mineral Tolerances of Domestic-
Animals. Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity in Animals, Washington,
D.C.
Osuna, 0., G. T. Edds, and J. A. Popp. 1981. Comparative Toxicity of
Feeding Dried Urban Sludge and an Equivalent Amount of Cadmium to
Swine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 42:1542-1546.
Ott, E. A., W. H. Smith, R. B. Harrington, and W. M. Beeson. 1966a.
Zinc Toxicity in Ruminants. I. Effect of High Levels of Dietary
Zinc on Gains, Feed Consumption, and Feed Efficiency of Lambs. J.
Ani. Sci. 25:414. (As cited in NAS, 1980.)
Ott, E. A., W. H. Smith, R. B. Harrington, M. Stob, H. E. Parker, and
W. M. Beeson. 1966b. Zinc Toxicity in Ruminants. III.
Physiological Changes in Tissues and Alterations in Rumen
Metabolism in Lambs. J. Ani. Sci. 25:424. (As cited in NAS,
1980.)
Ott, E. A., W. H. Smith, R. B. Harrington, and W. M. Beeson. 1966c.
Zinc Toxicity in Ruminants. II. Effect of High Levels of Dietary
Zinc on Gains, Feed Consumption, and Feed Efficiency of Beef
Cattle. J. Ani. Sic. 25:319. (As cited in NAS, 1980.)
Ott, E. A., W. H. Smith, R. B. Harrington, H. E. Parker, and W. M.
Beeson. 1966d. Zinc Toxicity in Ruminants. IV. Physiological
Changes in Tissues of Beef Cattle. J. Ani. Sci. 25:432. (As cited
in NAS, 1980.)
5-5
-------
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Pierce, F. J., R. H. Dowdy, and D. F. Grigal. 1982. Concentrations of
Six Trace Metals in Some Major Minnesota Soil Series. J. Environ.
Qual. 11:416-422.
Robertson, R. H., and P. J. Schaible. 1960. The Tolerance of Growing
Chicks for High Levels of Different Forms of Zinc. Poult. Sci.
39:893. (As cited in NAS, 1980.)
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
Shacklette, H. T., J. A. Erdman, T. F. Harms, and C. S. E. Popp. 1978.
Trace Elements in Plant Foodstuffs. In: Oehme, F. W. (ed.),
Toxicity of Heavy Metals in the Environment. Vol. 2. Hazardous
and Toxic Substances. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY. pp. 25-
68. (As cited in Gough et al., 1979.)
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2):321-
325.
Stevens, R. K., T. G. Dzubay, G. Russwurm, and D. Rickel. 1978.
Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheric Sulfates and Related Species.
Atmos Environ. 12:55-68.
Taylor, M. C., A. Demayo, and K. W. Taylor. 1982. Effects of Zinc on
Humans, Laboratory and Farm Animals, Terrestrial Plants, and
Freshwater Aquatic Life. CRC Crit. Rev. Environ. Control.
April:113-181.
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metals into Livestock Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287-294.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 3.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge: Interim
Report. EPA 530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) Dispersion Model User Guide. EPA 450/4-79-30. Vol. 1.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standarsd, Research Triangle
Park, NC. December.
5-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Zinc. EPA 440/5-80-058. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Final Report.
Vol. I. EPA 440/1-82/303. Effluent Guidelines Division,
Washington, D.C. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document.
OHEA-E-075-U. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. July 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Health Effects Assessment
for Zinc (and Compounds). Program Office Draft. ECAO-CIN H048.
Valderas, J. M. A. S., M. Gal, U. Mingelgrin, and A. L. Page. 1983.
Some Heavy Metals in Soils Treated with Sewage Sludge, Their
Effects on Yield, and Their Uptake by Plants. J. Environ. Qual.
12:49-57.
Van Rhee, J. A. 1975. Copper Contamination Effects oh Earthworms by
Disposal of Pig Wastes in Pastures. pp. 451-456 In; J. Vanek
(ed.), Progress in Soil Zoology. Proc. 5th Int. Colloquium on Soil
Zoology, Prague. 17-22 Sept. 1973. Dr. W. Junk, B. V. Publishers,
The Hague, The Netherlands. (As cited in Beyer, 1982.)
Vohra, P., and F. H. Kratzer. 1968. Zinc, Copper, and Manganese
Toxicities in Turkey Poults and Their Alleviation by EDTA. Poult.
Sci. 47:699. (As cited in NAS, 1980.)
Weast, R. C. (ed.). 1976. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 57th ed.,
CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland, OH.
Willoughby, R. A., E. MacDonald, B. J. McSherry, and G. Brown. 1972.
Lead and Zinc Poisoning and the Interaction Between Pb and Zn
Poisoning in the Foal. Can. J. Comp. Med. 36:348. (As cited in
NAS, 1980.)
5-7
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR ZINC
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Zinc
I. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Formula
T , . (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
Index l = BS (AR + MS)
where: ... -
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
MS = 2000 mt DW/ha = Assumed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm
b. Sample calculation
_ (677.6 ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) •*• (44 ug/g DW x 20QO mt/ha)
44 ug/g DW (5 mt/ha + 2000 mt/ha)
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. , Formula
Ii x BS
Index 2 = -==5
ID
-.•*
where:
II - Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
A-l
-------
b. Sample calculation
0 0414 = 1-036 x 44 ue/g DW
°'°414 1100 ug/g DW
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
(II - 1)(BS x UB) + BB
Index 3 = - ^ -
where:
I\ = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
UB = Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]"1)
BB = Background concentration in soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
1.86 = [(1.-036 -1) (44 ug/g DW x
2.95 ug/g DW [ug/g soil DW]~1) + 228 Ug/g DW] *
125 Ug/g DW
Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Formula
Ii x BS
Index 4 =
where:
!]_ = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g
DW)
A-2
-------
b. Sample calculation
n onA - 1.036 x 44 Ug/g DW
°'204 ~ 224 ug/g DW
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index 5)
a. Formula
(Ii - 1) x BS
Index 5 = —= x CO x UP + 1
BP
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
CO = 2 kg/ha (ug/g)~^ = Conversion factor
between soil concentration and application
rate
UP = Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [kg/ha]"1)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
. Qq, = (1.036-1) x 44 ug/g DW 2 kg/ha
24 ug/g DW X ug/g soil
0.71 ug/g tissue .
kg/ha l
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Formula
.•*
PP
Index 6 = —
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration
associated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
BP = Background concentration in. plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
A-3
-------
b. Sample calculation
,, _ 587 ug/g DW
22'6 ~ 26 ug/g DW
Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
I5 x BP
Index 7 = ——
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
n n«7S - 1.094 x 24 Ug/g DW
°-°875 - 300 ug/g DW
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
Formula
If AR = 0",
Tf AD ± (\
BS x GS
B TA
SC x GS
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(yg/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be.soil
(unitless)
TA = Feed 'concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g
A-4
-------
b. Sample calculation
If AR - 0 0 0073 - 44 Ug/g DW x °-05
If AR - 0, 0.0073 -
Tf AR 4 0 0 in - 677.6 Ug/g DW x O.Q5
If AR # 0, 0.113 -
Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
[(I5 - 1) BP x DT] + DI
Index 9 = - - -
' ADI
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitLess)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
DT = Daily human dietary intake of affected
plant tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
. Sample calculation (toddler)
_ [(1.094 - 1) x 92 Ug/g DW x 74.5 g/dayl •*• 7800 Ug/day
~ . 50000 ug/day
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a . Formula
[(Is - 1) BP x UA x DA] + DI
Index 10 = — ^
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
UA = Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]"1)
A-5
-------
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.158 =
(1.Q94-1) x 24 ug/g DW x 1.10 ug/g tissue[ug/g feedl"1 x 51.1 g/day] •*• 7800 Ug/day
50000 ug/day
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Formula
rr AD n T j 11 (BS x GS x UA x DA) * DI
If AR - 0, Index 11 = rr-=
AU1.
re AD j. n T j n (SC x GS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR ;t 0, Index 11 =
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unitless)
UA =' Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW"1]
DA = Average daily human dietary intake of
affected animal tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day) •
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.183 =
(677.6ug/gDW x 0.05 x 1.10 ue/g tissue[ug/g feed]"1 x 35.95 g/davDW) + 7800 ug/dav
50000 ug/day
A-6
-------
Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Soil Zngestion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
x BS x DS) + DI
Index 12 =
ADI
(SC x DS) + DI
Pure sludge ingestion: Index 12 =
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW) '
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet
(g/day)
DI = Average daily dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
(1.036 x 44 ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) + 7800 Ug/day
= 50000 Ug/day
Pure sludge:
, _ (677.6 ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) •*• 7800 qg/day
" . 50000 Ug/day
Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = I9 + I10 + IU +
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from plant consumption
(unitless)
= Index 10 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
A-7
-------
Ill = Inaex 11 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting
soil (unitless)
1^2 = Index 12 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily dietary intake of
pollutant (jag/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(pg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.201 = (0.167 + 0.158 + 0.183 + 0.161) -
II. LANDFILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/CO for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The
concentration vs. time curve is then transformed into a square
pulse having a constant concentration equal to the peak
concentration, Cu, from the unsaturated zone, and a duration,
to, chosen so that the total areas under the curve and the
pulse are equal, as illustrated in Equation 3. This square
pulse is then used as the input to the linkage "assessment,
Equation 2, which estimates initial dilution in the aquifer to
give the initial concentration, Co, for the saturated zone
assessment. (Conditions for B, thickness of unsaturated zone,
have been set such -that dilution is actually negligible.) The
saturated zone assessment procedure is nearly identical to
that for the unsaturated zone except for the definition of
certain parameters and choice of parameter values. The maxi-
mum concentration at the well, Cmax, is used to calculate the
index values given in Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y.t) = i [exp(Ai) erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) er£c(B2>] = P
-------
where:
A. = X_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x M*
1 2D*
y - t (V*2 + 4D* x u*)?
2 (4D* x t)z
n. _ [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x
1 2D*
_ Y + t (V*2 + 4D* x u*)?
82 ~ (AD* x t)±
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration Cug/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
CF = 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge
20%
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
Qt = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = —2— (m/year)
0 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = i + dry x Kd = Retardation factor (unitless)
0
P^ry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
Kj = Soil sorption coefficient (mL/g)
U* = 365 *
R .
U = Degradation rate (day*1)
and where for the saturated zone:
Co = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (ug/L)
t = Time (years)
X = AS, = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = O x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
y* = K x x (m/year)
0 x R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
A-9
-------
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
R = 1 + drY x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
= Aquifer porosity (unitless)
B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:
B > Q X. W ** and B > 2
— K x i x 365 —
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(x>t) = P(x,t) for 0 < t < t0
r° ; P(x,t) - P(X,C - t0) for t > t
co
where:
to (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
to (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
C dt) * Cu
C( Y t )
P(X,t) = * ? as determined by Equation 1
°
A-10
-------
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment
Resulting from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
T , . ^max + BC
Index 1 =
where:
Craax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
Maximum of C(AJL,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Ug/D
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation
•7 ai - 18.3 Ug/L + 10 Ug/L
2.83 10
P. Equation 5. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
[(I i - 1) BC x AC] •»• DI
Index 2 = —
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
increment resulting from landfilled sludge
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of ' drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
_ f(2.83 - 1) x 10 Ug/L x 2 L/day] + 17989 Ug/day
" 50000 Ug/day
A-ll
-------
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
T , . (C x PS x SC x FM x DP) + BA
Index 1 =
where:
C = Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
. DS = Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FM = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack
(unitless)
DP = Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
annual ground level concentration (ug/m3)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (ug/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
1.102 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x
677.6 mg/kg DW x 0.008 x 3.4 ug/m3) +
0.134 ug/m3] f 0.134 ug/m3
B. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
(dl - 1) x BA] •»• BA
Index 2 =
EC
where:
!]_ = Index 1 = Index of air concentration increment
resulting from incinerator emissions
(unitless)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in
urban air (ug/m3)
EC = Exposure criterion (ug/m3)
A-12
-------
2. Sample Calculation
0.00422 = [(1'102 ~ 1) x 0.134 lag/m?] f 0.134
35
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
A-13
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DM)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, P,jry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unitless)
Soil sorption coefficient, Kd (mL/g)
Site parameters
jt, Leachate generation rate, Q (m/year)
1 Depth to groundwater, h (m)
£•. Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (ml day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unilless)
Distance from well to landfill, AH (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, d (m)
1 2
677.6 4580
1.53 1.53
.0.195 0.195
|T) |T)
0.8 0.8
5 5
0.5 0.5
0.44 0.44
0.86 0.86
0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
3
677.6
1.925
0.133
(U)
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
677.6 677.6
NA° 1.53
NA 0.195
NA [T]
1.6 0.8
0 5
NA . 0.5
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.001 0.001
100 . 100
10 10
6 7
677.6 4580
1.53 NA
0.195 NA
IT] NA
0.8 1.6
5 0
0.5 NA
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.02 0.02
50 50
5 5
a
Na
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, C0 (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone-, Co
(Mg/L)
1
169000
105
8070
126
105
2
1150000
709
8070
126
709
3
169000
6140
138
126
6140
4
169400
169400
5.00
253
169000
5
169000
105
8070
23.8
105
6
169000
105
8070
6.32
105
7
1150000
1150000
5.00
2.38
1150000
8
N
N
H
tl
H
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
> Maximum well concentration, Cmax (pg/L)
Ui Index of grounduater concentration increment
resulting from landfilled sludge,
Index 1 (unitless) (Equation 4)
Index of human toxicity resulting from
groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5)
18.3
2.83
0.361
123
13.3
18.4
2.84
0.365 0.361
18.4
2.84
0.361
77.3
8.73
0.363
105
26500 N
11.5 2650 0
0.364 1.42 0.360
aN = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
bNA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |