United States
Environmental Protaction
Agency
Office of 'A/ale;
Regulations and Standards
Waahinaton. CC 20460
Water
                                                , Juno, 1985
                       ,  a

-------
                                  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 OF CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

PREFACE 	    i

1.  INTRODUCTION	  1-1

2.  PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR IRON IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  2-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Mark.eti.ng 	  2-1

    Landfilling 	  2-2

    Incineration 	  2-2

    Ocean Disposal 	  2-2

3.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR IRON IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  3-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of iron (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) 	  3-4
         Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 	  3-10
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	  3-14

    Landf illing 	  3-22

    Incineration 	  3-22

    Ocean Disposal 	  3-22

4.  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR IRON IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  4-1

    Occurrence 	  4-1

         Sludge 	  4-1
        .Soil  - Unpolluted 	  4-2.
         Water - Unpolluted 	  4-2
         Air 	  4-3
         Food  	  4-3
                                   11

-------
                            TABLE OP CONTENTS
                               (Continued)

                                                                     Page

    Human Effects	  4-4

         Ingestion 	  4-4
         Inhalation 	  4-6

    Plant Effects 	  4-6

         Phytotoxicity 	  4-6
         Uptake 	  4-7

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	  4-8

         Toxicity 	  4-8
         Uptake 	  4-8

    Aquatic Life Effects 	  4-8

         Toxicity 	  4-8
         Uptake 	  4-9

    Soil Biota Effects 	  4-9

         Toxicity 	  4-9
         Uptake 	  4-9

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 	  4-9

5.  REFERENCES	  5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD"INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    IRON IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 	  A-l
                                   111

-------
                                 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.     Iron   (Fe)   was   initially   identified   as   being  of
 potential  concern when sludge  is  landspread (including distribution and
 marketing).*  This profile  is a compilation of information  that may  be
 useful  in  determining whether Fe poses  an actual  hazard to human health
 or  the environment when sludge  is disposed of by this method.
     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 are  included
 in  this  profile.   The  calculation  formulae for these  indices  are shown
Jin  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 IRON 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 Iron

          Landspreading  of  municipal  sewage sludge  at low  application
          rates   (5  mt/ha)  is  not expected  to  increase soil  concentra-
          tions   of  Fe above  background levels.   At higher  application
          rates   (50  mt/ha and 500 mt/ha),  a slight increase  in  Fe soil
          concentrations may occur (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

          Conclusions were  not  drawn  because  index values could  not  be
          calculated due to lack of data (see Indices 2  and 3).

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          Phytotoxic effects due  to  soil concentrations of  Fe resulting
          from  landspreading  of  sludge  could  not  be  determined  due  to
          lack of data  (see Index 4).   When municipal   sewage  sludge  is
          applied to soil at  a  low rate, no increase in levels  of plant
          tissue  concentration   of  Fe  is  anticipated.   If  sludge  is
          applied at  50  mt/ha  to  500  mt/ha,  the  Fe  concentration  in
          plants grown in  the  amended soil may  increase moderately (see
          Index   5).   These  elevated  plant  tissue concentrations  of  Fe
          are   not  expected  to  be   precluded  by  phytotoxicity  (see
          Index  6).

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

          The  consumption of  plants   grown  in  sludge-amended soils  by
          herbivorous animals is not expected to pose a toxic  hazard due
          to Fe  (see  Index 7).   The  incidental   ingestion  of  sludge-
          amended soil, however, may pose a  toxic  hazard to  grazing ani-
          mals   when  sludge  containing  a  high  concentration  of  Fe  is
          applied (see Index 8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          Landspreading of sludge is  not  expected  to pose a health  haz-
          ard  due to  Fe  for humans who  consume  plants  grown  in  sludge-
          amended soil, except  possibly  for adults when sludge  contain-
          ing  a  high concentration of  Fe  is applied at  a high rate  (see
                                   2-1

-------
          Index 9).   The  consumption  of  animal  products  derived  from
          animals  that have either grazed plants  grown  in  sludge-amended
          soil  or have  ingested sludge-amended  soil  is not expected  to.
          pose  a health threat  due to Fe for humans  (see Indices  10 and
          11).   Ingestion of sludge-amended soil  or pure sludge  by todd-
          lers  may increase the health hazard due  to  Fe above  the  hazard
          posed by  ingestion  of unamended  soil.  This increase may  be
          substantial  when sludge containing  a  high  concentration  of  Fe
          is  applied at  a  high rate.   For  adults, ingestion  of  sludge-
          amended  soil or sludge is not expected  to pose a  health  hazard
          due to Fe (see  Index 12).   The aggregate  amount  of Fe  in the
          toddler   diet   resulting  from  landspireading  of   sludge  may
          slightly increase the health  hazard due to  Fe,  above  the risk
          posed by  the  acceptable daily  intake  of  Fe.   For adults,  a
          health hazard  due to the aggregate amount of  Fe in  the diet  is
          only  expected when  sludge   containing  a high concentration  of
          Fe  is landspread  at  a high  rate (see Index  13).

 II. LANDFILLING

     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.

III. INCINERATION

     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.

 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.
                                  2-2

-------
                                SECTION 3

                   PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR IRON
                        IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I.   LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Iron

          1.   Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)

               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.   As sumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  pollutant is  dis-
                    tributed and retained within the upper 15 cm of  soil
                    (i.e.,   the  plow  layer),   which has  an   approximate
                    mass (dry matter)  of 2 x 10-* mt/ha.

               c.   Data Used and Rationale

                      i. Sludge concentration  of  pollutant  (SC)

                         Typical    28,000 yg/g DW
                         Worst     78,700 ug/g DW

                         The typical  and worst sludge concentrations  are
                         the  median   and  maximum   values   of   sludge
                                   3-1

-------
               concentration  data  from  14  cities  (Cunningham
               et al.,  1975;  Dowdy  and  Larson, 1975;  Furr et
               al.,   1976;  and  Sommers  et  al.,  1976).   (See
               Section 4, p. 4-1.)

           ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
               (BS) = 20,000 ug/g DW

               Shacklette et  al.  (1971 in TDI,  1981)  reported
               that the  geometric  mean of Fe  concentration in
               soils  from  western  states  was  20,000  ug/g,
               while the geometric mean  for  eastern states was
               15,000  Hg/g.    Connor and  Shacklette  (1975  in
               TDI,  1981) reported that  the  geometric  means of
               Fe concentration for  different  soil  types  range
               from 4,700  to  43,000 Hg/g.   Jackson  (1964  in
               TDI,  1981)  reported  that  Fe  concentrations for
               most   soils  range  from 7,000  to  42,000  Ug/g.
               The value selected as  the  background concentra-
               tion in  soil  was 20,000  Ug/g.   This value was
               selected  because  it  falls  near  the center  of
               the  ranges  reported  for  different   soil  types.
               (See Section 4, p. 4-2.)

          Index 1 Values

                              Sludge  Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0        5        50        500
Typical
Worst
1
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.6
     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  municipal
          sewage sludge  at  low application rates  (5  mt/ha)  is
          not expected  to increase  soil  concentrations of  Fe
          above  background  levels.     At  higher  application
          rates (50 mt/ha and 500  mt/ha),  a slight  increase  in
          Fe soil concentrations•may  occur.

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.
                         3-2

-------
     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) = 20,000 Ug/g DW

               See Section 3,  p.  3-2.

          iii. Soil concentration  toxic  to  soil  biota  (TB)  -
               Data not immediately available.

     d.   Index 2  Values  -  Values were  not calculated  due to
          lack of data.

     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 -  Conclusion was not  drawn
          because index values  could  not  be calculated.

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.

     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) = 20,000 ug/g DW

               See Section 3,  p.  3-2.
                         3-3

-------
               iii. Uptake slope  of pollutant in soil  biota (UB) -
                    Data not immediately available.

                    In the only available  study  in  which Fe content
                    in applied sludge  and earthworms  was  measured
                    (Helmke  et  al.,  1979),  there  was  no  clear
                    relationship  between  applied Fe  and  tissue Fe.
                    This may  have  been  due in  part  to the  low Fe
                    concentration   in  sludge  of  11,600  Ug/g  DW,
                    compared  to  20,800  Ug/g DW   in  soil.    (See
                    Section 4, p.  4-9.)

                iv. Background  concentration in soil biota  (BB)  =
                    730 ug/g DW

                    This  background  concentration   in  soil  biota
                    represents  the  control  value   for  earthworms
                    reported by Helmke  et  al.  (1979).  (See Section
                    4, p. 4-9.)

                 v. Feed  concentration  toxic to   predator  (TR)  =
                    800 ug/g DW

                    Birds  were   selected   as   a   model   earthworm
                    predator.      The  only   available   information
                    indicating Fe concentrations toxic  to  birds was
                    for  chickens.   A  diet  containing  800  Ug/g  in
                    the  form  of  FeS04  •  7^0  was  associated  with
                    reduced growth  in chicks  (McGhee et al.,  1965
                    in National  Academy of  Sciences  (NAS),  1980).
                    This concentration  is  considered  a  conservative
                    choice, since the form  of Fe fed  to chicks  is  a
                    soluble form  and,  thus, may be  absorbed  more
                    readily then  less  soluble forms.    (See  Section
                    4, P; 4-12.)

          d.   Index  3 Values  - Values  were not calculated  due  to
               lack of data.

          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  -  Conclusion  was  not  drawn
               because index values  could not be  calculated.

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
               concentration  shown to be toxic for some  plant.


                              3-4

-------
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) = 20,000 ug/g DW

          See Section 3, p.  3-2.

     iii. Soil  concentration  toxic  to  plants  (TP) -  Not
          determined.

          The  forms  of  Fe  that predominate  in  aerated
          soils,  i.e.,  the  hydroxides  and  oxides of  the
          Fe III or  ferric  state, are  practically insolu-
          ble in water and  are  thus 'of limited availabil-
          ity to plant roots.   Under  reducing  conditions,
          characterized  by  waterlogging  and/or  low  pH,
          the soluble  Fe  II or  ferrous forms  become  more
          prevalent  (Fuller, 1977).   Fe in  sludge may be
          present in the  ferrous state, depending on  the
          oxygen status of  the  sludge.  Under  normal  soil
          conditions, soluble Fe added  to soil  is rapidly
          precipitated  as ferric hydroxide  (FeO(OH]),  and
          then  gradually  converted  to  even less  soluble
          forms  (Council  for   Agricultural  Science   and
          Technology (CAST), 1976).    However,  at low- pH
          (<5.-0)  and  especially in  soils  deficient  in
          manganese,   Fe  solubility   is  enhanced  (CAST,
          1976;  Asghar  and Kanehiro,  1981).     Organic
          matter can also have  a reducing effect.in  soil;
          the additioH of sludge has  been  shown  to  cause
          an increase  in  soluble soil  Fe,  even  when  the
          sludge itself  was low in  soluble Fe (John  and
          Van Laerhoven,  1976).

          Plants  can  tolerate  high  levels  of  soil   Fe
          under aerobic  conditions,  as evidenced by  the
          mean soil  concentration of  20,000 Ug/g  DW  (see
          Section  3,   p.   3-2.),   but   soil   solution
          concentrations  of  soluble  Fe as low as  100 mg/L
          are associated with toxicity in rice  (Tanaka et
          al.,  1966-in Foy  et al.,  1978)  (See Section 4,
          p.  4-10.)  Thus,  any  hazard  of  Fe toxicity  is
          more a  function of  soil conditions  than of  Fe
          concentration.     While   sludge   addition   can
          promote  reducing  conditions   in  soil,   this
                    3-5

-------
               effect   is   independent   of   the   sludge   Fe
               concentration.   Liquid  sludge is  often phyto-
               toxic when first applied,  and this toxicity may
               be due  in part to  reduced Fe, but  this effect
               is  well   known  and   ordinarily  short-lived.
               Therefore,   a  soil concentration  of  total  Fe
               resulting  in  phytotoxicity will  not  be stated,
               and Index  4  will  not be calculated.   It should
               be  recognized,  however,  that  addition of  any
               sludge that increases soil  Fe (see Index 1) may
               increase  the  hazard of phytotoxicity  in  soils
               prone to such problems.

     d.   Index 4  Values - Values  were not  calculated due  to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value Interpretation -  Value equals factor  by  which
          soil concentration exceeds  phytotoxic  concentration.
          Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion - Index  values  were  not  cal-
          culated  because a  soil  concentration  of total  Fe
          resulting in  phytotoxicity  could  not  be identified.
          The hazard of Fe toxicity is more  a function of  soil
          conditions  than  Fe  concentration.     However,   it
          should be  recognized that any  sludge  addition  that
          increases  soil  Fe  (see   Index  1)  may  increase  the
          hazard of  Fe  phytotoxicity  in   soils  prone  to  such
          problems.

2.   Index, of  Plant Concentration  Increment Caused  by Uptake
     (Index 5)

     a.   Explanation -  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.
          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.
                         3-6

-------
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) = 20,000 Ug/g DW

          See Section 3, p. 3-2.

     iii. Conversion  factor  between  soil  concentration
          and application rate (CO)  = 2 kg/ha (ug/g)"1

          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:
          Wheat grain    0.0057 Ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)"1

          Human diet:
          Lettuce leaf   0.0077 Ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)"1

          Wheat grain  was selected  to  represent  a  grain
          crop consumed  by livestock.   The  uptake  slope
          was calculated from data presented by  Sabey and
          Hart (1975)  in  a field study  investigating the
          chemical  composition of plants grown in  sludge-
          amended soil.    Although   higher  uptake  slopes
          were available  for  sorghum grown  in  pots  with
          FeSO'4-amended  soil  (Fuller and  Lanspa,  1975),
          the data  for wheat  were  considered  more  rele-
          vant  because  the  wheat was  grown  on  sludge-
          amended soil.   Lettuce  leaf was  chosen  to  rep-
          resent plants  consumed by humans,   based   on  a
          field study by Dowdy and Larson  (1975)  in  which
          sludge was  used.    A  higher  slope  for  beet
          tubers (John  and Van Laerhoven,  1976)  was  not
          used because  total Fe  was  not reported  and the
          slope was  based  on  soluble Fe.   In addition,  a
          much higher slope for  turnip  greens  (0.27  Ug/g
          [kg/ha]~l)  from  a   field   study using   sludge
          (Miller and  Boswell,  1979)  was not   selected
          because it  appeared  to be anomalous  when  com-
          pared with  the  other  values  available.   (See
          Section 4, p.  4-11.)
                    3-7

-------
            v. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)

               Animal diet:
               Wheat grain     36.3 Ug/g DW

               Human diet:
               Lettuce leaf    94   Ug/g DW

               Background  concentrations  of  Fe in  wheat  grain
               and  lettuce leaf  were  reported  by Sabey  and
               Hart   (1975)   and   Dowdy  and   Larson   (1979),
               respectively.  Their  studies  provided data used
               to   calculate    the  uptake   slopes.      (See
               Section 4, p. 4-11.)

     d.   Index S Values

                                        Sludge Application
                                           Rate (mt/ha)
                        Sludge
        Diet         Concentration  0      5      50   500
Animal
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.5
4.7
     Human             Typical     1.0    1.0   1.0   1.3
                       Worst       1.0    1.0   1.2   2.9

     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   -  When   municipal   sewage
          sludge is applied to soil  at  a  low rate,  no  increase
          in  levels  of  plant tissue  concentration of  Fe  is
          anticipated.    If sludge  is  applied at  50 mt/ha  to
          500 mt/ha, the  Fe concentrations in plants,  grown  in
          the amended soil may increase moderately.

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
          purpose  is to determine  whether  the plant concentra-
          tion  increments  calculated  in   Index  5 for  high
          applications  are truly  realistic,  or  whether  such
          increases would be precluded by phytotoxicity.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -  Assumes  that   tissue  con-
          centration  will   be  a   consistent  indicator   of
          phytotoxicity.
                         3-8

-------
c.   Data Used and Rationale

       i. Maximum  plant  tissue  concentration  associated
          with phytotoxicity (PP)

          Animal diet:
          Alfalfa (tops)     1206 Ug/g DW

          Human diet:
          Soybean (tops)     1320 Ug/g DW

          No  information  was  available  on  tissue  con-
          centration  of  Fe associated with  phytotoxicity
          for wheat  or  lettuce.   Shetron  (1979)  reported
          Fe  concentrations  as   high  as   1206  Ug/g  in
          alfalfa grown  on Fe  tailings.   No  effects  were
          observed  on  growth  and  development;  however,
          the  study  did  not   report  data  for  yields.
          Brown  and  Jones  (1977  in  Foy  et  al.,  1978)
          reported    growth    limitations    in    soybeans
          containing  tissue  concentrations  of  1320  Ug/g»
          It  is  assumed  that  the  tissue  concentrations
          associated  with  toxicity   for   alfalfa   and
          soybeans  are  representative of  those  for  wheat
          and lettuce.  (See Section 4, p.   4-10.)

      ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)

          Animal diet:
          Alfalfa      200 Ug/g DW

          Human diet:
          Soybeans     200 Ug/g DW

          The background  concentration of  Fe for alfalfa
          is the  concentration given  for  alfalfa  meal  in
          TDI  (1981).   The concentration  of  Fe in  the
          upper leaves of  soybean plants prior  to pod set
          was reported to be 100 to 200 Ug/g  (TDI, 1981).
          The higher  concentration  was selected  to  pro-
          vide  a  conservative  increment   value.    (See
          Section 4, p.  4-7.) •

d.   Index 6 Values

         Plant              Index Value

     Alfalfa        .           6.0
     Soybeans                  6.6

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
                    3-9

-------
          similar plant tissues  given  by Index 5.   The lowest
          of the  two  indices  indicates  the maximal  increase
          which can occur  at any given application rate.

     £.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -   The   index   values   for
          alfalfa and  soybeans  are similar.   Increases of  Fe
          concentrations   in  plant  tissues  above  background
          concentrations  by  a  factor of  6  are expected to  be
          accompanied by phytotoxicity.   Comparison  to  Index 5
          indicates  that   the  highest  concentration  factors
          predicted for wheat or lettuce  would not be expected
          to be precluded  by phytotoxicity.

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.

     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).
       ._i
           ii.  Background  concentration in  plant  tissue (BP) =
               36.3 yg/g DW

               The background concentration value used is  for
               the  plant   chosen  for  the   animal  diet   (see
               Section  3,  p. 3-8).

          iii.  Feed concentration  toxic  to  herbivorous  animal
               (TA) = 477  Ug/g DW

               Cattle  fed   diets   containing  iron  citrate  (a
               highly available form)  at  500 Ug/g or more  (as
               Fe)  showed  a  trend toward  poorer  performance
               (weight  gain and   feed  consumption); however,
               the effects  were  not statistically  significant
                        3-10

-------
               (Koong et al., 1970 in NAS,  1980).   In the same
               study, a level of  2500 Ug/g  caused  significant
               reduction of feed intake and  daily weight gain.
               Standish et  al.  (1969  in  NAS,  1980)  reported
               similar  findings  with   slight  reduction   in
               weight  gain  and  feed  conversion   at  dietary
               FeS(>4   levels   of   477    Ug/g  (as   Fe)   and
               significant reduction in growth and  feed intake
               at 1677  Ug/g.   Although no  significant  effects
               were  observed  at  this dietary  level,  477  Ug/g
               was  selected  to  conservatively  estimate  the
               feed    concentration   toxic    to    herbivorous
               animals.

               Less   available  forms  are   tolerated  at  higher
               levels.  For  example,  when FeO(OH) was  admini-
               stered  in  amounts  corresponding  to  a  dietary
               concentration of  1400 Ug/g  DW  (for a  total con-
               centration,  including  food  sources  of  Fe,  of
               1980    Ug/g   DW),   cattle   performance •  was
               unaffected, although biochemical indices showed
               a marked Cu  deficiency had developed  (Campbell
               et al., 1974).  However, since  the availability
               of Fe forms in common animal  feeds is  not known
               (NRC,  1979),  toxicity  values  for   the  more
               available  forms   are  used  as a  conservative
               approach.  (See Section 4,  p.  4-12.)

     d.   Index 7 Values

                             Sludge  Application Rate  (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration       0         5       50        500
Typical
Worst
0.076
0.076
0.077
0.080
0.081
0.11
0.11
0.36
     e.   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.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  - The  consumption of  plants
          grown in sludge-amended  soils  by  herbivorous animals
          is not expected  to pose  a toxic hazard  due to Fe.

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
          dietary toxic threshold concentration  for a grazing
          animal.

                        3-11

-------
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.

Data  Used and Rationale

  i.  Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

      Typical     28,000  pg/g  DW
      Worst       78,700  yg/g  DW

      See Section 3, p. 3-1.

 ii.  Background  concentration of  pollutant   in  soil
      (BS) = 20,000 yg/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
      32 mt/ha were grazed throughout a  growing  sea-
      son  (168 days),  average  sludge content  of  for-
      age    was     only    2.14   and    4.75  percent,
      respectively  (Bertrand et al.,  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
               3-12

-------
          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) = 1400 ug/g DW

          In  sludge  applied  to  soil,  Fe  II  is  readily
          oxidized  to  the  less  available  Fe  III  (see
          Section 3,  p. 3-5).   It  is  assumed  that a  simi-
          lar  conversion  readily  takes  place   in  sludge
          applied over growing  forage,  once  the sludge is
          permitted to dry.   Therefore, a value for  feed
          concentration toxic to  herbivorous  animals  will
          be  chosen   based  on   data  for  Fe  III  (i.e.,
          FeO[OH]),  since  this  index  estimates  hazard
          from  ingested  sludge  or soil.    A  dietary  Fe
          concentration of  1400 Ug/g DW administered  as
          FeO(OH),  was  associated  with marked  adverse
          effects  on  Cu status  in  cattle (although  per-
          formance was  not  affected)  (Campbell et  al.,
          1974).   However,  if  forage were grazed immedi-
          ately  after  liquid   sludge   application,   the
          lower value of 477 Ug/g DW  based on Fe II  might
          be more  applicable  (see Section 3, p.  3-10  and
          Section 4,  p. 4-12).

d.   Index 8 Values

                        Sludge  Application Rate  (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration        0          5        50       500
Typical
Worst
0.71
0.71
1.0
2.8
1.0
2.8
1.0
2.8
     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.

     Preliminary Conclusion -  The  incidental ingestion of
     sludge-amended soil  may pose  a toxic hazard to  graz-
     ing   animals   when   sludge   containing   a   high
     concentration of Fe  is  applied.
                   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)  =
                    94 yg/g DW

                    The  background  concentration value  used  is  for
                    the   plant   chosen  for  the   human  diet  (see
                    Section 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  (1984).   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    15,000 Ug/day
    Adult      17,400 Ug/day

    Sollman  (1957  as  cited  in  U.S.  EPA,  1976)
    reported a  range of 7,000  to  35,000 Ug/day in
    diets with an average of 16,000  ug/day.   Bjorn-
    Rasmussen et  al. (1974  in  TDI,  1981)  reported
    an  average  daily  intake   of   17,400  Ug/g  in
    males.   The  daily  nutritional  requirement  for
    Fe is  1,000  to  2,000  Ug> but  larger quantities
    are  required  in  the  diet  due  to  poor  absorp-
    tion.   NRC  Recommended Daily  Allowances (RDAs)
    for  Fe  ranged   from  10,000  to  18,000  ug/day
    depending on  age  and  sex  (NRC,  1980   in  TDI,
    1981).  The  RDA  for children 1  to 3 years  old
    (15,000 ug/day)  was chosen  to  represent  average
    daily  intake  in  toddlers.   The  average  daily
    intake  for males,  17,400  ug/day,  was chosen as
    the  average  daily  intake  for  adults.    This
    value  is  within  the  range  of  RDA values  and
    reflects a reported average  intake.

 v. Acceptable  daily intake  of pollutant   (ADI)  =
    35,000 Ug/day

    No  information  was  available   on  acceptable
    daily  intake  of  Fe.   Recommended  daily  intakes
    (RDAs) ranged from 10,000 to 18,000  Ug>  depend-
    ing  on age  and  sex  (NRC,   1980  in  TDI,  1981).
    The   RDA   for  pregnant   and   lactating  women
    includes Fe  supplements  to  the  diet  of  30  to
    60 fng  daily.   RDAs are  considered  the  minimal
    requirement  for  normal  healthy  persons  and
    necessary for  the avoidance of  Fe  deficiency,
    anemia, or  other manifestations of  severe lack
    of Fe  (TDI, 1981).  Diets are  reported  to range
    from 7,000 to 35,000 ug/day  by  Sollman  (1957 in
    U.S. EPA, 1976).  High incidence of hemochroma-
    tosis  and  siderosis  were  observed  among  Bantu
    populations   where   males   consumed   50   to
    100 mg/day of  Fe from beer  alone  (Bothwell  et
    al., 1964 in TDI, 1981).

    The  value   of 35,000  ug/day  was  selected  to
    represent the  high  end of  the range of normal
    daily  intake,  with  the  exception of  pregnant
    and   lactating   women.      This   value   was
    conservatively   chosen   to    avoid   problems
    associated with chronic excessive intake of Fe.
             3-15

-------
     d.   Index 9 Values

                                       Sludge Application
                                          Rate (mt/ha)
                       Sludge
          Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.48
0.48
0.81
          Adult       Typical      0.50   0.50   0.51   0.64
                      Worst        0.50   0.51   0.63   1.6

     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.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  - Landspreading of  sludge is
          not expected  to  pose  a  health  hazard  due to  Fe  for
          humans   who  consume  plants  grown  in  sludge-amended
          soil, except  possibly  for adults  when  sludge  con-
          taining  a high  concentration of Fe  is applied at a
          high rate.

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
          products derived from  domestic animals  given  feed
          grown on sludge-amended  soil (crop or  pasture land)
          but  not  directly  contaminated  by adhering  sludge.
          Compares 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  pos-
          sible variations in dietary  intake into two  categor-
          ies:     toddlers   (18   months  to   3   years)   and
          individuals  over 3 years old.
                        3-16

-------
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) =
     36.3 ug/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)
     = 0.26 Ug/g  tissue  DW (ug/g feed  DW)'1
     Standish et  al.  (1969  in  NAS,  1980)  reported
     uptake  of  Fe  in  steers  fed  diets . containing
     FeSO^.    Uptake   slopes  were   calculated   for
     liver,   spleen,   kidney,    heart   and   muscle.
     Spleen tissue had  the highest uptake  slope  but
     was not  selected  for use  in the  index  because
     it does  not  represent tissue normally  consumed
     by humans.   Liver  had the second highest uptake
     slope and  was  selected for calculation of  the
     index since  it  is a  common component  of  the
     human diet.   The  uptake  slope  for muscle  was
     very  low.   This  slope  was  not  chosen  because
     Standish et al.  (1969  in  NAS, 1980) noted  that.
     the increase in  muscle  tissue concentration  of
     Fe  was   not  significant.    (See   Section   4,
     p. 4-13.)

 iv. Daily human  dietary  intake  of  affected  animal
     tissue '(DA)

     Toddler     0.97  g/day
     Adult.      5.76  g/day

     The FDA  Revised Total  diet (Pennington,  1983)
     lists average daily  intake  of beef  liver  fresh
     weight for' various age-sex  classes.   The  95th
     percentile   of   liver  consumption   (chosen   in
     order to  be  conservative)  is  assumed  to  be
     approximately   3    times    the   mean    values.
     conversion  to dry  weight  is based  on data  from
     USDA (1975).
              3-17

-------
            v. Average daily human  dietary intake of pollutant
               (DI)

               Toddler    15,000 Ug/day
               Adult      17,400 Ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-15.

           vi. Acceptable  daily intake  of  pollutant  (ADI)  =
               35,000 Ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-15.

          Index 10 Values
          Group
             Sludge
          Concentration
    Sludge Application
       Rate (mt/ha)

         5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
          Adult
            Typical
            Worst
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
     e.

     f.
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary  Conclusion  - The  consumption  of  animal
products from  animals  that  have grazed  plants  grown
in  sludge-amended  soil  is  not  expected  to pose  a
health threat due to Fe for humans.
3.   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
          muscle  of  any   commonly consumed  species  or at  the
          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.
                        3-18

-------
c.   Data Used and Rationale

       i. Animal tissue = Beef liver

          Section 3, p. 3-17.

      ii. Background  concentration  of  pollutant in  soil
          (BS) = 20,000 Ug/g DW

          See Section 3, p. 3-2.

     iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

          Typical    28,000 Ug/g DW
          Worst      78,700  ug/g DW

          See Section 3, p. 3-1.

      iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed  to  be soil  (GS)
          = 5%

          See Section 3, p. 3-12.

       v. Uptake slope of  pollutant in  animal  tissue  (UA)
          = 0.26 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    0.97 g/day
          Adult      5.76 g/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-17.

     vii. Average daily human dietary  intake  of pollutant
          (DI)

          Toddler    15,000 Ug/day
          Adult      17,400 ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-15.

    viii. Acceptable  daily intake  of   pollutant  (ADI)  =
          35,000 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-15.
                   3-19

-------
     Index 11 Values

                                  Sludge Application
                                     Rate (mt/ha)
                  Sludge
     Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.44
0.44
0.54
0.54
0.44
0.46
0.56
0.67
0.44
0.46
0.56
0.67
0.44
0.46
0.56
0.67
e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  The  consumption  of  animal
     products  from  animals  that  have  ingested  sludge-
     amended  soils  is  not  expected  to  pose  a  health
     threat due to Fe for humans.

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 tor  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.

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    28,000  Ug/g DW
          Worst      78,700  Ug/g DW

          See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

     iii. Background  concentration  of pollutant in  soil
          (BS) = 20,000 ug/g DW

          See Section 3,  p.  3-2.
                   3-20

-------
           iv. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)
     d.
               Pica child
               Adult
                  5    g/day
                  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,  1983).
     The value  of  0.02  g/day  for  an  adult  is  an
     estimate from U.S.  EPA (1984).

  v. Average daily human  dietary  intake  of pollutant
     (DI)

     Toddler    15,000 ug/day
     Adult       17,400 Ug/day

     See Section 3, p. 3-15.

 vi. Acceptable daily intake  of pollutant  (ADI)  =
     35,000 Ug/day

     See Section 3, p. 3-15.

Index 12 Values

                      Sludge  Application
                         Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
3.3
3.3
0.51
0.51
5
3.3
3.3
0.51
0.51
50
3.3
3.5
0.51
0.51
500
3.5
5.0
0.51
0.52
Pure
Sludge
4.4
12
0.51
0.54
     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion - Ingestion  of  sludge-amended
          soil  or  pure  sludge by  toddlers  may  increase  the
          health hazard  due  to Fe,  above  the hazard  posed  by
          ingestion of  unamended  soil.   This increase may  be
          substantial  when sludge containing  a high  concentra-
          tion of  Fe  is applied at  a  high rate.   For adults,
          ingestion of  sludge-amended  soil  or sludge is  not
          expected  to  pose a  health hazard due to  Fe.

5.   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.
                        3-21

-------
               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
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.6
5.4
                    Adult       Typical       0.55    0.57   0.59   0.71
                                Worst        0.55    0.69   0.81   1.7

                    Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

                    Preliminary Conclusion -  The aggregate amount  of Fe
                    in the toddler  diet resulting from  landspreading of
                    sludge may  slightly increase  the  health hazard  due
                    to Fe above  the risk  posed  by the  acceptable  daily
                    intake of  Fe.    For  adults,  a health  hazard due to
                    the  aggregate   amount  of  Fe  in   the  diet  is  only
                    expected  when sludge containing a  high concentration
                    of Fe is  landspread  at a  high rate.
 II. LANDFILLING
     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  Chis  time.   The U.S. EPA reserves the  right
     to conduct such an assessment for  this option in the  future.

III. INCINERATION

     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.

 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.
                                  3-22

-------
                              SECTION 4

    PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR  IRON  IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE  SLUDGE


I. OCCURRENCE

   A.    Sludge
        1.   Frequency of Detection

             100% - based on ubiquitous nature
             use in wastewater treatment

        2.   Concentration
and
Range 1,000
Source of Sludge
Janesville, WI

Fond du Lac, WI

Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Waukesha, WI

Stillwater, MN

Washington, D.C.

Anderson, IN

Crawfordsville, IN

Kokomo, IN

Lebanon, IN

Logansport, IN

Noblesville, IN

Peru, IN

Tipton, IN

Median value for 14 cities
Worst value for 14 cities
to 37,000 ppm (DW)
Fe Concentration

-------
Soil - Unpolluted

1.   Frequency of Detection

     Fe is the fourth most abundant
     element in the earth's crust;
     ubiquitous

2.   Concentration

     Range 7000 to 42,000 ppm
     4700 to 43,000 ppm - range of
     geometric means for different
     soil types
     20,000 geometric mean - western States
     15,000 geometric mean - eastern States
Water - Unpolluted

1.   Frequency of Detection

     Assumed 100% due to ubiquitous nature

2.   Concentration

     a.   Freshwater

          <_ 1 Ug/L  in true solution
          in surface water
          2 to 200 Ug/L reported ranges

          0.04 to 0.67 mg/L


     b.   Seawater

          0.1 to 3.0 ug/L


          0.01 mg/L


     c.   Drinking Water

          0.3 mg/L criterion for domestic
          water supplies
TDI, 1981
(p. 184)
Jackson, 1964 in
TDI, 1981
(p. 187)

Connor and
Shacklette,
1975 in TDI,
1981 (p. 187)

Shacklette et
al., 1971 in
TDI, 1981
(p. 187)
TDI, 1981
(p. 184)
Hem, 1970
(p. 12)
Berner, 1970
in TDI, 1981
(p. 193)
Hem, 1970
(p. 11)
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 78)
                         4-2

-------
          1.8 mg/L in spring water and
          3.4 mg/L in distilled water,
          taste of Fe detected
Air

1.   Frequency of Detection

     Assumed 100% due to ubiquitous nature

2.   Concentration

     a.   Urban
          14 Ug/m-*  (industrial sector
          of Chicago)

          1580 ng/m-3 mean for urban
          location in U.S.

     b.   Rural

          50 ng/m3 (Colstrip, MN)


Pood

1.   Total Average Intake

     6 mg/1000 kcal (4.9 to 6.3 mg range)  -
     in typical western diet

     NRC Recommended Daily Allowances
     Children, 1 to 3 yrs   15,000 Ug/day
     Males, 11 to 18 yrs    18,000 Ug/day
     Males, 19 to 51+ yrs   10,000 Ug/day
     Females, 11 to 50 yrs  18,000 ug/day
     Females, 51+ yrs       10,000 ug/day

     30 to 60 mg supplemental Fe required
     daily for pregnant and lactating
     women

     12 mg Fe per day in typical vegetarian
     diet

     17.4 mg Fe per day in diet of typical
     men
Cohen  et al.,
1960 in U.S.
EPA, 1976   -
(p. 79)
TDI, 1981
(p. 185)

TDI, 1981
(p. 194)
TDI, 1981
(p. 185)
TDI, 1981
(p. 416)

NRC, 1980 in
TDI, 1981
(p. 412)
NRC, 1980 in
TDI, 1981
(p. 412)

TDI, 1981
(p. 418)

Bjorn-Rasmussen
et al., 1974 in
TDI, 1981
(p. 566)
                         4-3

-------
     1 to 2 mg daily nutritional require-
     ment but larger quantities required
     due to poor absorption.  Diets contain
     7 to 35 mg per day and average 16 mg.

2.   Concentration
                                                       Sollman, 1957
                                                       in EPA, 1976
                                                       (p. 79)
          Food
                             Fe concentration
                                 ppm (DW)
Source
Barley
Citrus, pulp
Corn grain
Oats
Rice bran
Wheat bran
Wheat grain
Fe Content of



50
200
200
70
190
150
50
TDI, 1981 (p. 326)
TDI, 1981 (p. 326)
TDI, 1981 (p. 326)
TDI, 1981 (p. 326)
TDI, 1981 (p. 326)
TDI, 1981 (p. 326)
TDI, 1981 (p. 326)
Some Representative Foods TDI , 1981

mg Fe/100
Kcal
(p. 417)
mg Fe/lOOg
Edible Portion
     Liver, calf
     Lettuce
     Green beans
     Eggs
     Ground beef
     Chicken, dark meat
     Chicken, white meat
     Wheat flour, refined
     Milk
     Sugar
                                             5.4
                                             7.8
                                             2.4
                                             1.4
                                             1.4
                                             1.0
                                             0.8
                                             0.2
                                            Trace
      14.2
       1.4
       0.6
       2.3
       3.2
       1.7
       1.3
       0.8
      Trace
       0.1
II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.   Ingestion

         1.   Carcinogenicity

              a.   Qualitative Assessment

                   Cancer of the esophagus has been
                   found to be associated with both
                   Fe deficiency and Fe overload,
                                              MacPhail  et al.,
                                              1979 in TDI,
                                              1981 (p.  550)
                         4-4

-------
     but no causal relationship has
     been established.

b.   Potency

     None demonstrated for ingestion
     route.

c.   Effects

     Liver carcinoma occurs in about
     15% of subjects with idiopathic
     hemochromatosis.  Hemochromatosis
     may increase the risk of primary
     tumor development elsewhere in
     the body.

Chronic Toxicity

a.   ADI

     No ADI has been established for
     Fe.
                      Finch and Finch,
                      1955
b.   Effects

     ^100 rag Fe/day in male Bantu
     population over many years
     results in siderosis.  Fe derives
     from beer brewed in iron
     containers.

     ^275 mg Fe/day for j>10  years
     has resulted in cases of
     hemochromatosis.
Absorption Factor

Nonheme - Fe
Heme - Fe
 1-10%
10-25%
Ferric iron absorption is greatly
increased when given with brandy or
whiskey to normal fasting subjects.

Existing .Regulations

Water Quality Criteria
     (July 1976) = 0.3 mg/L
                      Bothwell et al.,
                      1965 in TDI,
                      1981 (p. 511)
                      TDI, 1981
                      (p. 516)
TDI, 1981
(p. 397)

Charlton et al.,
1964 in TDI,
1981
                      U.S.  EPA,  1976
                    4-5

-------
     B.   Inhalation

          1.   Carcinogenicity

               a.   Qualitative Assessment
                    No carcinogenicity has been         TDI ,  1981
                    demonstrated for ferric oxides.      (p. 556)

               b.    Potency

                    None demonstrated for inhalation
                    route.

               c.    Effects

                    No cancers were found to be         U.S.  EPA, 1982
                    induced in inhalation exposure of   (p. 19)
                    animals by iron oxide, although
                    the latter does act as a carcino-
                    gen in  the presence of known
                    carcinogens .

          2.   Chronic Toxicity

               a.    Inhalation Threshold or MPIH

                    See below, "Existing Regulations"

               b.    Effects

                    Exposure to levels of ferric oxide   TDI,  1981
                    above the threshold values  has      (p. 541)
                    been known to cause lung irritation.

          3.   Absorption Factor

               Data not immediately available.

          4.   Existing Regulations
               5 mg/m3 TWA iron oxide fume (Fe203)      ACGIH,  1982
               10 mg/m3 STEL as Fe
III. PLANT EFFECTS

     A.   Pbytotoxicity

          1.    Soil Concentration
               >400 ppm soluble Fe associated with     Nhung  and
               toxicity to  rice;  >500 ppm highly       Ponnamperuma ,
               toxic                                    1966 in  Foy
                                  4-6

-------
          100 to 500 ppm soluble Fe produced Fe
          toxicity in rice
          Fe poses little hazard to crop
          production and plant accumulation
          when sludge is applied to soils
          because of its low solubility.  As
          a result, it has low availability to
          plants.

          50 and 100 t/ha of sludge with
          122,000 mg/kg Fe increased yield
          of fodder rape over controls.

     2.   Tissue Concentration
          See Table 4-1.
B.   Uptake
                           et al., 1978
                           (p. 532)

                           Tanaka et al.,
                           1966 in Foy
                           et al., 1978
                           (p. 533)

                           CAST, 1976
                           (pp. 2 and 24)
                           Narwal et al.,
                           1983 (p. 361)
        Plant
        Concentration
Part         ppm  (DW)
Source
Corn
Peanut
Rice
Sorghum
Cabbage
Cereal grains
grain
leaf
leaf
plant
leaf
grain
30-50
50-300
89-193
160-250
40-100
30-60
TDI,
TDI,
TDI,
TDI,
TDI,
NAS,
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1980
(p.
(p-
(p.
(p.
(p.
(p.
323)
323)
323)
323)
323)
243)
     100 to 700 ppm in cultivated grasses


     200 ppm alfalfa meal


     100 to 200 pg/g in upper leaves of
     soybeans prior to pod set

     See Table 4-2.
                           NAS,  1980
                           (p.  243)

                           TDI,  1981
                           (p.  326)

                           TDI,  1981
                           (p.  323)
                              4-7

-------
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

    A.   Toxicity

         "Evidence for Fe toxicity in domestic or
         farm animals, or animals living in their
         natural habitat, is practically nonexistent".

         See Table 4-3.

    B.   Uptake

         See Table 4-4.

 V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

    A.   Toxicity

         1.   Freshwater
                                              TDI , 1981
a.   Acute

Mayfly larvae
Mosquitofish
Dapthnia magna
Amphipods
b.   Chronic
                               Fe2*      320 ug/L
                               Fe2*  102,900 Ug/L
                               Fe3*    9,600 Ug/L
                               Fe3*  100,000 Ug/L (suspension)
                                              U.S. EPA, 1982
                                              (p. 23-26)
                                        1110 Ug/L
                                        9690 Ug/L
                                       <1870 Ug"/L
                                       <4120
     Coho salmon      Fe3"1"
     Brook trout      Fe3*
     Fathead minnows  Fe3*
     Amphipods        Fe3*
     There is no final freshwater acute or-
     chronic value for Fe because the mini
     mum data based requirements were not
     met.
Saltwater
     Acute
              Worm species
              Mummichog
              Mummichog

              Mummichog
                    Fe2*                 100,000 Ug/L
                    Fe2* (ferric chloride)  26,900 Ug/L
                    Fe3* (ferric ammonium
                    chloride)               31,500 Ug/L
                    Fe2* (ferrous ammonium
                    sulfate)           "  110,800 ug/L
     No final saltwater acute value could
     be calculated.
                         4-8

-------
          b.   Chronic

               Acceptable chronic toxicity values were
               not found for any saltwater animal.

     B.   Uptake

          Data not immediately available.

 VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

     A.   Toxicity

          Data not immediately available.

     B.   Uptake

          Fe concentration (ug/g) in tissues and        Helmke et  al.,
          casts of earthworms grown on sludge-amended   1979 (pp.  324  to
          soil (20,800 Ug/g Fe in soil,                 325)
          11,600 Ug/g Fe in sludge).  Wet  or dry
          weight not specified.  Since there was no
          clear relationship between applied Fe and
          Fe in earthworms, an uptake slope could
          not be calculated.
              Fe             1971a            1972a           1973a
          Application  	   	   	
             Rate       worms      casts   worms   casts   worms     casts
Control
174 kg/ha
348 kg/ha
696 kg/ha
730
1190
-
2010
23,000
23,500
-
23,300
1860
5300
390
560
21,900
21,000
19,500
20,000
500
750
410
380
20,800
19,200
19,300
18,500
          a Date of sludge application.   Sampling conducted  in  1975  or
            1976.

VII.  PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT

     Atomic weight:  55.847                             CRC  Handbook of
     Melting point:  1535°C                             Chemistry  and
     Boiling point:  2750°C                             Physics, 1976
     Specific gravity:  7.86 at 20°C                    (p.  B-119)
     Solubility in water:  insoluble
                                   4-9

-------
                                                          TABLE  4-1.   PHYTOTOXICITY OF IRON
Chemical
Plant/tissue Form Applied Soil pH
Rice seedlings Fe** 5.6
Control Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
NRa
Experimental
Soil Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
490 mg/Lb»e
Experimental Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW) Effect
NR
Death of rice seedlings
References
Nhung
and Ponnamperuma ,
1966 in Poy et al., 1978
Pe+* 5.6
Fe*+ 5.6
Fe** acid

Fe** acid
Fe** acid
-O
^ Tobacco/leaf Fe*+ NR
O
Rice/root Fe** 3.7
NR
Soybean/top Fe+* NR

. Alfalfa/top Iron 6.6
tailings
(field)
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR

NR

NR
NR
NR

NR


>500 mg/Lc»e
>400 mg/Lc»e
730 mg/Le

365 mg/Ld'e
655 mg/Le

NR '

100 mg/Le
500 mg/Le
NR

2134


NR
NR
NR

NR
NR

450 - 1126°

NR
NR
1320

1206


Highly toxic to rice
Toxicity in rice
Killed rice plants 1 day
after transplanting
Toxicity symptoms
Toxicity symptoms

Plant injury
Decreased leaf strength
Plant toxicity
Plant toxicity
Growth limitations

No observed effects on
growth and development'








Rhoads
et al.
Tanaka
Foy et
Brown
Foy et







, 1971 in Foy
, 1978
et al., 1966 in
al., 1978
and Jones, 1977 in
al., 1978
Shetron. 1979




a NR - Not reported.
b Associated aluminum concentration 68 Mg/g.
c Associated aluminum concentrations 25 Mg/g'
™ At planting.
e Refers to concentration of soluble Fe in soil  solution or culture  medium.
* Study did not report analysis of yield.

-------
                                                        TABLE 4-2.  UPTAKE OF IRON BY PLANTS
Plant/tissue
Plainsman sorghum/tops
Kafir sorghum/tops
Lettuce/leaf
Beet/tubers
Wheat/grain
Tomato/fruit
Lettuce/leaf
Turnip/greens
Chemical Form Range (N) of Control Tissue
Applied Soil Application Rates Concentration Uptakeb
(study type) pH ( kg/ha )a (pg/6 DW) Slope References
Fe as FeSO^ (pot) 7.6 0 - 736 (2) 112
Fe as FeS04 (pot) 7.6 0 - 736 (2) 107
Primary digested 6.4 3075 - 4360 (3)c 113
sludge and
milorganite (pot)
Primary digested 6.4 3075 - 4360 (3)c 128
sludge and
milorganite (pot)
Combined liquid digested NR (loamy 0 - 1400 (3) 36.3
sludge (field)6 sand)
Anaerobically digested 5.3 0 - 9870 (5) 17
dried sludge (field)
Anaerobically digested .5.3 0 - 4442 (4) 94
dried sludge (field)
Secondary digested 5.6 0 - 1116 (3) 377
sludge (field)
0.065 Puller and Lanspa, 1975
0.018 Puller and Lanspa, 1975
0.0075d John and Van Laerhoven, 1976
0.0112d John and Van Laerhoven, 1976
0.0057 Sabey and Hart, 1975
0.0025 Dowdy and Larson, 1975
0.0077 Dowdy and Larson, 1975
0.27 Miller and Boswell, 1979
(p. 1362)
a N = Number of application rates, including control.
b Slope = y/x:  x = kg Fe applied/ha; y = pg Fe/g plant tissue (dry weight).
c Unit is pg Fe/g soil, where Fe  is  IN HNOi - extractable, not total.  Total Fe not reported.
  Slope is computed assuming 1 MR/8  = 2 kg/ha to convert soil concentration to application rate,
e Sludge consisted of 502 anaerobically digested primary sludge and 50% aerobically digested primary sludge.

-------
                                                 TABLE 4-3.  TOXICITY OF IRON TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
 I

NJ
Feed Water Daily
Chemical Concentration Concentration Intake
Species (N)a Form Fed (pg/g DW) (mg/L) (mg/kg DW)
Swine (6) FeS04 3000 NRC NR
FeSO^ 4000 NR NR
Chicken (20) FeS04 400 NR NR
FeSO^ 800 NR NR
Cattle (6) FeSOA 477 NR NR

FeS04 1677 NR NR

Cattle (8) Iron citrate 100 NR ' NR
Iron citrate 500 - 1000 NR NR


Iron citrate 2500 NR NR


Cattle (8) FeO(OH) 1400 NR 30




Duration
of Study (days) Effect
56
56
28
28
84

84

98
NR


NR


210




No Effect
Reduced growth
No effect
Reduced growth
Slight decrease in
gains and food conversion
Significant reductions in
growth and feed intake
No adverse effect
Trend toward poorer
performance (weight
gain, feed consumption)
Significant reduction
in feed intake and
daily weight gain
Marked depression of
liver and blood Cu,
caeruloplasmin and amine
oxidase. No effect on
performance
References'1
0' Donovan et al., 1963
0' Donovan et al., 1963
NcGhee et al., 1965
McGhee et al., 1965
Standish et al., 1969

Standish et al., 1969

Standish et al., 1971
Koong et al., 1970


Koong et al., 1970


Campbell et al., 1974




     a N = Number of animals/treatment group.
     D Source of all information in table is from NAS, 1980 (p. 244 and pp. 249 to 252).
     c NR = Not reported.

-------
                                                  TABLE 4-4.  UPTAKE OF IRON BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
      Species(N)*
Chemical
Form Fed
 Range (N)b
of Feed Tissue
Concentration
        DW)
                    Tissue
                   Analyzed
Control Tissue
 Concentration
   (Mg/g DW)C
Uptake0 'd
 Slope
References
 i
OJ
      Steers
0 - 1600 (2)
                                                                   Liver
                                                             185
                      0.26         Standish et al.,  1969 in
                                   NAS, 1980
FeS04
FeS04
FeS04
FeS04
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
1600 (2)
1600 (2)
1600 (2)
1600 (2)
Spleen
Kidney
Heart
Muscle
1219
315
291
91
4.8
0.059
0.024
O.i
a N = Number of animals/treatment group.
)04

      " N = Number of feed concentrations,  including  control.
      c When tissue values were reported  as wet  weight,  unless  otherwise  indicated  a moisture content of  771 was assumed for kidney, 701 for liver and
        72X for muscle.                                                                                    ,
      d Slope = y/x:  x  = Mg/g feed (DW)j y = ug/g tissue (DW).

-------
                                SECTION 5

                                REFERENCES
American  Conference of  Governmental  and  Industrial Hygienists.  1982.
     Threshold Limit Values  for Chemical Substances  in  Work Air Adopted
     by ACGIH for 1982.  Cincinnati, OH.

Asghar,  M.,  and  Y. Kanehiro.    1981.    The  Fate  of  Applied  Iron  and
     Manganese  in  an  Oxigol  and an  Ultisol  from Hawaii.    Soil  Sci.
     131:53-55.

Berner,  R.   1970.   Iron-Abundance  in  Natural Waters.   In;   Wedepohl,
     K. H. (ed.), Handbook  of Geochemistry.  Springer-Verlag.   New York,
     NY.  (As cited in TDI,  1981.)

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.

Bjorn-Rasmussen,  E.,   et  al.    1974.    Food  Iron Absorption  in  Man:
     Applications of  the  Two-Pool Extrinsic  Tag  Method  to  Measure Heme
     and Nonheme  Iron  Absorption  from the Whole Diet.   J.  Clin. Invest.
     53:247.   (As cited in TDI, 1981.)

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.

Bothwell,  T.   H.,  et  al.     1964.    Iron  Overload  in  Bantu  Subjects:
     Studies  on  the Availability  of Iron  in Bantu  Beer.  Am.  J.  Clin.
     Nutr. 14:47.  (As cited in TDI,  1981.)

Bothwell, T. H.,  et al.   1965.   Oral  Iron  Overload.   S.  Afr. Med.  J.
     39:892.   (As cited in TDI, 1981.)

Brown,  J.  C.,  and  W.  E.  Jones.   1977.  Manganese and  Iron  Toxicities
     Dependent   on  Soybean  Variety.    Commun. Soil  Sci.  Plant.   Anal.
     8:1-15.   (As cited in Foy et  al., 1978.)

Campbell, A.  G., M.  R.  Coup,  W.  H. Bishop,  and D.  E.  Wright.   1974.
     Effect of  Elevated  Iron Uptake  on the Copper  Status  of Grazing
     Cattle.   N. Z.  J.  Agric.  Res. 17:393-399.

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.

Charlton, et  al.  1964.  Effect of Alcohol  on Iron  Absorption.   Br.  Med.
     Jour. 2:1427.  (As cited in TDI, 1981.)
                                   5-1

-------
Cohen, J. M., et al.   1960.   Taste  Threshold Concentrations of Metals in
     Drinking Water.   Jour.  Amer. Water  Works Assn. 52:660.   (As cited
     in U.S. EPA, 1976.)

Connor,  J.  J.  and  H.  T. Shacklette.   1975.   Background Geochemistry of
     Some Rocks, Soils,  Plants, and  Vegetables in the Coterminous United
     States.    Geological  Survey   Professional   Paper.   574-F.     U.S.
     Government Printing Office.   Washington, D.C.   (As cited  in  TDI,
     1981.)

Council for  Agricultural Science  and Technology.    1976.   Application of
     Sewage  Sludge  to  Cropland.  Appraisal  of Potential Hazards  of  the
     Heavy  Metals   to   Plants  and   Animals.    EPA 430/9-76-013.    U.S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.

CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.   1976.   57th Edition.   CRC Press,
     Cleveland, OH.

Cunningham, J. D.,  D. R. Keeney, and J. A. Ryan.   1975.   Yield and Metal
     Composition of  Corn and  Rye  Grown  on  Sewage-Sludge Amended  Soil.
     J. Environ. Qual.  4(4):448-454.

Dowdy, R. H., and W. E.  Larson.   1975.   The  Availability of Sludge-Borne
     Metals to Various  Vegetable Crops.   J.  Environ. Qual. 4(2):278-282.

Finch, S.  C.,  and  C.  A. Finch.  1955.   Idiopathic  Hemochromatosis,  An
     Iron  Storage  Disease.   A.    Iron  Metabolism  in  Hemochromatosis.
     Medicine. 34:381.    (As  cited  in TDI,  1981.)

Foy,  C.  D.,  R. L.  Chaney, 'and M. C.  White.   1978.   The  Physiology  of
     Metal Toxicity in  Plants.  Ann.  Rev.  Plant. Physiol.  29:511-66.

Fuller, W.  H., and  K.  Lanspa.   1975.   Uptake  of  Iron  and Copper  by
     Sorghum from Mine  Trailings.   J. Environ.  Qual. 4(3):417-422.

Fuller, W.   1977.  Movement of  Selected Metals, Asbestos,  and Cyanide  in
     Soil:   Applications  to Waste  Disposal  Problems.  Prepared for  U.S.
     EPA under  Contract  No.  68-03-0208.   EPA  600/2-77-020.   Cincinnati,
     OH.   April.

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.

Helmke, P. A., W. P. Robarge, R. L.  Korotev, and  P.  J. Schomberg.   1979.
     Effect  of  Soil-Applied Sewage  Sludge on  Concentrations  of Elements
     in Earthworms.   J. Environ. Qual.  8(3):322-327.

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.
                                   5-2

-------
Jackson, M. L.   1964.   Chemical Composition of  Soils.   In;   Bear, E. E.
     (ed.), Chemistry  of  the Soil. American Chem.  Soc.  Monograph Series
     No. 160.  Rheinhold Publ.  Corp.  New  York,  NY.   (As cited  in TDI,
     1981.)

John, M. K.,  and C. J.  Van Laerhoven.   1976.   Effect  of  Sewage Sludge
     Composition,   Application   Rate,   and   Lime  Regime   on   Plant
     Availability of Heavy Metals.  J. Environ. Qual. 5(3):246-251.

Koong, L. J., M.  B.  Wise,  and E. R. Barrick.  1970.   Effect of Elevated
     Dietary Levels of Iron  on  the  Performance and  Blood Constituents of
     Calves.  J. Ani. Sci. 31:422.

MacPhail,  A.  P.,  et  al.    1979.   Changing  Patterns  of  Dietary  Iron
     Overload in  Black South Africans.   Am.  Jour.  Clin. Nutr.  32:1272.
     (As cited in TDI,  1981.)

McGhee,  F.,  C.   R.  Greger,  and J. R.  Couch.    1965.   Copper and  Iron
     Toxicity.  Poult.  Sci. 44:310.

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(6):1361-65.

Narwal,  R.  P.,  B.  R.  Singh,  and  A.  R.   Panhwar.     1983.     Plant
     Availability of Heavy Metals in  a  Sludge-Treated  Soil:   I.  Effect
     of Sewage  Sludge  and  Soil  pH on the  Yield  and Chemical  Composition
     of Rape.  J. Env.  Qual. 12(3):358-365.

National Academy  of Sciences.    1980.   Mineral  Tolerances  of  Domestic
     Animals. National  Research  Council  Subcommittee  on  Mineral  Toxicity
     in Animals.  Washington, D.C.

National  Research  Council.     1979.     Iron.    University  Park  Press,
     Baltimore,  MD.

National Research Council.   1980.   Food  and  Nutrition  Board.   Revised
    , Edition of Recommended  Daily Allowances  of  Foods -  Iron.   National
     Academy of  Sciences, Washington,  D.C.   (As cited  in  TDI,  1981.)

Nhung, M.  T.  M., and  F.  N. Ponnamperuma.   1966.    Effects of  Calcium
     Carbonate,   Manganese   Dioxide,  Ferric  Hydroxide,  and   Prolonged
     Flooding,  Chemical  and  Electrochemical Changes  and Growth of  Rice
     in a  Flooded Acid Sulfate  Soil.   Soil.  Sci.  102:29-41.  (As  cited
     in Foy et al.,  1978.)

O'Donovan,  P. B., R. A. Pickett, M. P. Plumlee,  and W. M. Beeson.   1963.
     Iron Toxicity in the Young Pig.   J.  Ani.  Sci. 22:1075.

Pennington, J. A. T.  1983.  Revision of the Total  Diet  Study  Food  Lists
     and Diets.   J.  Am. Diet. Assoc.  82:166-173.

Rhoads, F.  M.   1971.   Relations Between Fe in Irrigation Water and  Leaf
     Quality of  Cigar Wrapper Tobacco.   Agron. J. 63:938-40.
                                   5-3

-------
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.

Sabey, B.  R., and W. E. Hart.   1975.   Land Application of Sewage Sludge:
     I.  Effect  on   Growth   and  Chemical   Corporation  of  Plants.    J.
     Environ. Qual.  4(2):252-256.

Shacklette,  H. T.,  et  al.   1971.  Elemental  Composition of Superficial
     Materials  in   the  Coterminous  United  States.    U.S.  Geological
     Society Professional Paper  574-D.   U.S.  Government Printing Office,
     Washington,  D.C.  71 pp.

Shetron, S.  G.   1979.   Chemical  Composition  of  Alfalfa (Medicago sativa
     L.) Grown  on  Iron and  Copper Mine  Mill  Wastes.   U.S.   Fish  and
     Wildlife Service,  Wildlife  Needs  in   Eastern  U.S.   Symposium,  WV.
     NTIS  PB 79-05830.   pp.  311-319.

Sollman, T.  M.   1957.   A Manual  of   Pharmacology.   8th  Ed.   W.  B.
     Saunders Co.  Philadelphia, PA.

Sommers, L.  E., D.  W. Nelson, and K. J.  Yost.   1976.   Variable  Nature of
     Chemical  Compositon   of   Sewage   Sludges.     J.   Environ.   Qual.
     5(3):303-306.

Standish,  J.  F., C.  B. Ammerman,  C.  F. Simpson,  F.  C.  Neal,  and  A. Z.
     Palmer.   1969.   Influence  of  Graded  Levels of  Dietary   Iron,  as
     Ferrous Sulfate,  on  Performance and  Tissue Mineral  Composition of
     Steers.  J.  Ani. Sci.  29:496.

Standish,  J. F.,  C.  B. Ammerman,  A. Z.  Palmer, and C.  F.  Simpson.   1971.
     Influence of Dietary Iron  and Phosphorus  on the  Performance,  Tissue
     Mineral Composition and Mineral Absorption  in  Steers.   J.  Ani.  Sci.
     33:171.

TDI,  Inc.  1981.    Multimedia  Criteria   for  Iron and  Compounds.   Draft
     Prepared for EPA.   Cincinnati,  OH.

Tanaka, A.,  R. Loe,  and S.  A. Navasero.  1966.   Some  Mechanisms Involved
     in the Development of  Iron  Symptoms  in  the Rick Plant.   Soil  Sci.
     Plant Natr.  19:173-82.   (As cited  in Foy et  al.,  1978.)

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.  8.

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.    1976.    Quality  Criteria  for
     Water.   Washington,  D.C.
                                   5-4

-------
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   1982.   Draft  Interim Criterion
     Statement:    Iron.    Ambient  Water   Quality  Criterion  for  the
     Protection   of   Human   Health.      Internal  Review   CIN-82-D008.
     Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.     1983.    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.    1984.   Air Quality  Criteria for
     Lead.   External Review  Draft.    EPA  600/8-83-028B.   Environmental
     Criteria  and   Assessment  Office,   Research  Triangle   Park,   NC.
     September.
                                  5-5

-------
                              APPENDIX

           PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR IRON
                     IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION- AND-MARKETING

   A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Iron

        1.   Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)

             a.   Formula

                  T j   ,  _ (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
                  IndeX :  ~     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

          _  _ (28000 ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) •*• (20000 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
                       20000 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  =


                  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
                            (pg/g  DW)

             b.    Sample calculation - Values were  not calculated  due
                  to  lack  of data.
                                A-l

-------
     2.   Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)

          a.   Formula

                         (II - 1)(BS x UB) + BB
               Index 3 =	—	


               whereJ

                    II = 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  -  Values were not  calculated  due
               to lack of data.

C.   Effect on Plants  and Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.   Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)

          a.   Formula

                         IT  x BS
               Index 4 =  'Tp	


               where:

                    !]_ = Index  1  =  Index  of  soil   concentration
                         increment (unitless)
                    BS = Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in
                         soil (ug/g DW)                          y
                    TP = Soil  concentration  toxic  to  plants   (ug/g
                         DW)

          b.   Sample  calculation  -  Values  were  not  calculated  due
               to lack of data.

     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
                             A-2

-------
          where:

               II = Index  1  =  Index  of  soil  concentration
                    increment (unitless)
               BS = Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in
                    soil (ug/g DW)
               CO = 2   kg/ha   (jag/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)

          Sample calculation

              -  (1.000997-1)  x  2QOQO  Ug/g DW    2 kg/ha
              —         ->/•-»    /  _,,          x    /     ..,
                        36.3 ug/g DW            ug/g  soil

            0.0057 ug/g tissue    .
          X      kg/ha            1

3.   Index  of   Plant   Concentration   Increment  Permitted  by
     Phytotoxicity (Index 6)

     a.   Formula

                    PP
          Indejc 6 = —


          where:

               PP = Maximum    plant    tissue    concentration
                    associated with  phytotoxicity  (ug/g DW)
               BP = Background  concentration   in  plant  tissue
                    (Ug/g DW)

     b.   Sample calculation

                1206 Ug/g DW
          °*U ~ 200 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 =
                      TA
                         A-3

-------
               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 m^j-t - 1.003268 x 36.3 Ug/g DW
               U.U/DJ// —    . -,_    /	....    —
                             477 ug/g DW

     2.   Index of  Animal  Toxicity Resulting from  Sludge Ingestion
          (Index 8)

          a.   Formula

               _. A_   .    _    BS x GS
               If AR = 0,   I8  = —^	


               if AR # o,   i8  = SCT* GS


               where:

                    AR = Sludge application  rate (mt DW/ha)
                    SC = Sludge    concentration     of     pollutant
                         (Ug/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 DW)

          b.   Sample calculation

               If AR - 0,   0.714285 = 2°°°°J1a/* ""' °'05
                        '                 1400  Ug/g DW

               If AR # 0     10=  28000  Ug/g DW x  0.05
               If AR f 0,    1.0  -


E.   Effect on Humans

     1.   Index of  Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant  Consumption
          (Index 9)

          a.   Formula

                         [(15 - 1) BP x DT]  +  DI
               Index 9 =
                                 ADI
                              A-4

-------
                               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
                                         (Ug/day)

                          b.    Sample calculation (toddler)

           n  /OQooc  _  [(1.003268 - 1) x 9'4 Ug/g DW x  74.5  g/dayl  +  15000  ue/dav
           0.429225  -                               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 = —5 - — -


                              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)
                                   DA = Daily  human  dietary  intake  of  affected
                                        animal tissue (g/day DW)
                               v   DI = Average  daily   human   dietary   intake  of
                                        pollutant (ug/day)
                                  ADI = Acceptable   daily   intake   of   pollutant
                                        (Ug/day)

                          b.   Sample calculation (toddler)

                              0.428573 =

1.003268-1)  x  36.3  Ug/g  DW x 0.26  Ug/g tissue[ug/g  feed]"1  x 0.97 g/dayl + 15000 He/day
                                      35000 yg/day
                                             A-5

-------
                 3.   Index of  Human  Toxicity  Resulting from  Consumption  of
                      Animal  Products  Derived  from  Animals   Ingesting  Soil
                      (Index 11)

                      a.    Formula

                           _,.  ._   n    _  ,    ..    (BS x  GS  x UA x  DA)  *  PI
                           If  AR = 0,   Index  11 =  	TTTT	

                           re  AD J, n    T A   11    (SC x GS x UA x DA) + PI
                           If  AR f 0,   Index 11 =


                           where:

                                AR = Sludge application rate  (mt  PW/ha)
                                BS = Background concentration  of  pollutant   in
                                     soil  (ug/g PW)
                                SC = Sludge    concentration    of    pollutant
                                     (Ug/g PW)
                                GS = Fraction of animal  diet assumed to be soil
                                     (unitless)
                                UA = Uptake slope  of pollutant in animal  tissue
                                     (Ug/g tissue PW [Ug/g feed  PW"1]
                                PA = Average daily   human  dietary  intake   of
                                     affected animal tissue  (g/day PW)
                                PI = Average daily   human  dietary  intake   of
                                     pollutant  (ug/day)
                              API = Acceptable   daily   intake    of  pollutant
                                     (Ug/day)

                 b.   Sample calculation  (toddler)

                      0.438659 =

(28000 yg/g DW x Q.Q5 x 0.26 Ug/g tissue  [ug/g  feed]"1 x 0.97 g/day PW)  + 15000 Ug/day
                                   35000  ug/day

                 4.   Index of  Human  Toxicity Resulting  from  Soil Ingestion
                      (Index 12)

                      a.    Formula

                                      (II  x BS  x PS) + PI
                           Index  12  =
                                               API
                          Pure  sludge  ingestion:   Index 12 = 	rrr	
                          where:
                               1^ = Index  1  =  Index  of  soil  concentration
                                    increment (unitless)
                               SC = Sludge    concentration     of    pollutant
                                    (Ug/g PW)
                                         A-6

-------
                            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)

        , OOQ<.,,    (1.000997 x 20000 ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day)  + 15000 ug/day
        3'288564 	35000 ug/day

                       Pure sludge:

                           _ (28000  Ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) + 15000 Ug/day
                           —           -irnnn   I i
                                       35000 Ug/day

             5.   Index of Aggregate Human  Toxicity  (Index  13)

                  a.   Formula


                       Index 13 = I9 + I10  + ln + I12 -


                       where:

                              Ig = Index  9  =   Index   of   human   toxicity
                                  resulting    from    plant     consumption
                                  (unitless)
                             IIQ = Index  10  =  Index  of  human   toxicity
                                  resulting  from  consumption  of   animal
                                  products derived  from animals feeding  on
                                  plants (unitless)
                             III ~ Index  11  =  Index  of  human   toxicity
                                  resulting  from  consumption  of   animal
                                  products derived  from  animals  ingesting
                                  soil  (unitless)
                             Il2 - Index  12  =  Index  of  human   toxicity
                                  resulting from  soil ingestion  (unitless)
                              DI = Average    daily   dietary    intake    of
                                  pollutant (ug/day)
                             ADI = Acceptable   daily  intake  of   pollutant
                                  (Ug/day)

             b.   Sample calculation (toddler)


3.299307 = (0.429225 + 0.428573 + 0.438659  + 3.288564) -
                                     A-7

-------
 II. LANDFILLING

     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.

III. INCINERATION

     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.

 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-8

-------