GCA-TR-75-32-G (5)
ASSESSMENT OF ACETONE
AS A POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
VOLUME V
FINAL REPORT
Contract No. 68-02-1337
Task Order No. 8
Prepared For
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
January 1976
GCA TECHNOLOGY DIVISION ®@A
BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730
-------
CCA-TK-75-32-C(5)
ASSESSMENT OF ACETONE
AS A POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
Volume V
by
Robert M. Patterson
Mark I. Bernstein
Eric Garshick
GCA CORPORATION
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION *
Bedford, Massachusetts
January 1976
Contract No. 68-02-1337
Task Order No. 8
EPA Project Officer
Michael Jones
EPA Task Officer
Justice Manning
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
-------
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the
GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730, in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1337, Task Order No. 8. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not neces-
sarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or of the cooperating
agencies. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an.
endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report is one of a series which assesses the potential air pollution
impacts of 14 industrial chemicals outside the work environment. Topics
covered in each assessment include physical and chemical properties,
health and welfare effects, ambient concentrations and measurement meth-
ods, emission sources, and emission controls. The chemicals investigated
in this report series are:
Acetylene
Methyl Alcohol
Ethylene Dichloride
Benzene
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Cyclohexanone
Formaldehyde
Methyl Methacrylate
Ortho-Xylene
Maleic Anhydride
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Adipic Acid
Phthalic Anhydride.
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V
Volume VI
Volume VII
Volume VIII
Volume IX
Volume X
Volume XI
Volume XII
Volume XIII
Volume XIV
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
List of Figures v
List of Tables v
Sections
I Summary and Conclusions 1
II Air Pollution Assessment Report 3
Physical and Chemical Properties 3
Health and Welfare Effects 3
Ambient Concentrations and Measurement 7
Sources of Acetone Emissions 10
Acetone Emission Control Methods 13
III References 18
Appendix
A Acetone Manufacturers 20
iv
-------
FIGURE
Page
Estimated Installed Cost of Acetone Storage Tanks
(Equipment Costs Assumed to be the Same as Gaso-
line Storage Tanks) 17
TABLES
1 Significant Properties of Acetone 4
2 Acute Human Response to Acetone Vapor 4
3 Acute Animal Response to Acetone Vapor 6
4 Acetone Consumption - 1974 11
5 Sources and Emission Estimates of Acetone 11
6 Estimated Installed Costs of Adsorption Systems 14
7 Estimated Annual Operating Costs of Adsorption Systems 14
8 Estimated Installed Costs of Thermal and Catalytic
Incinerators 16
9 Estimated Annual Operating Costs of Thermal and Catalytic
Incinerators 16
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Acetone is a colorless, highly flammable liquid with a characteristic
mintlike odor and taste. It is one of the least hazardous organic sol-
vents. Acute exposure can cause mucous membrane irritation, headache,
and narcosis. No deaths due to acute exposure'have been recorded. There
is no systemic injury associated with chronic inhalation of low con-
centrations of acetone. The occupational standard for an 8-hour time
weighted average exposure is 1000 ppm. Acetone has shown little reac-
tivity in irradiation studies and is not an important component in photo-
chemical oxidant formation.
Simple diffusion modeling estimates place the likely maximum 1-hour aver-
age ambient concentration at about 4 ppm. The maximum 24-hour average
ambient concentration might be expected to be about 2 ppm.
About 2 billion pounds of acetone were produced at 12 plants in 1974, with
about 30 percent being used as a solvent. Production is expected to in-
crease by 6 percent per year through 1978. Emissions result primarily
from solvent usage, production, use as an absorbent packing for acetylene,
bulk storage, and end-product manufacturing. About one-third of total
production is eventually lost as emissions.
Two types of emission controls are used extensively by the industry.
These are vapor recovery and incineration. Control by adsorption on
activated charcoal is used when recovery is economically desirable. The
primary advantage of incineration is that low concentrations may be oxi-
dized with only small supplemental fuel requirements. Fixed roof storage
-------
tanks can be controlled by venting to an adsorber or incinerator, or
they can be converted to floating roof design.
Based on the results of the health effects research presented in this
report, and the ambient concentration estimates, it appears that acetone
as an air pollutant does not pose a threat to the health of the general
population. In addition, acetone does not appear to pose other environ-
mental insults xdiich would warrant further investigation or restriction
of its use at the present time.
-------
SECTION II
AIR POLLUTION ASSESSMENT REPORT
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Acetone is a colorless, highly flammable liquid with a characteristic
pungent, mintlike odor and taste. The main industrial methods of manu-
facture are the catalytic dehydrogenation of isopropanol and the oxida-
tion of cumene. Acetone is used as an intermediate in the manufacture
of methyl methacrylate and other chemicals. It is also widely used in
lacquers and varnishes as a solvent, and in the rubber, dyeing, celluloid,
rayon acetate and leather industries. It is a solvent for many fats
and oils, a stain remover, and a common labo;
properties of acetone are listed in Table 1.
and oils, a stain remover, and a common laboratory solvent. Significant
HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS
Effects on Man
Acute Poisoning - Acetone is one of the least hazardous organic solvents.
At high concentrations it acts on the central nervous system, producing
narcosis or stupor, ketone bodies in the blood, and inflammation of the
gastrointestinal tract accompanied by vomiting. At lower concentrations
it will produce headache and mucous membrane irritation of the eyes, nose,
and throat. Some dose-reponse data are summarized in Table 2.
The odor of acetone is detectable without any background interference at
100 ppm. Humans never exposed to acetone vapor complained of slight
•>
eye, nose, and throat irritation at 300 ppm and 500 ppm. After a short
-------
Table 1. SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES OF ACETONE
Synonyms
dimethyl ketone, 2-propanone
Chemical formula
Molecular weight
Boiling point
Melting point
Specific gravity
Vapor density
Solubility
Explosive limits
Ignition temperature
Flash point
At 25°C and 760 mm Hg
0
CH3 C CH3
58.08
56.5°C
-95.6°C
0.792 at 20°/4°C
2.00 (air = 1)
it
Soluble in all proportions in water,
alcohol and ether
2.5 to 12.8 percent by volume
560°C
-17.8°C (closed cup)
3
1 ppm vapor = 2.372 mg/m
-* vapor = 0.422 ppm
Table 2. ACUTE HUMAN RESPONSE TO ACETONE VAPOR
Dose,
ppm
100
100
JOO
500
500
700
1,000-1.500
2,110
9 , '300
10,000
1 —
Exposure,
hr
2
4
3-5 min.
3-5 min.
2-4
1.5-2
8
5 min.
30-60 min.
Response
No effect
lo effect
./cry slight mucous membrane irritation
Very slight mucous membrane irritation
No effect; awareness of the vapor
Uncle tec table by man after short Lime
Transient eye, nose irritation; headache
Intoxication; begins to affect coordination
Acute throat irritation
Endurance limit with mucous membrane
irritation, narcosis
Reference
2
2
3
3
2
1
4
5
1
6
-------
time, workers could not detect 700 ppm. Awareness of mucous membrane
irritation did not begin until 1,000 ppm to 1,500 ppm. However, many
investigators have concluded that eye irritation does not become a
factor until 2,500 ppm. The degree of irritation varies with individual
susceptibility, with irritation disappearing after removal from the
vapors. Symptoms of intoxication are similar to those seen after ethanol
ingestion. Death due to acute exposure has never been recorded, but it
is possible via narcosis leading to anesthesia and respiratory failure
after prolonged exposure to high concentrations.
Acetone taken in doses of 15 to 20 g daily for several days produced no ill
effects other than drowsiness. An occasional-short exposure would not
cause skin irritation. The danger of skin absorption is very slight and
would not be significant in contributing to intoxication. Acetone is
readily absorbed into the blood and is distributed throughout the body,
with the majority exhaled unchanged by the lungs.
Chronic Poisoning There is no systemic injury associated with the chronic
inhalation of low concentrations of acetone. Workers have been exposed to
concentrations averaging up to 2,000 ppm for up to 15 years without any
ill effects. It has been stated that the worst that can happen to men
g
chronically exposed to such concentrations is a temporary dull headache.
The United States Occupational Standard for an 8-hour time weighted average
9
is 1,000 ppm based on studies concerning industrial exposures. However,
it may not be low enough to prevent all narcotic symptoms.
Effects on Animals
Acute Poisoning - The effects of acute exposure to acetone vapor for some
animals are summarized in Table 3. As in man, it acts as an irritant
to the mucous membrane in addition to acting on the central nervous sys-
tem. Symptoms of intoxication are salivation, lachrymation, twitchings and
convulsions leading to narcosis and respiratory failure. Eye irritation
is temporary and disappears upon removal from the vapor. Skin absorp-
tion of the vapor is considered slight and does not contribute to poisoning.
-------
The only organ to be specifically injured by acetone poisoning is the
kidney, with some investigators reporting lesions of the convoluted
o
tubules, or degeneration.
Table 3. ACUTE ANIMAL RESPONSE TO ACETONE VAPOR
Animal
Guinea pig
Rats
Mice
Dose,
ppm
40,000
20,000
126,600
42,200
42,200
46,000
20,256
16,880
Duration,
hr
4-8
8-9
1.75-2.25
4.5 -5.5
0.25-5.0
1
1.5
3.0
Response
Dangerous to life
Loss of reflexes
Fatal
Fatal
Intoxication
Fatal
Narcosis
Narcosis
Chronic Poisoning As in man, acetone does not act as a chronic poison.
Cats repeatedly exposed to 1,265 to 2,110 ppm were found to suffer no ill
effects except slight irritation of the eyes and nose."
resulted in an increased tolerance to the vapor.
Chronic exposure
Effects on Vegetation
The effects of acetone vapor on vegetation have not been well documented
in the literature. Considering its properties as a solvent for oils and
fats, leaf contact with acetone would probably cause a breakdown of tis-
sue resulting in massive injury or plant death. A Russian study noted
the combined effect of 0.74 ppm (1.75 mg/m3) acetone, 2.28 ppm (2.62 mg/m )
ethylene, 0.43 ppm (1.1 mg/m3) acetic acid, and 28 ppm (18.4 mg/m ) methane
on the growth of English oak, English hawthorne, and Tartarian dogwood
near a chemical plant. The gases were seen to retard growth in the tree
shoots where growth processes are usually most intense. Growth in the
-------
crown of trees on the side near the chemical plant was retarded more
than growth on the opposite side. However, growth retardation may not
be due entirely to acetone, since ethylene is an extremely sensitive
growth inhibitor.
Effects on Materials
There are no data in the literature documenting the effects of acetone
as an air pollutant on materials. Recognizing its properties as a
solvent, when present in sufficient concentration it could become active
in dissolving some forms of plastic or rubber. ,
Other Effects
Acetone and Photochemical Smog - It is well documented that reactions
involving hydrocarbons taking place in photochemical smog produce ozone and
peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), two chemicals extremely toxic to plants and
11 12
man. Acetone has shown little reactivity in irradiation studies. '
Its contribution to producing significant amounts of PAN or ozone in
the ambient'air is negligible.
AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS AND MEASUREMENT
Ambient Concentration Estimates
Although acetone emissions are greatest from the solvent usage source
category, these sources tend to be small and geographically scattered.
Production of acetone, however, occurs at a few locations for which the
emissions characteristics can be fairly well defined, and which as single
point or area sources have a large emission density.
The largest installation for acetone production is located in a town
of about 15,000 population, and it has a capacity of about 400 million
Ib/yr. Assuming a 1 percent loss, this converts to an emission rate of:
-------
(0.01 emission factor) (400 x 106 Ib/yr) (453.6 g/lb)
3.1536 x 107 sec/yr
= 57.5 g/sec of acetone.
Some assumptions must be made regarding this acetone release to the
atmosphere. First of all, the emissions do not all come from one source
location, but rather from a number of locations within the plant where
acetone vapor leaks to the atmosphere. Thus, the emissions can be charac-
terized as coming from an area source which will be taken to be 100 meters
on a side. Secondly, the emissions occur at different heights, and an
average emission height of 10 meters is assumed.
Ground level concentrations can then be estimated at locations downwind
13
of the facility. To do this a virtual point source of emission is
assumed upwind of the facility at a distance x^here the initial horizontal
dispersion coefficient equals the length of a side of the area divided by
4.3. In this case:
o = 100m/4.3 = 23.3m
yo
Assuming neutral stability conditions (Pasquill-Gifford Stability Class D)
with overcast skies and light winds, the upwind distance of the virtual
point source is approximately 310 meters. With consideration of the plant
boundary, it is reasonable to assume that the nearest receptor location
is thus about 500 meters from the virtual point source. Finally, taking
2 m/sec as an average wind speed, the ground level concentration may be
calculated from:
X =
uiro a
y
-------
or
= 57.5
X
(2)TT(36)(18.5) w
= 1.187 x 10~2 g/m3
for a 10-minute average concentration. Over a period of an hour this
becomes (1.187 x 10~2 g/m3)(0.72) = 0.855 x 10~2 g/m3 or 3.7 ppm 1-hour
average concentration. Over a 24-hour period, the average concentration
might roughly be expected to be about 2.0 ppm. '
Measurement Techniques
There are a number of techniques for determining acetone in air, includ-
ing wet chemical methods, spectrographic methods, and gas chromatographic
methods. All three basic analytical techniques are capable of detecting
acetone in air in the parts per hundred million range.
The determination of acetone by the wet chemical methods generally in-
volves titration of iodoform which is produced by the quantitative reac-
tion of acetone and iodine. Acetone samples may be collected either by
fritted bubblers containing water or by adsorption on silica gel.
Concentrations of the order of 10 ppm may be determined by this method;
however, it is not specific for acetone and other methyl ketones will
interfere. Collection in water using fritted bubblers is less desirable
for field use due to the extra equipment requirements.
Concentrations as low as 0.04 ppm may be determined by spectrophotometry.
The sample is collected in 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine, treated with car-
bon tetrachloride and sodium hydroxide, and read in a spectrophotometer
at 420 nanometers.
-------
In the gas chromatographic method the sample is collected on charcoal and
subsequently desorbed with carbon disulfide. The presence and concentra-
tion of acetone are determined by the characteristic retention time and
the area of the breakthrough curve. '
SOURCES OF ACETONE EMISSIONS
Acetone Production and Consumption
18
The production of acetone in 1974 was 2,073 million pounds, and it is ex-
19
pected to increase at 6 percent per year through 1978. Approximately
30 percent of all acetone produced is used as"a solvent for protective
coatings and chemical processing. Presently 12 companies using the
cumene or isopropyl alcohol process are manufacturing acetone (see
Appendix A). The consumption of acetone for final products is shown in
Table 4. This table also presents the expected growth rates for each
sector of the market.
Acetone Sources and Emission Estimates
Primary sources of emissions of acetone result from solvent usage, ace-
tone manufacturing, absorbent packing for acetylene, bulk storage, and
end product manufacturing. Total emissions from all categories are
estimated to be 698 million pounds, representing 34 percent of total
production. See Table 5.
The major source of acetone emissions results from its use as a solvent,
mainly for protective coatings. It is assumed that all acetone used as
a solvent will evaporate to the atmosphere. In 1974, an estimated 85 mil-
lion pounds were used in paints, varnishes and lacquers, and 125 million
pounds were used in thinners and wash solvents. Consumption of acetone
for Pharmaceuticals (toiletries and cosmetics) accounted for 123 million
pounds. Its use as a chemical processing solvent amounted to approximately
107 million pounds. The production of cellulose acetate consumed 80
10
-------
Table 4. ACETONE CONSUMPTION - 1974
19
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Solvent for Protective Coatings
Pharmaceuticals (toiletries, cosmetics)
Chemical Processing Solvent
Methacrylic Acid and Higher Methacrylates
Bisphenol A
Cellulose Acetate Spinning Solvent
Hexylene Glycol
Diacetone Alcohol
Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol
Isophorone
Mesityl Oxide
Absorbent Packing for Acetylene
Exports
Miscellaneous Chemical Production
Other Solvent Usage (painting, inks,
adhesives, clean printed circuits)
Total
Million
pounds
524
259
210
123
107
107
101
80
52
50
45
36
28
15
131
88
117
2,073
Percent
annual
growth
10
-1.5
5
7
7
7
12
0
3
4
3
2
3
0
6
5
6
6
Table 5. SOURCES AND EMISSION ESTIMATES OF ACETONE
Million pounds/year
Solvent for Pro-active Coatings
Pharmaceuticals
Chemical Processing Solvent
Cellulose Acetate Spinning Solvent
Aceto'ne Manufacturing (1% loss)
Absorbent Packing for Acetylene
Bulk Storage
End Product Manufacturing (1% loss)
Other Solvent Usage
Total
210
123
107
80
21
15
13
12
117
698
11
-------
million pounds, and an additional 117 million pounds were used for print-
ing inks, adhesives and as a degreaser for printed circuit boards.
The second major source of emissions, other than from solvent usage,
is the manufacture of acetone. In 1974, 58 percent of total acetone
capacity in the United States and Puerto Rico was based on cumene oxida-
tion, the remaining 42 percent was based on isopropyl alcohol.
The oxidation of cumene is used by 9 of the 12 acetone producers. In
this process acetone is produced as a coproduct with phenol by cleaving
the cumene hydroperoxide obtained from the air oxidation of cumene. The
reactions are presented below: '
OOH
cumene
hydroperoxide
phenol
CH3CO
acetone
Two processes for the production of acetone from isopropyl alcohol are
currently used: catalytic dehydrogenation and oxidation. The dehydro-
genation process converts isopropyl alcohol to acetone by heating it to
400°C in the presence of a brass or copper catalyst. The reaction is as
follows:
CH3 CH CH,
OH
isopropyl
alcohol
catalyst
400°C
CH3CO
acetone hydrogen
12
-------
The oxidation process converts isopropyl alcohol to hydroperoxide with
oxygen, which on hydrolysis produces hydrogen peroxide and acetone. The
reaction is presented below:
CH3 CH CH3
OH
isopropyl
alcohol
+ 02
oxygen
H2°2
hydrogen
peroxide
+ CH3CO CH3
acetone
Since there are no data available concerning emissions from these pro-
20
cesses, based on other similar chemical processes it is estimated
that 1 percent of production is emitted as acetone. On this basis
21 million pounds of acetone are lost during the production cycle.
Using the same emission factor, losses from end product manufacturing
are 12 million pounds.
The next major source of acetone emission results when it is used to
saturate absorbent packing in acetylene cylinders. This mitigates ex-
cessive pressure so that the cylinders can be shipped safely. Emissions
from this source are estimated to have been 15 million pounds in 1974.
The last major source of emissions results from bulk storage of acetone.
20
Using the emission factors in AP-42 and assuming all storage tanks are
fixed roof, emissions are 13 million pounds.
ACETONE EMISSION CONTROL METHODS
The literature does not report specific control equipment for acetone
emissions, but it does report on control devices for other similar hydro-
carbons. Two types of control devices are presently used by the industry
to control hydrocarbon emissions: vapor recovery and incineration. Both
systems have reported efficiencies of at least 95 percent.
13
-------
Control of hydrocarbon emissions by adsorption on activated charcoal
is generally applied when recovery of adsorbed material is economically
desirable. Adsorption is generally used when concentrations of hydro-
21
carbons are greater than 2500 ppra. Other applications are for the
control of very low concentration hydrocarbons that are poisonous to
catalytic incinerators, and for collection and concentration of low con-
centration emissions for subsequent disposal by incineration. Cost data
for the cases utilizing adsorption are presented in Tables 6 and 7. The
three cases presented are adsorption with solvent recovery, adsorption
with incineration, and adsorption vith incineration plus heat recovery.
Table 6. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTS3 OF ADSORPTION SYSTEMS22
Adsorber capacity, SCFM -
Based on 25% lower explosive limit
With solvent recovery, $
With thermal incineration/
no heat recovery, $
With thermal incineration/
primary heat recovery, $
1,000
74,000
89,500
101,500
10,000
162,300
202,000
255,000
20,000
280,000
344,000
431,000
Cost data updated to first quarter of 1975.
Table 7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTSa OF ADSORPTION SYSTEMS22
Adsorber capacity, SCFM -
Based on 25% lower explosive limit
With solvent recovery, $/yr
With thermal incineration/
no heat recovery, $/yr
With thermal incineration/
primary heat recovery, $/yr
1,000
13,200
23,400
25,600
10,000
10,479b
64,300
82,000
20,000
37,200b
123,200
141,600
1Cost data updated to first quarter of 1975.
Indicates a savings.
14
-------
Control of acetone emissions by incineration or catalytic oxidation in-
volves direct oxidation of the combustible portion of the effluent, the
desired ultimate products being water and carbon dioxide.
The primary advantage of catalytic incineration is that extremely small
concentrations of organics can be oxidized x^ith only small amounts of
supplemental fuel required. The main disadvantages are the higher
capital cost and the fact that certain hydrocarbons may poison the
catalyst. Cost data for thermal and catalytic incinerators with and
22
without heat recovery are presented in Tables 8 and 9.
Control of emissions from storage tanks will require the use of floating
roof tanks or venting the emissions to the previously mentioned adsorber
or incinerator. Emissions from fixed roof tanks can be vented to either
system without any major increase in cost. If these systems are not
available, the fixed roof tanks should be switched to floating roof tanks
resulting in a 90 percent reduction of emissions. Figure 1 provides
22
estimated costs of various gasoline storage tanks. These equipment cost
estimates can also be applied to acetone. As can be seen, conversion of
fixed roof to floating roof tanks by installation of internal floating
covers is more economical than the installation of new pontoon floating
tanks.
15
-------
Table 8. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTSa OF THERMAL AND
CATALYTIC INCINERATORS
22
Incinerator capacity, SCFM -
Based on 25% lower explosive limit
Installed costs, $
Catalytic without heat recovery
Catalytic with primary heat
recovery
Catalytic with primary and
secondary heat recovery
Thermal without heat recovery
Thermal with primary heat
recovery
Thermal with primary and
secondary heat recovery
1,000
43,500
54,100
68,300
27,200
40,300
.
54,400
10,000
272,000
306,000
361,800
92,500
144,000
200,000
20,000
504,600
573,900
666,400
137,400
232,600
322,300
Cost data updated to first quarter of 1975.
Table 9. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF THERMAL AND
CATALYTIC INCINERATORS
22
Incinerator capacity, SCFM -
Based on 25% lower explosive limit
Operating costs, $/yr
Catalytic without heat recovery
Catalytic with primary heat
recovery
Catalytic with primary and
secondary heat recovery
Thermal without heat recovery
Thermal with primary heat
recovery
Thermal with primary and
secondary heat recovery
1,000
16,200
16,400
19,300
12,000
11,500
14,400
10,000
102,800
78,500
108,700
54,300
36,300
50,800
20,000
195,000
177,900
203,700
96,700
59,200
84,500
*Cost data updated to first quarter of 1975.
16
-------
500 -
400
300
fc
O
200
t/1
z
Tolol Cost Cono Roof Toni: Converted
with Inlcrnol Flooling Roof
Pontoon Floating
Roof Tank
Cono Roof Tank
Internet Float Cover on Existing Cono
Roof Tonk (Incremental Colt - Conversion)
100
0
50 100 150
CAPACITY, barrels x Kf3
200
Figure 1. Estimated installed cost of acetone storage
tanks (equipment costs assumed to be the
same as gasoline storage tanks)
17
-------
SECTION III
REFERENCES
1. Rowe, V. K., M. A. Wolf. Ketones. In Patty, F. A. (ed) : Industrial
Hygiene and Toxicology. Vol. II. pp. 1726-1731. Interscience
Publishers, New York, 1963.
2. DiVincenzo, G. D., F. J. Yanno, B. D. Astill. Exposure of Man and
Dog to Low Concentrations of Acetone Vapor. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J.
34:329-336, 1973.
3. Nelson, K. W., J. F. Ege, Jr., R. Morwick, L. E. Woodman, L. Silverman.
Sensory Response to Certain Industrial Solvent Vapors. J Ind Hyg.
Toxicol. 25:282-285, 1943.
5. Haggard, H. W., L. A. Greenburg, J. M. Turner. The Physiological
Principles Governing the Action of Acetone Together with Determina-
tion of Toxicity.
6. American Industrial Hygiene Association: Hygienic Guide Series.
Acetone Amer Ind Hyg Assoc. Quart. 18:77-78, 1957.
7. Lund, H. F. (ed). Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, p. 14-17.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1971.
8. Browning, E. Toxicity and Metabolism of Industrial Solvents.
p. 413-19. Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1965.
9. The Toxic Substances List 1974 Edition. HEW Publication No.
(NIOSH) 74-134, p. 21.
10. Antipov, V. G. The Effect of Specific Industrial Gases on the Growth
of Some Tree Species. In: American Institute of Crop Ecology Survey
of USSR Air Pollution Literature, Vol. III. The Susceptibility or
Resistance to Gas and Smoke of Various Arboreal Species Grown Under
Diverse Environmental Conditions in a Number of Industrial Regions
of the Soviet Union. M.Y. Nuttonson(ed.), Silver Springs, Md.,
American Inst. of Crop Ecology, 1970, p. 9-12.
18
-------
11. Altshuller, A. P. Reactivity of Organic Substances in Atmospheric
Photo Oxidation Reactions. Public Health Service Publication No.
999-AP-14, 1965.
12. Brunelle, M. F. , J. E. Dickinson, W. J. Hamming. Effectiveness of
Organic Solvents in Photochemical Smog Formation (Solvent Project,
Final Report) Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles County,
California. Evaluation and Planning Division, July 1966.
13. Turner, D. Bruce. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
U.S. EPA Report AP-26. January 1973.
14. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Analytical Abstracts.
15. Leithe, W. The Analysis of Air Pollutants. Ann Arbor-Humphrey
Science Publishers. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1970.
16. Ruch, Walter E. Quantitative Analysis of Gaseous Pollutants.
Ann Arbor-Humphrey Science Publishers. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1970.
17. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1974.
18. U.S. International Trade Commission, Preliminary Report on U.S.
Production of Selected Synthetic Organic Chemicals. February 1975.
19. Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute,
January 1975.
20. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors U.S. EPA AP-42,
April 1973.
21. Laufer, J. The Control of Solvent Vapor Emissions, N.Y. State
Department of Health, January 1969.
22. Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Study. MSA Research Corp. PB-219-073.
October 1972.
19
-------
APPENDIX A
ACETONE MANUFACTURERS
Allied Chemical
Clark Oil and Refinery
Dow Chemical
Eastman Kodak
Exxon
Georgia-Pacific
Monsanto
Shell Chemical
Shell Chemical
Shell Chemical
Skelly Oil
Standard Oil of California
Union Carbide
Union Carbide
Union Carbide
Union Carbide Caribe
U.S. Steel
Total Capacity
Frankford, Penn.
Blue Island, Illinois
Oyster Creek, Texas
Kingsport, Tenn.
Bayway, N.J.
Plaquemine, Louisiana
Chocolate Bayou, Texas
Deer Park, Texas
Domiquez, California
Norco, Louisiana
El Dorado, Kansas
Richmond, California
Bound Brook, N.J.
Institute, W.V.
Texas City, Texas
Ponce, Puerto Rico
Haverhill, Ohio
Capacity,
million
Ib/yr.
315
53
240
80
140
172
270
400
100
100
57
33
90
150
110
120
168
2,598
As of 1974.
20
------- |