EPA/530/SW-534
November 1976

    s0Vd was*


-------
     An environmental protection publication (SW-88d) in the solid waste
management series.  Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government.  Editing and technical content of this
report were the responsibilities of the Hazardous Waste Management Division
of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.

     Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste
Information, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio  45268.

-------
                      PESTICIDE  CONTAINER PROCESSING

                                    IN

                   COMMERCIAL  RECONDITIONING FACILITIES
                   This report (SW-86d) part of a study
      conducted under EPA Demonstration Grant 5-G06-00222 was written
                by WARREN S.  STATON  and JOHN G. LAMPERTON,
Environmental  Sciences Center, Oregon State University, CorvaTMs, Oregon,
                       and edited by HARQLO R. DAY.
                   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                   1976

-------
                               CONTENTS
                                                             Page
Summary                                                       ^
Introduction                                                  *
Commercial Reconditioning                                     ^
Container Processing                                          *
Sampling Procedures for Pesticide Content Determination       '
Extraction Procedures                                         7
Analysis Procedures                                           '
Results and Discussion                                        8
References                                                   21
                               Figures
Figure 1 Schematic Layout of a Typical Commercial
         Drum Reconditioning Plant                            4
Figure 2 Size, Shape, and Location of Wedges Cut
         From 55 Gallon Drums                                 >

                               Tables
Table 1 Extraction and GLC Conditions Used in this Report    13
Table 2 Removal of Phorate Residues Fran 55 Gallon Drums     14
Table 3 Removal of Phorate Residues From 55 Gallon           .
        Drums Sampled Before and After Plant Processing
Table 4 Removal of Disulfoton From 55 Gallon Drums Using
        Triple Rinse or Combined Processing
16
Table 5 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T Residuals in Processed
        30 Gallon Drums
Table 6 Pesticide Residues in Processed Containers            '8
Table 7 Number of Extractions Necessary to Remove Diazinon
        Residues From 5 Gallon Can Wedges and Total
        Diazinon Residues in the Containers                   ''
Table 8 Amount of Pesticide Rsnaining in Process solutions    20

-------
         Drum Processing in Oonmercial Reconditioning Facilities
                             Summary
     The drum reconditioning industry in the United States currently
reconditions  many pesticide containers.  Cost incentives to recondition
pesticide containers exist, but the problems of residual pesticide
and waste-water treatment require study.  Reconditioning is accomplished
by two different methods  use of heated chemical solutions or
incineration  followed by an abrasive treatment.  Ihis study addresses
the effectiveness of chemical processing.
     Drums formerly containing phorate, disulfoton, carbaryl, diazinon,
2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T were tested for pesticide content as received, after
triple-rinsing with water,  and after plant processing.  The residues
were measured from wedges cut from the containers,  the weight of the
wedge was related to the total weight of the container; in turn, the pesticide
residue of the wedge can beirelated back to the total pesticide
content of the container.
     In the case of phorate, 95 percent of the pesticide was removed
with both triple-rinsing and plant processing. Each independent process
removed about 60 percent.   The amount removed by each process was
variable indicating possible processing inconsistencies.  Similar
results were obtained from disulfoton drums.  Triple-rinsing and
plant processing of chlordane containers leave about the same residue
by each method.  As chlordane is water insoluble,  a solvent pre-wash
is indicated.  Over 90 percent of the phenoxy herbicides were removed
by triple-rinsing alone.
     Tests on 5 gallon containers yielded about the same proportion
of residue as 55 gallon containers.  Wash solution degradation is
discussed briefly.

-------
        Drum Processing in Ooranercial Heoonditioning Facilities
Introduction
     A well-established adjunct to production, manufacturing and
materials transport in the United States is the container reconditioning
industry.  With one or more plants located in most large population
centers, the industry renews for resale a large volume of 30 and 55
gallon containers for a wide variety of industrial uses including oils,
chemicals, paints, adhesives and many other products.  Prior to the
environmental movement, many types of pesticide containers were regularly
processed in these plants by the normal processing procedures.
     With increases in costs of raw materials, labor, and energy, it
appears logical to expect that recycling of containers through such
facilities will increase in importance and that procedures will be
found to enable processing of pesticide containers in such facilities
in a safe and economical manner.
     This paper covers one phase of several related which addressed
collection and impoundment, preprocessing, movement of containers to
commerical reconditioning facilities or to scrap, processing in
commercial facilities, washwater treatment, and container scrap off-gas
treatment.
     Two main methods of container reconditioning are discussed here:
     1.  Processing by use of chemical solutions at elevated
     temperature combined with mechanical abrading and reshaping
     processes.
     2.  Processing by use of incineration and reshaping procedures
     combined with sand-or-shot-blasting as required by container
     condition.
     Ihe first procedure lends itself to pesticides of high
solubility and low toxicity where residuals would not be critical
for non-food or feed uses.

-------
     The second procedures lends  itself well  to  pesticides  of  high

toxicity and/or low solubility if adequate  controls  are maintained on

incinerator temperatures such that pesticide  materials are  completely

combusted to elemental components.

     The present project was designed to explore the potential  of

commercial facilities to reduce pesticide residuals  by use  of  the

first method above using chemical and mechanical means.

     Specific objectives were:

          1.  To develop sampling and analytical methods  for rapidly
              determining the amount of residue  1n a container.
          2.  To determine the amount of residue remaining  in  containers
              after processing by various methods.
          3.  To determine the concentration  of  pesticide in the wash
              solutions.
          4.  To conduct preliminary investigations  into  wash  solution
              treatment processes.

Commercial Reconditioning

     Facilities of the Vann Barrel Company of Portland,  Oregon, were

utilized in the studies.  This company, one of two recondltioners  In

Portland has been in operation for many years and, while all types of

drums are processed, oil drums of several large  oil  companies make up the

bulk of the processing business.  A schematic layout of the plant is

shown as Figure 1 with arrows showing the movement of drums through the plant.

     Unit processes included in order of their use in this particular plant

are:
          1.  Inside caustic flush
          2.  Submergency in caustic solution (Solution 1-2X Sodium Hydroxide
              solution at about  200F.)
          3.  Spray rinse
          4.  De-dent
          5.  Chain interior
          6.  Straighten chines
          7.  Test for  leaks
          8.  Inside  steam-spray  rinse
          9.  Inside  syphone dryer
         10.  Spray-paint exterior
         11.  Storage

-------
                          SCHEMATIC LAYOUT

                                OF A

            TYPICAL COMMERCIAL DRUM RECONDITIONING PLANT

                         VAHN BARREL COMPANY
                         PORTLAND, OREGON
ui
CXL

CO
         EMPLOYEE'S
           LUNCH
            ROOM
             OFFICE
                                        RECONDITIONED
                                            DRUM
                                           STORAGE
t
CONVEYOR/"
           INSIDE SYPHON
             (DRYER)
              /
INSIDE STEAM-SPRAY RINSE
                              CAUSTIC SUB-1ERGER 1

                               r   *  4
                               O OO O
                               ooo o
                            _JCHIME
                               STRAIGHTNER
                               LEAK
             BOILER
              ROOM
                                       OIL
                                     STORAGE
                                      '
                             STREET


                           (NOT TO SCALE)

                            Fig. i
UNPROCESSED


   DRUM


  STORAGE
                                                    INSIDE
                                                    CAUSTIC
                                                    FLUSH
                                       TRUCK
                                                    UAblL
                                                 TREATMENT
                                                 FACILITIES  1
                                ]|1[  UNLOADING
                                       UNPROCESSED
                                       DRUMS

-------
           Figure  2    Size, shape, and location of wedges
                       cut from 55 gallon drums.

Container Processing;
     In most cases the drums  were  rinsed  with  water  three  times  prior  to
plant processing to simulate  recommended  field procedures.   Pennwalt 91
and Oakite Ruststripper,  commercial cleaning preparations, were  both
tried as cleaning  agents  in the wash  solutions.   The amount  of cleaning
agent in solution  was  adjusted to  nake the wash solution 1 or 2% caustic.
The five gallon diazinon  containers were  run through the processes  manually,
while all other containers were processed through the plant  using the
normal mechanized  equipment available for the  larger drums.
Sampling Procedures for Pesticide  Content Determinations;
     Wedges were cut from the drums of the size shown and  at locations
Indicated in Figure 2.    Initially,  the  containers  were sampled as
wedges with the weight of the wedge being related to the total weight
of the container in order to  obtain the total  amount of pesticide
In the container,  as shown in equation 1.

-------
           P" 'It                                       (1)
 Where:
      Pc=pesticide content of a container
      Pw=pesticide extracted from a set of wedges  (grams)
      W  =weight of wedges
      Wc=total weight of container
 Subsequent  investigation into concentration of pesticide at various sites
 on the  interior surfaces of the container revealed that 81% of the pesticide
 residual was contained in the chime or rim of the. container.  In order to
 take  this into account, the method of calculation shown in equation 2 was
 used.
      Pt   -8lPwdt)   +  -19 Pw
                LW                *
      Where:
       Px=total pesticide in the container (grams)
       Aj.=total interior surface area of the container
       l_t=total length of rim of the container
       Lwscombined length of rim of the wedges extracted
       ^combined area of the wedges
     Further simplification of the calculations was achieved by using the
ratio of equation 1 and equation 2 to yield a correction factor "Z" as
shown in equation 3:
      ,   pt                                                   (3)
      Z = 
          PC
This factor permits the weight of a  standard sized wedge to be related to
the total  amount of pesticide found  in the drum as indicated by combining
equations  1 and 3 to yield:

     pf <

-------
      Z values were determined  as  0.45 for the 30 gallon container and 0.61
 for the 55 gallon  container.   The total amount of pesticide in each drum
 was calculated according  to equation 4 and was then used as the basts of
 comparison in this study.
 Extraction procedures.      six wedges  (F1gure  2j  ^^  ^^  ^ ^
 rin, by 5.30.3 inches lone, (side H)  by  6.3  0.3  inches  long  (side  S) were
 placed chine down  in a 4  liter stainless  steel  beaker  with  sufficient
 solvent to cover the wedges.   The solvents  used for  the various pesticides
 are shewn in Table 1.

 Analysis procedures.  Chlordane,  diazinon,  disulfoton, methoxychlor, and
 phorate extracts were evaportaed  to  near  dryness and transferred  with
 hexane to an appropriate  volumetric  flask and diluted  to volume.  Usually
 a second or third  dilution was necessary  for GLC analysis.  The GLC con-
 ditions for each pesticide  are shown in Tabld 1.  An electron capture
 detector was used  for the  GLC  analysis.
     Carbaryl  was analyzed  using the method described by Karinen et al.
 (1967).   The dichloromethane (DCM) extracted wedges were evaporated to
 500 milliliters and  the extracted paint material allowed to settle out
 overnight.   A small  aliquot (1-10 milliliters) was removed with a pipette
 and  evaporated to dryness  in a 10 milliliter volumetric flask.  The
 residue was dissolved in 0.5 milliliter ethanol  and the carbaryl and
 1-naphthol were determined.  Water samples were adjusted to approximately
 pH 7 and extracted 3 times.
    Dichloromethane extracts were analyzed for karathane by the method
of Kilgore and Cheng (1963).   Water was extracted  with DCM at pH3.  The
DCM was carefully evaporated  to dryness  and  the  sample  was  then redissolved
in 4 milliliters of dimethylformamide for  color  development.

-------
    Two milliliters of the 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T sodium hydroxide extracts
were acidified to pH  3 and extracted three times with 5 milliliters of
ethyl ether.  The combined ether extracts were treated with a slight excess
of diazomethane, allowed to stand 10 minutes, and boiled on a steam.bath
to remove the excess diazomethane (yellow color).  After appropriate
dilution the extracts were ready for 6LC.  Water samples were adjusted to
pH 10-14 to allow hydrolysis and then acidified and extracted as  described
above.
    The total  pesticide content of each drum was determined using equation
4 shown previously.
Results and Discussion
    Phorate.  Although used containers with residuals of several  pesti-
cides were used, phorate was the only pesticide for which an adequate
number of drums were available for processing and analysis in a systematic
manner during this phase of the project.  Two different procedures
were used in sampling the phorate drums.  The first series of drums
was sampled such that ten randomly selected drums were sampled before
washing, ten were sampled after rinsing three times with clean water
(triple rinse), ten were sampled after plant processing, and ten were
sampled after triple rinsing and plant processing.  The second procedure
involved sampling ten drums before washing and resampling the same drums
after rinsing and processing.
    As may be seen from Table II, each process sionificantly removed
additional pesticide from the containers.  Most pesticide was removed when
both triple rinsing and plant processing were employed.  Using both
processes sequentially, more than 95% of the phorate was removed when
drums were in reasonably good condition.  Either one of the processes used

-------
independently removed more than 60% of the phorate,  and  had much  greater
variability than when both processes were used.   Although  the mean removal
was lower for plant processing only, neither  process was significantly  better
statistically, in cleaning ability than the other.   The  average amount
of phorate remaining in the dual processed drums was 1.27  grams per  drum.
    Assuming that all of the phorate remaining  in the drum would  be
dissolved in 55 gallons of a liquid contained in the drum  upon reuse,
a concentration of 6.1 parts per million of phorate  would  result.
With the permissible toxicity level for this  material taken  into  account,
drums in this condition would be suitable for non-food uses  if  precautions
were taken to ensure that they could only be  used in this  manner.
     When results fron containers analyzed before and after is  conpared
for each drum separately, greater variability and apparently less
cleanup occurred.  The presence of one drum with only 37%  decrease
in residue with the remaining 9 drums showing a 77-95% decrease indicates
that occasionally a drum is either not being  properly processed or that
there .was considerably more residue within the chine that  was  unremovable
by the cleaning methods used.
    The average residue removed was 89% leaving 2.63 grams of  phorate in
each drum.  This represents 12.6 parts per million of phorate  in  55 gallons
of a possible secondary use liquid.  A possible explanation  for the overall
higher amount of phorate present may be due to the fact  that these drums
were washed after the other two sets of barrels had  been processed.   Thus
the concentration of phorate in the water would have been  high  and some
cross-contanuLnatian  from the processing solution could  possibly  have
resulted.

-------
     Analysis of the rinse water showed that  phorate, pnorate sulfoxide,
 phorate sulfone, and traces  of the oxygen  analog  were  present  in detectable
 quantities.   The majority of residue (about  80%)  was found as  phorate sul-
 foxide.
      Disjnfoton.  Table  IV shows the  results when drums containing an
 organophosphate similar  to phorate were processed.  Although the triple
 rinse appears  to  have been more effective with disulfoton than phorate,
 the percent  removed  for  the  combined  processes is nearly the same for
 disulfoton as  for phorate.   The fact  that the containers were hand fed through
 the process  did  not  appear to make a  significant difference.
      Carbaryl.  Chlordane, Diazinon, 2.4-D, and 2,4,5-T.  Since a sufficient
 number of containers swere not available to.perform the extensive oorparisons
 that were possible with  phorate and disulfoton, containers used for several
 other pesticides  were examined only for the amount of residue remaining in
 the containers.   From Tables V and VI  it can be seen that significant quanti-
 ties of pesticide still  remain in  some of the processed containers.  The
 amount of residue remaining  likely depends upon whether the containers were
 used for formulated material  or technical  grade material.   The formulated pesti-
 cides  would  tend  to form stable emulsions while the technical  material  would be
 removed only to the extent that it was soluble in the water, hydrolyzed by the
 base  present in  process solutions, or physically washed from the container
 independent of chemical  action.  Since the carbaryl  containers contained an
 emulsifiable concentrate and  the chlordane containers were a mixture of
 drums containing formulation  type and technical  qrade pesticides, it would
 logically be expected that higher and more variable residue levels  would
 result from the chlordane containers.  The additional  fact that carbaryl is
readily hydrolyzed and chlordane is not probably accounts  for  the lower carbaryl
residue levels,
                                       10

-------
     Triple rinsing of technical  grade chlordane containers decreases the
amount of chemical  present to essentially that obtained  by plant processing.
     High residual  levels after both types of processing, particularly of drums
used for technical  grade chlordane, indicates that the material is  highly
insoluble in aqueous solutions and  is susceptible  to only slight hydrolysis
as mentioned above.  In such cases  of low solubility and chemical activity, pre-
processing of containers with appropriate solutes  prior  to release  from point
of use appears to be indicated.  This does  not hold true, however,  for 2,4-D
and 2,4,5-T drums as shown in Table V.  Processing through the reconditioning
plant removed over  90% of the 2,4-D residue remaining  after  triple rinsing.
     Although 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T do  not present the toxicity problem to
humans which phorate, disulfoton, and diazinon do, other problems  resulting
from the phytotoxicity of these compounds would limit  the reuse of  these
containers. On the. basis of the mean residual in a container, a concentration of
1.26 parts per million would result if all the 2,4-D residues were dissolved
in 30 gallons of material in the drum.  Considering the  variation  among  the
samples, concentrations of 2 parts  per million 2,4-D and 2.5 parts per million
2,4,5-T might be expected in a solution resulting  from re-use of  a triple
rinsed and processed drum.  This amount of 2,4-D might be  sufficient to
cause damage to certain sensitive crops if applied after diluting  up to  four
times.
     The feasibility of cleaning  5  gallon containers in  a manner similar  to
that utilized for 30 and 55 gallon  drums was investigated using empty 5 gallon
diazinon cans.  The amount of residue remaining in the containers  is shown
in Table VII.  Residues in the processed 5 gallon  containers  were  approximately
equivalent to those found for the other organophosphates In  experiments with the
larger drums.  On the average, the cleaned 5 gallon cans had  a residual of 12.8 parts

                                          11

-------
 per  million diazinon, while cleaned  55 gallon drums contained from 5 to 13
 parts  per million  prorate.
     The effectiveness of the extraction  procedure used was also determined
 using  the diazinon cans.  From Table VII it can be seen that practically all
 of the diazinon  is extracted in two extractions.  Less than 0.3% could be ex-
 tracted with a third extraction.  Thus, only two extractions of the wedges
 were necessary.
     Process solutions.  Table VIII summarizes the results from analyzing
 several of the wash solutions used in processing the containers.  Pesticides
 which  are easily broken down in.1% caustic show significantly less residue
 in the wash solutions than the more stable pesticides.  Only the acid was
 measured in the case of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T.  Since the 2,4-D ester was
 found  to hydrolyze completely in the wash solution within 4 hours, the acids
 are  all that one would expect to be present in the wash solution.
 Experiments using diazinon .showed its half-life in the 1% caustic wash
 solution to be 21 days.  Carbaryl  in the 1% caustic solution is completely
 hydrolyzed within 30 minutes.  Disulfoton wash solutions contained unidentified
 pe^ks  (possible breakdown products) when they were analyzed.  As has been
 already noted, the phorate wash was mostly in the"form of phorate
 sulfoxide.   Since some hydrolysis  products are not extracted with hexane or
dichloromethane,  they would  not be observed  using the methods employed here.
                                    12

-------
TABLE I  Extraction and GLC Conditions Used in this Report
                                                                                                Retention
                                                                               Temp   Flow Rate      time, Rt
Pesticide
Carbaryl
Chlordane
Diazinon
Disulfoton
2,4-D and 2,4, 5-T
Karathane
Methoxychlor
Phorate
Extraction Solvent
GC
dichloromethane
ethyl
ethyl
ethyl
4-6%
ether
ether
ether or acetone
NaOH
5'
5'
8'
6'
x 1/4"
x 1/4"
x 1/8"
x 1/8"
dichloromethane
ethyl
ethyl
ether
ether or acetone
6'
6'
x 1/8"
x 1/8"
Column
OC
ml/min
minutes
Colorimetric
glass
glass
glass
glass
10%
10%
7%
7%
OV-1
OV-1
OV-1
OV-1
245
240
200
170
60
30
25
25
6-18*
3.5
3.5
1.6, 2.8
Colorimetric
glass
glass
7%
7%
OV-1
OV-1
245
185
60
25
10
2.2
 Multiple peaks

-------
TABLE II  Removal  of Phorate Residues From 55 Gallon Drums
Unprocessed Triple rinsed
drum residual, drum residual,
qrams grams










Mean
Percent
removed
Standard
error
59.8
24.8
25.0
32.6
46.6
64.9
15.9
44.9
36.9
38.2
39.0
--
24.1
4.10
3.98
10.25
7.97
13.62
6.42
7.98
9.05
15.20
7.75
8.63
77.9
1.33
Plant processed Combined
drun residual, residual,
qrams grams
1.88
0.80
5.61
7.33
8.37
3.99
7.49
0.82
7.39
3.23
4.69
88.0
.857
0.389
1.362
0.937
0.335
0.776
0.696
2.072
1.912
2.117
2.061
1.266
96.7
.0527
Triple rinsed and plant processed
                             14

-------
TABLE III  Removal of Phorate Residues From 55 Gallon Drums
           Sampled Before and After Plant Processing

          Before process,     After process                 Estimated  percent
Drum residual .arams
A
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Mean
Standard,,
error S^
n
Confidence
interval 953!
14.38
17.19
17.34
13.22
12.66
39.60
58.56
50.78
45.10
45.45
31.43
32.63
25,72-37.14
residual grams
3.30
10.82
3.24
2.10
2.11
2.18
3.56
2.85
2.14
2.18
2.63*
0.04*
2,16-3.10*
Reduction
11.08
6.37
14,10
11.12
10.55
37.42
55.00
47.93
42.96
43.27



removal
77.1
37.1
81.3
84.1
83.3
94.5
93.9
94.4
95.3
95.2
88.8


  *Drum "C" excluded
                                   15

-------
TABLE  IV  Removal of Disulfoton from  55 Gallon  Drums
          Using Triple Rinse or Combined  Processing
               Unprocessed
               drum residual,
Triple rinsed    Processed
drum residual,  drum residual,






Mean
Standard
error S^
n
Confidence
Interval 95%
Percent
removed
grams
18.2
17.8
19.5
19.7


18.8
0.222
17.3-20.3

a rams
1.255
1.726
0.296
0.678
0.375
.0.114 .
0.741
0.065
0.084-1.298
96.0
grams
0.315
0.364
0.445
0.148
0.176
0.046
0.249
0.0038
0.009-0.406
98.7
* Triple rinse and plant process
                               16

-------
       TABLE V   2,4-D  and  2,4,5-T  Residuals  in Processed 30-Gallon Drums
                Residual  1n drums *
                triple rinsed only
               2,4-D
            grams/drum

               1.01
               10.91
               0.861
               6.24
 2,4,5-T
grams/drum

   3.25
  21.71
   1.67
   2.25
                          Residual in drums +
                        plant processed only
                           Residual in drums *+
                     triple rinsed and plant processed
2,4-D
grams/drum
0.300
0.900
0.532
0.432
0.732
0.432













2,4,5-T
grams/drum
0.322
1.832
0.966
0.720
1.480
2.106













2,4-D
grams/drum
0.077
0.132
0.251
0.106
0.138
0.128
0.054
0.216
0.118
0.208
0.093
0.139
0.208
0.093
0.139
0.208
0.104
0.163
0.138
2,4,5-T
grams/drum
0.061
0.135
0.278
0.123
0.188
0.158
0.083
0.326
0.134
0.267
0.154
0.204
0.293
0.158
0.255
0.189



Mean      4.76*4.80      7.22+9.68
Residual                     ~"
                 0.555+0.222
1.238+0.685
0.142+0.054
0.188+0.077
 OakiteR caustic  processing material.

+>ennwalt 91R caustic   processing material.

-------
TABLE VI  Pesticide Residues in Processed Containers
Pesticide
Mean
Range
Standard
error
Number
of drums
Carbaryl
grams/drum
0.105
0.055-0.148
0.00013
6
Chlordane
^rams/drum
3.10
1.25-8.34
1.17
6
Chlordane
grams/drum
2.44
0.290-10.78
0.649
17
 Triple  rinsed
 Triple  rinsed and  plant  processed
 Technical  grade
                              18

-------
VD
               TABLE VII   Number of Extractions Necessary to Remove Diazinon Residues
                          from 5 Gallon Can Wedges and Total Diazinon Residues in the
                          Containers.
Sample
2-7-A
2-7-B
2-7-C
2-7-D
2-7-E
2-7-F
2-7-G
2-7-H
2-7-1
first
extraction
wedqes, prams
0.113
0.030
0.055
0.081
0.090
0.099
0.026
0.046
0.015
second*
extraction
wedges, grams
0.013
0.003
0.005
0.012
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.011
0.002
Third
extraction
wedqes, qrams
0.0003
<.0001
<.0001
0.0003
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Total
extracted
wedges, grams
0.126
0.033
0.060
0.093
0.091
0.102
0.027
0.057
0.017
Total
extracted
drum, grams
0.455
0.119
0.217
0.336
0.329
0.368
0.097
0.206
0.062
                                                                              Mean    0.243+0.136
                                                                                      0.0021
                                                                              Interval
                                                                              (955!.)    0.138-0.348

-------
 TABLE VIII  Amount of Pesticide Remaining in Process Solutions
Pesticide
Phorate
Disulfoton
Chlordane
Carbaryl
(1-naphthol)
2,4-D
Grams
pesticide
84.01*
0.183*
4222. 4+ *
28.73+
621.5*
Number
containers
30
48
22
11
38
Grams generated
per container
2.80
.004
191.93
2.61
16.35
  Plusher  and  submerger
+
  Plusher  only

  Technical  grade
                            20

-------
                            BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.  Goulding, R.L.  Waste pesticide  management;  final  narrative  report,
      July 1, 1969-June 30,  1972.   Corvallis, Oregon  State,University,
      Environmental Health Sciences Center,  Aug.  1973.  81  p., app.
      {Unpublished report.)
2.  Karinen, J.F., J.6.  Lamberton,  N.E.  Stewart, and  UC. Terrt'ere.
      Persistence of carbaryl  in the marine estuarine environment;
      Chemical  and biological  stability  in aquarium systems.  Journal of
      Agricultural and Food Chemistry,  15(1):148-156, Jan.-Feb.  1967.
3.  Kilgore, W.W., and K.W.  Cheng.   Extraction  and determination of Karathane
      residues in fruits.   Journal  of Arglcultural and  Food Chemistry.  11(6):
      477-479, Nov.-Dec,  1963.
M01347
                                    21

-------