GCA-TR-75-32-G (9!
ASSESSMENT OF METHYL METHACRYLATE
AS A POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
VOLUME IX
FINAL REPORT
Contract No. 68-02-1337
Task Order No. 8
Prepared For
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 2771 1
January 1976
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730
-------
CCA-TR-75-32-0(9)
ASSESSMENT OF METHYL METI1ACIIYIATB
AS A POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
Volume IX
by
Robert M. Patterson
Mark I. Bornstein
Eric Garshick
CCA 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 Che 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:
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
Acetylene
Methyl Alcohol
Ethylenc Dichloride
Benzene
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Cyclohexanone
Formaldehyde
Methyl Methacrylate
Ortho-Xylene
Maleic Anhydride
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Adipic Acid
Phthaiic Anhydride.
Lit
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ill
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 4
Ambient Concentrations and Measurements 8
Sources of Methyl Methacrylate Emissions 10
Methyl Methacrylate Emission Control Methods 13
III References 18
Appendix
A Methyl Methacrylate Manufacturers 20
iv
-------
FIGURE
No.
1 Estimated Installed Cost of Methyl Methacrylate Storage
Tanks (Equipment Costs Assumed to be the Same as Gas-
oline Storage Tanks) 17
TABLES
No. Page
1 Significant Properties of Methyl Methacrylate 3
2 Acute Animal Response to Methyl Methacrylate
Vapor Inhalation 6
3 Response to Single 8-Hour Exposure to Methyl
Methacrylate 6
4 Animal Response to Chronic Methyl Methacrylate
Inhalation 7
5 Estimated Methyl Methacrylate Consumption - 1974 11
6 Sources and Emission Estimates of Methyl Methacrylate -
1974 11
7 Estimated Installed Costs of Adsorption Systems 14
8 Estimated Annual Operating Costs of Adsorption Systems 14
9 Estimated Installed Costs of Thermal and Catalytic
Incinerators 15
10 Estimated Annual Operating Costs of Thermal and
Catalytic Incinerators 16
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Methyl methacrylate is a colorless, flammable liquid xfith an acrid,
fruity odor. The primary method of manufacture is based on the reaction
of acetone and hydrogen cyanide, and the primary use is in the production
of resins or plastics such as Plexiglass and Lucite.
Methyl methacrylate vapor is an acute irritant, with eye and mucous mem-
brane irritation occurring at concentrations of 125 ppm. At higher con-
centrations death will ultimately result from pulmonary edema, although
such high concentrations cannot be tolerated voluntarily by man. It can
be detected in air by smell at concentrations of less than 1 ppm. How-
ever, the U.S. occupational standard for an 8-hour time weighted average
is 100 ppm, -based on measurable acute human sensory response. In the
bloodstream, methyl methacrylate has been linked to cardiac arrest and
other cardiovascular effects caused by its hypotensive (promoting low
blood pressure) properties. No lasting chronic effects have been recorded,
Simple diffusion modeling estimates place the likely maximum 1-hour
average ambient concentration at less than 2 ppm. The maximum 24-hour
average ambient concentration might be expected to be less than 1 ppm.
About 766 million pounds of methyl methacrylate were produced at seven
plants in 1974, with 45 percent of this being used in the manufacture of
acrylic sheets, and 23 percent used in the surface coating industry.
Production is expected to increase by 10 percent per year for the next
several years. The primary emission sources in descending order are
-------
production, end product manufacture, and bulk storage. Total emissions
are estimated to have been about 7.9 million pounds in 1974.
Although emission controls specifically for methyl methacrylate are not
reported, two types of controls are used extensively by the chemical
industry to control hydrocarbon emissions. 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 oxidized with only small supplemental
fuel requirements. Fixed roof storage tanks can be controlled by venting
to an adsorber or to an 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 methyl
methacrylate as an air pollutant does not pose a threat to the health of
the general population. In addition, methyl methacrylate does not appear
to pose other environmental insults which would warrant further investi-
gation or restriction of its use at the present time.
-------
SECTION II
AIR POLLUTION ASSESSMENT REPORT
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Methyl methacrylate is a colorless, flammable liquid with an acrid, fruity
odor. The primary method of manufacture is based on the reaction of
acetone and hydrogen cyanide, with subsequent esterification to the methyl
ester using methanol. Most methyl methacrylate is polymerized into resins
or plastics such as Plexiglass (Rohm and Haas) or Lucite (DuPont). Such
materials are widely used in paints, protective coatings, lubricants,
floor polishes, and textiles. Significant physical and chemical properties
are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES OF METHYL* METHACRYLATE
S ynonyms
tnethacrylic acid, methyl ester
Chemical formula
Molecular weight
Boiling point
Melting point
Specific gravity
Vapor density
Vapor -pressure
Solubility
Explosive limits
Ignition temperature
Flash point
At 25°C and 760 cira llg
C(CH3) COOCH
100.1
101. 0°C
-5D°C
0.936 at 20°C
3.60 (air •» 1) at boiling point of methyl methacrylate
35 mm Hg at 20°C
Slightly soluble in vater
1.7 to 8.27. by volume in air
29.5°C (closed cup)
I ppm = 4.08 mg/m
1 mg/m » 0.25 ppm
-------
HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS
Effects on Man
Acute Poisoning - Methyl tnethacrylate vapor, is an acute irritant. Inhala-
tion at concentrations as low as 125 ppm has caused eye and mucous mem-
brane irritation. Other symptoms may include irritability, increased
2
salivation, headache, drowsiness, and nausea. At higher levels there will
be an increase in drowsiness, skin irritation, hypotension (low blood
pressure), and marked respiratory tract irritation leading to unconscious-
ness. Death will follow due to pulmonary edema and other lung damage.
In animals death has resulted as a result of exposure above 10,000 ppm
for 3 hours (See Table 2). However, the vapors carry very strong warning
properties, and it is unlikely that such high levels could be tolerated
voluntarily by man. It can be detected in air by smell without any back-
3
ground interferences at 0.21 ppm. Headache, nausea and other symptoms
of exposure to tolerable levels disappear after removal of the vapor.
The toxicity of methyl methacrylate once in the bloodstream has been
shown in studies, concerning the hazards of methyl methacrylate bone ce-
ment used during joint replacement. The use of the cement in man has
been linked to a high incidence of cardiac arrest and other cardiovascular
4
side effects caused by its hypotensive properties. Joint replacement
operations are usually performed on older patients, usually with a history
of heart trouble. Human methyl methacrylate blood levels after surgery
have ranged between 1 and 200 mg/100 ml. Human reaction to such levels
has included operative and postoperative pulmonary hypoxia, or a defi-
ciency of oxygen in the lung tissue.
-------
Chronic Poisoning - The U.S. occupational standard for an 8-hour time
weighted average is 100 ppui, based on acute human sensory response.
Injury from chronic exposure to low levels of methyl methacrylate vapor
has not been documented in man. One report of ctironic exposure involves
dental students fabricating dentures and refers to the characteristic
acrid odor permeating an entire work area. The principal, toxic effect
exerted by the vapor was nausea and loss of appetite both during and after
exposure. There were no lasting toxic effects.
Effects on Animals
Acute animal response to high concentrations of methyl methacrylate
7 3
vapors is presented in Table 2. ' Animal response to single 8-hour
8 9 10
exposures is presented in Table 3. ' ' Inhalation produced an increased
rate of respiration, lachrymation, mucous membrane.irritation, excess
salivation and vomiting. Respiration then slowed, reflex activity was
lost, and the animals died in a coma. The heart, adrenals, spleen, and
gastrointestinal tract of the aniuals showed no damage. The blood pic-
ture was normal. Lungs, trachea, and bronchi were markedly congested,
edematous, and spotted with small areas of hemorrhage. Liver and kidney
degeneration was also found 'in some animals.
Doses of 10 cc/kg body weight applied to the clipped abdomen of rabbits
produced temporary local irritation, with the animals recovering within
an hour. Three drops of liquid methyl methacrylate dropped into the
eyes of rabbits produced irritation and edema. In 24 to 72 hours, the
O
eyes returned to normal. The acute oral LD for rats is 8.4 g/kg body
weight, and for rabbits it is 6.7 g/kg body weight. Ingestion produces
the same symptoms of poisoning as inhalation.
Rabbits injected intravenously with 0.03 to 0.04 cc/kg body weight showed
a sudden fall in arterial pressure, followed by recovery in 3 to 4 minutes.
The respiration became stimulated and remained elevated for 20 to 30
-------
Table 2. ACUTE ANIMAL RESPONSE TO METHYL METIIACRYIATE
VAPOR INHALATION7*8
Animal
Mice
Guinea pigs
Dogs
Dogs
Rabbits
Number
used
15
6
2
2
NA8
Dose,
ppm
15,140
16,265
10,000
16,265
13,500
Duration,
hrs
3
4 1/4
3
1 1/2
3
Response
All died (1-3 hr.)
All died (2 3/4 - 4 1/4
Both died (2-3 hr.)
Both died (1-1 1/2 hr
Death
hr.)
.)
Not available.
O q i n
Table 3. RESPONSE TO SINGLE 8-HOUR EXPOSURE TO METHYL METHACRYLATE ' '
Animal
Rabbits
Guinea pigs
Rats
Rabbits
Guinea pigs
Rabbits
Rabbits
Mice
Mice
Mice
Mice
Number
used
NA8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
15
15
20
Dose,
pptn
3,500
3,500
3,500
4,650
4,650
4,650
3,750
6,120
11,690
15,140
23,620
Response
Survived
Survived
Survived
Died in 3 1/2 hrs.
Died in 5 hrs.
Died in 2 1/2 hrs.
Approximate LD5Q
1 died in 3 hrs.
2 died in 3 hrs, 9 died
in 5 hrs.
All died in 3 hrs.
All died in 2 1/4 hrs.
Reference
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
8
8
8
8
available.
-------
minutes. However, the respiration then decreased with each dose until
8 10
the animal died. In two separate investigations ' the heart was seen.
to continue beating after respiratory stoppage, implicating respiratory
damage as the cause of death. Pulmonary lesions have been found in
dogs with blood methyl methacrylate levels as low as 5 mg/100 ml, and
death has occurred where levels were 125 mg/100 ml following intravenous
administration.
Chronic Poisoning - Animal response to chronic exposure to methyl
o
methacrylate vapor is presented in Table 4. No deaths were seen until
values above 10,000 ppm were reached. 'Death was due to chronically in-
duced pulmonary damage leading to respiratory failure.
Table 4. ANIMAL RESPONSE TO CHRONIC METHYL
METHACRYLATE INHALATION
Animal
Mice
Mice
Guinea pigs
Guinea pigs
Dogs
Dogs
Dogs
Number
used
20
20
6
6
2
2
2
Dose,
ppm
10,000
10,000
9,630
16,050
10,000
11,500 .
11,500
Durat ion
hrs/day
1/2
1 1/2
3
3
1/2
1/2
1 1/2
days
15
15
15
3
15
15
8
Response
f died (5th day)
2 died (2nd -3rd days)
All lived
All died (1-3 days)
Both lived
1 died (14th day)
Both died (6-8 days)
Effects on Plants
The effects of methyl methacrylate on vegetation have not been documented
in the literature.
-------
KCfocLs on Materials
Methyl methacrylate vapors are uninhibited and may polymerize in vents
and storage containers. Heat may cause polymerization. Contact with
nitrates, oxidizing materials (peroxides), and strong alkalies may cause
fire and explosion as a result of chemical reaction.
AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
Ambient Concentration Estimates
The largest installation for methyl methacrylate production is located
in a town of about 13,000 population, and it has a capacity of about
550 million Ib/yr. Assuming a 0.5 percent loss, this converts to an
emission rate of:
(0.005 emission factor) (550 x 1Q6 Ib/yr) (453.6 g/lb)
3.1536 x 107 sec/yr
=39.6 g/sec of methyl methacrylate.
Some assumptions must be made regarding this chemical 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
methyl methacrylate vapor leaks to the atmosphere. Thus, the emissions
can be characterized 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
of the facility. To do this a virtual point source of emission is
assumed upwind of the facility at a distance where the initial horizontal
dispersion coefficient equals the length of a side of the area divided
by 4.3. In this case:
8
-------
a = 100m/4.3 = 23.3m .
yo
Assuming neutral stability conditions (Pusquill-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 =
UTTCT cr
y z
•/"f
VT)
or
, v2
39.6
- (2)7T(36) (18.5) fa
= 8.18 x 10"3 g/m3
for a 10-minute average concentration. Over a period of an hour this
-3 " -33
becomes 8.18 x 10 (0.72) = 5.89 x 10 g/m or 1.5 ppm 1-hour average
concentration. Over a 24-hour period, the average concentration might
roughly be expected to be about 0.8 ppm.
Methyl Methacrylate Measurement Techniques
Two analytical methods are available for the determination of methyl
tnethacrylate. Both methods use potassium permanganate; however, the'
procedures do vary in the types oi? reagents used for analysis.
12
The first method will alien; the determination of methyl methacrylate
in air to concentrations as low as 10 ppm. The air sample is collected.
in a midget impinger containing potassium permanganate, sodium hydroxide
and telluric acid. Approximately a 200 ml air sample is bubbled through
9
-------
the irapingcr until the permanganate changes color from pink to bluish-
green. The concentration is then determined from a calibration curve
showing air volume versus parts per million.
Interferences may result from compounds containing double-bonded carbon
atoms. This method may not be suitable for air pollution work but is
satisfactory for industrial hygiene field work. The procedure requires
about 30 minutes for completion of the test.
13
The second method is similar in procedure to the first method; however,
the reagents used are potassium permanganate, sulfuric acid and potassium
oxalate. The solution is allowed to stand in the dark prior to the addi-
tion of the oxalate. After this waiting period, excess sulfuric acid is
added, then the sample is titratod with potassium permanganate. The re-
sults of the titration are compared against a calibration curve. Concen-
trations as low as 3 ppm have been detected by this method. Interferences
are present from the- same compounds mentioned for the first method.
Although neither method is sensitive enough to determine expected ambient
concentrations, either method could be used for field sampling if concen-
trations above 3 or 10 ppm were suspected.
SOURCES OF METHYL METHACRYLATE EMISSIONS
Methyl Methacrylate Production and Consumption
The production of methyl methacrylate in 1974 was approximately 766
14 •
million pounds, and it is expected to increase at 10 percent per year
for the next several years. The largest end use of methyl methacrylate
is for the production of acrylic sheet, accounting for approximately
45 percent of total production. Acrylic sheets are used primarily for
advertising signs, lighting fixtures, and as a replacement for glass
windows. The surface coating industry is the next major user of methyl
mcthacrylate, consuming an estimated 23 percent of the total production,
with latex paints, acrylic lacquer resins, and acrylic enamels being the
10
-------
primary markets. The consumption of methyl methacrylate for all end
products is shown in Table 5. This table also shows the expected
growth rates for each sector of the market.
Table 5. ESTIMATED METHYL METHACRYLATE CONSUMPTION - 1974
15
Acrylic sheet
Surface coating resins
Molding and extrusion powders
Emulsion polymers
Acrylic fibers
Polyester modification
Other
Total
Million pounds.
344,850
176,256
160,929
51,874
12,968
6,484
12,969
766,330
Expected* annual
growth rate
117.
97.
97.
77.
77.,
77.
77.
107.
Methyl Methacrylate Sources and Emission Estimates
Primary sources of emissions of methyl methacrylate occur from methyl
methacrylate production, end product manufacture, and bulk storage.
Total emissions of methyl methacrylate are estimated to be 7.9 million
pounds, representing 1.0 percent of total production as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. SOURCES AND EMISSION ESTIMATES OF METHYL METHACRYLATE - 1974
Source
Methyl raothacrylate production
End product manufacture
Bulk storage
Total
Emissions,
million pounds
3.8
3.8
0.3
7.9
11
-------
All methyl methncrylale produced in the United States Is based on the
acetone cyanohydrin process. During this process, acetone and hydrogen
cyanide are reacted to form inethacrylamide sulfatc. The intermediate,
methacrylamide sulfate, is not isolated but is reacted directly with
methyl alcohol to form a crude methyl methacrylate and ammonium bisulfate,
This crude product is then distilled to give a pure methyl methacrylate.
The reactions for this process are given below.
H3 -
0
II
C
CH
acetone
-f HCN -»
hydrogen
. cyanide
OH
CH3 - C-CN
cii3
acetone
cyanohydrin
OH
CH3 - C-CN
CCONH
acetone sulfuric
cyanohydrin acid
methacrylamide
sulfate
CH2 = CCONH2 • Hj
methacrylamide
sulfate
^^11 -^ /*U « f^P/WU
nUn **" wtin ^ v*vvVA/rin
3 2 , 3
CH3
methyl methyl
alcohol methacrylate
ammonium
bisulfate
Of the seven production sites in the U.S., only four plants produce a
crude methyl tnethacrylatc product. Tho remaining three plants only
distill the crude monomer which is produced at a central production site.
Appendix A lists producers and locations.
12
-------
Since data do not exist in the literature concerning emissions from the
manufacture of methyl methacrylate, it is estimated that 0.5 percent of
total production is lost from manufacturing operations. This factor is
based upon data available in AP-42 and emissions data for other
similar processes. The major sources of emissions ar-e primarily from
vents, condensers, valves, and reactors. Using the emission factor
of 0.5 percent and the estimated 1974 production rate of 766.33 mil-
lion pounds results in 3.83 million pounds of methyl methacrylate
lost to the atmosphere.
Similarly, it is estimated that emissions from the use of methyl
methacrylate to manufacture other products is also 0.5 percent. Since
the total production is used for the manufacture of end products,
emissions from this source are also 3.83 million pounds.
The last major source of emissions is from bulk storage. Using the
emission factors presented in AP-42 and assuming that all storage
tanks are fixed roof, emissions are 0.3 million pounds.
METHYL METHACRYLATE EMISSION CONTROL METHODS
The literature does not report specific control equipment for methyl
methacrylate emissions, but it does report on control devices for
other similar hydrocarbons. 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.
Control of hydrocarbon emissions by adsorption on activated charcoal
is generally applied when recovery of adsorbed material is economically
desirable. Adsorption should be used when concentrations of hydro-
carbons are greater than 2500 ppm. Other applications are for the
control of very low concentration hydrocarbons that are poisonous to
13
-------
catalytic incinerators, and for collection and concentration of low
concentration emissions for subsequent: disposal by incineration. Cost
data for the cases utilizing adsorption arc presented in Tables 7 and
8. The three cases presented are adsorption with solvent recovery,
adsorption with incineration, and adsorption with incineration plus
heat recovery,
Table 7. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTS OF ADSORPTION SYSTEMS
18
Adsorber capacity, SCFM -
based on 25% lower explosive
limit
With solvent recovery, $
With thermal incinerator/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 1st quarter 1975.
a 18
Table 8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF ADSORPTION SYSTEMS
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
Cost data updated to 1st quarter 1975.
Indicates a savings.
14
-------
Control of methyl methacrylatc emissions by incineration or catalytic
oxidation involves direct oxidation o£ 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 with 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 without heat recovery
18
are presented in Tables 9 and 10.
Table 9. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTS3 OF THERMAL AND CATALYTIC
INCINERATORS
18
Incinerator capacity, SCFM-
based on 257* 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, OOC
361,800
92,500
144,200
200,000
20,000
504,600
573,900
666,400
137,400
232,600
322,300
aCost data updated to 1st quarter 1975.
15
-------
.a
Table 10. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF THERMAL
AND CATALYTIC INCINERATORS18
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 1st quarter 1975.
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 arc not
available, fixed roof tanks should be switched to floating roof tanks
resulting in a 70 percent reduction of emissions. Figure 1 provides esti-
18
mated costs of various gasoline storage tanks. These equipment cost
estimates can also be applied to methyl methacrylate. 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.
16
-------
500
400
•0 300
r«*
x
8
Q
!" 200
in
Z
100
1 I I I I i i I
I I i I 1 I 1 1 1 I
Tolol Coil Cono Roof Tonic Converted
with Inlcrnol Flooting Roof
Pontoon Floating
Roof Tank
Cons Roof Tank
Infernal FIool Cover on Existing
Roof Tonk (Incrcmentol Cost • Conversion)
OJ I I » T I I I I I I I » I » I I i I ' I
0 50 100 150 200
CAPACITY, borrcls xlCT3
Figure 1. Estimated installed cost of methyl tnothacrylate storage tanks
(equipment costs assumed to be the same as gasoline storage
tanks)18
17
-------
SECTION III
REFERENCES
1. The NIOSH Toxic Substances List 1974 Edition, HEW Publication No.
(NIOSH) 74-134, p. 475.
2. Occupational Diseases. A Guide to Their Recognition. Public
Health Service Publication No. 1097, p. 256, 1966.
3. Manufacturing Chemists Association, Inc. In: industrial Pollution
Control Handbook. H.F. Lund (ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company.
New York, pp. 14-17. 1971.
4. Milne, I.S. Hazards of Acrylic Bone Cement. Anaesthesia 28:538-43,
1973,
5. Pahuja, K., H. Lowe, K. Chand. Blood Methyl Methacrylate Levels
in Patients Having Prosthetic Joint Replacement. Octa Orthop Scand.
45:737-44, 1974.
6. Tansy, M.F., M.S. Benhay.em, S. Probst, J.S. Jordan. The E'ffects
of Methyl Methacrylate Vapor on Gastric Motor Function. JADA
89:372-76, 1974.
7. NIOSH/OSHA Draft Technical Standards. Methyl Methacrylate,
January 23, 1975.
8. Spealman, C.R., R.J. Main, H.B. Haag, P.S. Larson. Monomeric
Methyl Methacrylate. Studies on Toxicity. Ind Med. 14:292-98, 1945.
9. Fassett, D.W. Esters. In: Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology.
F.A. Patty (ed.). Interscience Publishers, New York, 2:1794-1880,
1963.
10. Detchmann, W. Toxicity of Methyl, Ethyl and N-Butyl Methacrylate.
J Ind Hyg Toxicol. 23:343-51, 1941.
11. Turner, D. Bruce. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
U.S. EPA Report No. AP-26, January 1973.
18
-------
12. GLschard, J., D. Robinson, P. Kucxo. A Rapid Empirical Procedure
for the Determination of Acrylonil:rile and Acrylic Esters in the
Atmosphere. J Am Ind Hyg Assuc. 19:43, 1958.
13. Deichman, W. J Ind Hyg Toxicology, 23:343, 1941.
14. U.S. International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals,
Preliminary, January 1975.
15. Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute,
January 1975.
16. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, U.S. EPA, Report
No. AP-42, April 1973.
17. Lauler, J. The Control of Solvent: Vapor Emissions, N.Y. State
Department of Health, January 1969.
18. Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Stydy, Vol. 1, MSA Research Corp.
NTIS Report No. PB 219 073, October 1972.
19
-------
APPENDIX A
METHYL METHACRYLATE MANUFACTURERS
Annual capacity,
million pounds
American Cyanamid Co. Fortier, Louisiana 80
DuPont Belle, West Virginia 120
DuPont Memphis, Tennessee 120
Rohm and Haas Bristol, Pennsylvania -+
Rohm and Haas Louisville, Kentucky -+
Rohm and Haas Knoxville, Tennessee -+
Rohm and Haas Deer Park, Texas 550
Total 870
All four plants of Rohm and Haas distill methyl methacrylate from
As of November 1974.
All four plants of R
crude monomer, which is produced at Deer Park, Texas.
20
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Assessment of Methyl Methacrylate as a Potential
Air PoVlution Problem
REPORT DATE
January 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. AUTHOR(S)
Robert M. Patterson
Mark I. Bornstein
Eric Garshick
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
6CA Corporation
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Bedford, Massachusetts
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1337
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. 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 methods, emission sources,,and
emission controls. The chemicals investigated in this report series are:
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
I Acetylene Volume VIII
II Methyl Alcohol Volume IX
III Ethylene Dichloride Volume X
IV Benzene Volume XI
V Acetone Volume XII
VI Acrylonitrile Volume XIII
VII Cyclohexanone Volume XIV
Formaldehyde
Methyl Methacrylate
Ortho-Xylene
Maleic Anhydride
Dimethyl Terephthalate
Adi pic Acid
Phthalic Anhydride
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Methyl Methacrylate
Ambient Concentrations
Measurement Methods
Emission Sources
Emission Controls
Industrial Chemicals
Physical Properties
Health Effects
Chemical Properties
Welfare Effects
Methyl Methacrylate
Air Pollution Assessment
Air Pollution Control
Organic Chemicals
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassifipri
21. NO. OF PAGES
25
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |