United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington. DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
-------
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, landfill ing,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE IN MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-1
Incineration 2-1
Ocean Disposal 2-1
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE IN MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Landfilling 3-1
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-1
Index of human toxicity resulting from
groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-8
Incineration 3-9
Ocean Disposal 3-9
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE IN MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-1
Air 4-2
Food 4-2
Human Effects 4-3
Ingestion 4-3
Inhalation 4-3
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Plant Effects 4-4
Phytotoxicity 4-4
Uptake 4-4
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-5
Toxicity 4-5
Uptake 4-5
Aquatic Life Effects 4-5
Toxicity 4-5
Uptake 4-5
Soil Biota Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Pate and Transport 4-6
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
METHYL ETHYL KETONE 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. Methyl ethyl ketone (NEK) was initially identified as
being of potential concern when sludge is placed in a landfill.* This
profile is a compilation of information that may be useful in deter-
mining whether MEK 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 •» groundwater •» human toxicity). The values and assump-
tions 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", Sec-
tion 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 landfilling practices are included in this profile. The
calculation formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The
indices are rounded to two significant figures.
Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE
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. LANDSPREAOINC AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
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.
II. LANDFILLING
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
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.
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADINC AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETINC
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.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting from Landfilled
Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
3-1
-------
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of the
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., Kj values) are con-
sidered the best available for analysis of
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.92S g/mL
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (COM),
1984).
(c) Volumetric water content (6)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
3-2
-------
Estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore watery velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from COM, 1984.
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc)
Typical 0.005 (unitless)
Worst v 0.0001 (unitless)
Organic content of soils is described in terms
of percent organic carbon, which is required in
the estimation of partition coefficient, K
-------
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
them were listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Celhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC) - Data
not immediately available.
(b) Soil half-life of pollutant (t|) = 3 days
Based on its relatively high water solubility
and low octanol/water partition coefficient,
MEK is expected to have a high soil mobility.
Two processes that may account for significant
loss of MEK from soil are volatilization and
biodegradation. By analogy from aquatic media
and lack of adequate data, the half-life of MEK
in soils can be speculated to be about a few
days (3 days chosen as a worst-case value)
(U.S. EPA, 1984). (See Section 4, p. 4-1.)
(c) Degradation rate (jl) = 0.231 day'1
The unsaturated zone can serve as an effective
medium for reducing pollutant concentration
3-4
-------
through a variety of chemical and biological
decay mechanisms which transform or attenuate
the pollutant. While these decay processes are
usually complex, they are approximated here by
a first-order rate constant. The degradation
rate is calculated using the following formula:
y =
(d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
4000 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (foc) to derive a partition
coefficient (K
-------
(c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 m/day
Worst 4.04 m/day
The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of
the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
based on Darcy's Equation. It is a measure of
the volume of liquid that can flow through a
unit area or media with time; values can range
over nine orders of magnitude depending on the
nature of the media. Ueterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983).
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worse 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to landfill (Aft)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
3-6
-------
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (AH), which is 100 and
SO m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that
preexisting flow is very limited and therefore
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 nr.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (p) = 0 day'1
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 0 Ug/L
It is assumed that no pollutant exists in the
soil profile or aquifer prior to release from
the source.
4. Index Values - Values were not calculated due to lack of
data.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in Ug/L, at the
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
3-7
-------
B. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with acceptable daily intake (ADI) of pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration resulting from
landfilled sludge (Index 1) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
b. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk assessment studies.
c. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
d. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
7600 ug/day
The U.S. EPA (1984)-derived ADI of 7.6 mg/day is
based on the inhalation MPIH, assuming respective
absorption for ingestion and inhalation to be 100%
and 50%. The inhalation MPIH is based on a study
showing a no-observed-adverse-effects-level (NOAEL)
(increased liver enzyme activity: fetal anomalies)
in rats and assuming an uncertainty factor of 1000.
(See Section 4, p. 4-3).
4. Index 2 Values - Values were not calculated due to lack
of data.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor due only to
groundwater contamination by landfill by which expected
intake exceeds ADI. The value does not account for the
possible increase resulting from daily dietary intake of
pollutant since DI data were not immediately available.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
3-8
-------
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 tirr.e. 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.
3-9
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Identified as one of the products of U.S. EPA, 1980
activated sludge treatment of sewage and (p. 1)
as a component of the leachate from solid
waste.
2. Concentration
Data not immediately available.
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concent rat i on
Based on its relatively high water solu- U.S. EPA, 1984
bility and low octanol/water partition (p. 1)
coefficient, MEK is expected to have a
high soil mobility. Two processes that
may account for the significant loss of
MEK from soil are volatilization and bio-
degradation. By analogy from aquatic
media, the half-life of MEK in soils can
be speculated to be about a few days.
Organic carbon partition coefficient = Griffin, 1984
4000 mL/g
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
In most surface waters, MEK may bio- U.S. EPA, 1984
degrade almost completely within 10 days. (p. 1)
The evaporative half-life from water was
calculated to be approximately 6 days
(in calculating the evaporative half-life,
the assumption that MEK is "slightly
soluble" remains questionable).
4-1
-------
2. Concentration
a. Fresh water
Data not immediately available.
b. Seawater
Data not immediately available.
c. Drinking water
It is probable that some MEK is in U.S. EPA, 1980
..municipal water supplies; however, (p. 1)
^there are insufficient data to
estimate the amount.
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
It is probable that all the MEK used as U.S. EPA, 1980
an industrial solvent is evaporated into (p. 2)
the atmosphere along with the MEK pro-
duced by automobile exhaust.
Half-life in air: 14 hours U.S. EPA, 1984
(p. 1)
2. Concentration
Data not immediately available.
E. Food
1. Total Average Intake
MEK is a naturally occurring ketone U.S. EPA, 1980
present in many foods including cheeses, (p. 1)
milk, cream, bread, honey, chicken,
oranges, black tea, and rum. Thus the
appearance in food appears to be
ubiquitous.
2. Concentration
In a variety of breads, MEK (1-Buta-none) Sosulski and
levels ranged from 420 to 656 mg/100 g. Mahmoud, 1979
(p. 535)
4-2
-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Tozicity
a. ADI
The ADI of 7.6 ing/day was derived by U.S. EPA, 1984
the U.S. EPA from the MPIH, assuming
respective absorption for ingestion
and inhalation to be 100% and 50%.
The derived ADI is based on a study
showing a NOAEL (increased SGPT ac-
tivity; fetal anomalies) in rats and
an uncertanity factor of 1000.
b. Effects
EPA has derived a short-term health U.S. EPA, 1981
advisory for a 10 kg child. The one-
day and ten-day health advisories for
MEK in drinking water are 7.5 mg/L
and 0.75 mg/L respectively, and are
based on hepatotoxicity observed
in terms of increased serum enzyme
activity and lipid accumulation in
the livers of animals.
3. Absorption Factor
Acute toxicity studies in animals indi- U.S. EPA, 1980
cate that MEK is absorbed from the (p. 2)
gastrointestinal (GI) tract.
Quantitative data on the oral absorption U.S. EPA, 1984
of MEK are not available, but absorption (p. 2)
from the GI tract can be inferred from
systemic toxic effects seen after acute
oral administration.
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
Data not immediately available.
4-3
-------
2. Chronic Tozicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or NPIU
The calculated maximum dose tolerated U.S. EPA, 1984
for subchronic exposure is 2.191 (p. 11)
mg/kg/day or 153.4 mg/day for a
70 kg human. An MPIH of 15.3 mg/day
was derived by the U.S. EPA based on
studies showing a NOAEL (increased
SGPT activity; fetal anomalies) in
rats and an uncertainty factor of 1000.
b. Effects
Neurotoxic effects have been reported U.S. EPA, 1980
in a worker chronically exposed to (p. 3)
MEK; however, total exposure to
other compounds in Che workplace was
not determined.
3. Absorption Factor
Acute toxicity studies in animals indi- U.S. EPA, 1980
cate that MEK is absorbed from the (p. 2)
respiratory tract.
Quantitative data on the pulmonary U.S. EPA, 1984
adsorption of MEK are not available, but (p. 2)
adsorption from the lungs can be inferred
from systemic toxic effects seen after
acute and subchronic inhalation exposures.
4. Existing Regulations
The occupational exposure limit for MEK U.S. EPA, 1980
during a 10-hour workshift has been (p. 5)
established at 200 ppm (590 mg/rn^)
(NIOSH, 1978)
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
No studies have been encountered concerning U.S. EPA, 1976
the effects of any of the ketonic solvents in (p. 281)
plants.
B. Uptake
Because most ketonic solvents are fairly U.S. EPA, 1976
soluble, it appears unlikely that they will (p. 155-56)
bioaccumulate in significant quantities in
food chain organisms. Since they are also
4-4
-------
rapidly attacked by microorganisms, it is
unlikely that they will persist in the envi-
ronment long enough to be taken up by
organisms.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AMD WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
Attempts to induce neuropathy in rats by U.S. EPA, 1980
inhalation or subcutaneous administration (p. 3)
have failed.
Inhalation exposure of pregnant rats to MEK U.S. EPA, 1980
has been shown to produce teratogenic and (p. iii)
fetotoxic effects.
See Table 4-1.
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
a. Acute
The observed 96-hour LC5Q values for U.S. EPA, 1980
the bluegill and mosquito fish are (p. iii)
5640 and 5600 ppm respectively.
Inhibition of cell division of the
bluegreen alga Microsystis aeruginosa.
begins at 110 ppm.
b. Chronic
Data not immediately available.
2. Saltwater
Data not immediately available.
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
4-5
-------
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
Using a mixed microbial culture, the mean U.S. EPA, 1976
tolerance level for MEK is 14 g/L. Many (p. 281)
ketones have only a mild and apparently
transient inhibitory effect on the growth of
E. coli at ketone concentrations of
I x 10~3 moles/L.
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOB ESTIMATING PATB AND TRANSPORT
Molecular weight: 72.11 U.S. EPA, 1980
Melting point: -86.4°C (p. 1)
Boiling point: 79.6°C
Vapor pressure: 77.5 mm Hg
Solubility: Very soluble in water
Miscible in alcohol, ether, acetone,
and benzene
Solubility MEK in Water Weight Percent: 26.8 U.S. EPA, 1976
Solubility Water in MEK Weight Percent: 11.8 (p. 6)
Methyl ketones are known to be rapidly attacked U.S. EPA, 1976
by microorganisms, and therefore they are not (p. 155)
likely to be around to be taken up by the
other organisms.
Log octanol/water partition coefficient: 0.26 U.S. EPA, 1984
(p. 1)
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-1. TOXICITY OP METHYL ETHYL KETONE TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)a
Rat (20)
Rat
Rat (10)
Rat
Rat
Chemical Form
Fed
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
Feed
Concentration
(Mg/8)
NRb
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
3,980
3,300
5,530
0
1,250
2,500
5,000
200
Duration
of Study
NR
NR
NR
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
24 weeks
Effects
LDso 14 day
Lethal
14 day LDj0
No effect
No effect
Elevated SCPT0 activity
Depressed body weight
Slight neurological effects
References
U.S. EPA, 1976 (p. 205)
U.S. EPA, 1984 (p. 3)
a N = Number of experimental animals when reported.
b NR = Not reported.
c SGPT = Liver enzyme.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Donigian, A. S., 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and G. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogenous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
Griffin, R. A. 1984. Personal Communication to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2):321-
325.
Sosulski, F., and R. M. Mahmoud. 1979. Effect of Protein Supplement on
Carbonyl Compounds and Flavor in Bread. Cereal Chemistry
56(6):533-536.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Investigation of Selected
Potential Environmental Contaminants: Ketonic Solvents. EPA-
560/2-76-003. Office of Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Sludge: Interim Report.
EPA/530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
5-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Methyl Ethyl Ketone:
Hazard Profile. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, OH. April 15.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Advisory Opinion for
Methyl Ethyl Ketone. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
November 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Health Effects Assessment
for Methyl Ethyl Ketone. ECAO-CIN-H003. Environmental Criteria
and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. 18pp.
5-2
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING
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.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/CO for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The concentration
vs. time curve is then transformed into a square pulse having a
constant concentration equal to the peak concentration, Cu,
from the unsaturated zone, and a duration, to, chosen so that
the total areas under the curve and the pulse are equal, as
illustrated in Equation 3. This square pulse is then used as
the input to the linkage assessment, Equation 2, which esti-
mates initial dilution in the aquifer to give the initial con-
centration, C0, for the saturated zone assessment. (Conditions
for B, minimum thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution is actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure is nearly identical to that for the unsat-
urated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameter values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] =
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of . the result. Exp(A}) denotes the
exponential of Aj, e *, where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
A. - X_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x
14 1 n*
2n*
A-l
-------
Y - t (V*2 * AD* x
A2 = (AD* x t)'
R, _ X_ [V* + (V*2 + AD* x
Bl ~ ?n*
2D*
Y * t (V*2 * 4D* x
B2 = (4D* x t)*
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (yg/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
CF = 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge =
202
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = O x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = —9— (m/year)
0 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + Pdfy x K
-------
R = 1 + dry x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
0
since K q.*W** - and B > 2
— K x i x 365 -
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
= P(x»t) for 0 < t £ t
= P(x,O - P(x.t - t0) for t > t
where:
t0 (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
t0 (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ o/°° C dt] t Cu
C( Y t )
C) = r— as determined by Equation 1
A-3
-------
B. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting
from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
Index 1 = Cmax
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(Al,t) calculated in Equation 1
(ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
P. Equation 5. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
(II x AC) + DI
Index 2 =
where:
l\ - Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Wg/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
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-4
------- |